Valid, legitimate, orthodox

[DavidJoseph]

When the Campos crowd was reconciled with the Church, they were required, among other things, to believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, but not that it’s “legitimate and orthodox,” according to Fr. Paul Aulagnier, formerly of the SSPX, in an interview with The Wanderer in 2003 or so (at the time he was expressing his desire that the SSPX be reconciled).

My question is, when it comes to the Novus Ordo Mass, what does the Church mean by “legitimate” and “orthodox”? I know what it means by “valid.” Thanks in advance.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

The greatest error of the SSPX is the position that somehow the New Rite is heretical or protestant or displeasing to God.

This position is opposed to two teachings of the Faith.

One is that the Public Prayer of the Church is the prayer of the body of Christ and hence is never displeasing to God unless people change the prayers on purpose or whatever - these are abuses.

Second the Law of Belief is the Law of prayer and catholic prayer is never heretical.

---

The only case that can be made is that the New Rite is not as “extrinsically” pleasing to God as the old, because they are “intrinsically” the same.

What I am saying is that the every Mass as a representation and repeat of Calvary is the same - however things that are the human side of the rites - ie the prayers - devotion of priest - and so on can be more pleasing to God.

Another way of saying it is that as Mass a holy priest does not say a different Mass than a priest living in sin, because Mass is Mass. However there may be many more fruits which come from the worthy celebration of the rite. In the same way the older rite can contain things that are more worthy of Mass - like the silent canon and a more sacrificial offertory.

---

However no case can be made that the New Rite is not legitimate, that it is displeasing to God or that it is protestant etc. because you may as well say that Jesus was not God.

Br. Paul

 

[ChadS]

When the Campos crowd was reconciled with the Church, they were required, among other things, to believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, but not that it’s “legitimate and orthodox,” according to Fr. Paul Aulagnier, formerly of the SSPX, in an interview with The Wanderer in 2003 or so (at the time he was expressing his desire that the SSPX be reconciled).

My question is, when it comes to the Novus Ordo Mass, what does the Church mean by “legitimate” and “orthodox”? I know what it means by “valid.” Thanks in advance.

I’ve been doing some digging around and the only place I can find the words “legitimate and orthodox” are in the interview with Fr. Aulagnier. I’m not suggesting he made it up, but perhaps it exists in a document not found on the net or perhaps it’s in Portuguese.

From what I’ve been able to gather from other quotes made by the Bishop of Campos, Brazil is that they refer to John Paul II’s encyclical “Eucharista de Ecclesia.” They talk about the ordinary form of the mass in some instances being given over to ambiguities, abuses, novelties and other creativity not envisioned in the proper celebration. While they feel the ordinary form mass is valid they feel the extraordinary form expresses the Catholic faith better. So the problem seems to be not with the rite itself but with how it’s come to be celebrated in many places.

catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2008/07/the-fr-aulagnie.html

angelqueen.org/articles/06_04_rifan.shtml

ChadS

 

[ProVobis]

The greatest error of the SSPX is the position that somehow the New Rite is heretical or protestant or displeasing to God.

Br Paul,

According to Trent, any “new rite” advocates would have been anathematicized. However, Pope Benedict has redefined Paul VI’s Mass as the Ordinary Form. In effect, he’s saying the words “Novus Ordo Missae” were misinterpreted.

So it is ONE RITE, TWO FORMS. So, technically, no new rite was created for anyone to take a position against it, unless they wish to include the EF as well in that position.

 

[Alfonsus]

Order is not technically means a new rite. And a rite in this sense also not have the same definition as if we are talking about ‘byzantine rite’. Rite is more than liturgical order or prescription. It includes the whole patrimony such as spirituality, norms, canon law, etc.

The same language used when Pope Pius V institute the Tridentine Mass, is used to institute the Tridentine Breviary (compare Quo Primum with Quod a Nobis).

But no one argue that Pope Pius X a heretic when he abrogate the Tridentine Breviary by explicitly forbade the use of older breviary (decree Divino Afflatu).

So we need to say that there is a double standard come to play.

 

[ProVobis]

Order is not technically means a new rite. And a rite in this sense also not have the same definition as if we are talking about ‘byzantine rite’. Rite is more than liturgical order or prescription. It includes the whole patrimony such as spirituality, norms, canon law, etc.

The same language used when Pope Pius V institute the Tridentine Mass, is used to institute the Tridentine Breviary (compare Quo Primum with Quod a Nobis).

But no one argue that Pope Pius X a heretic when he abrogate the Tridentine Breviary by explicitly forbade the use of older breviary (decree Divino Afflatu).

So we need to say that there is a double standard come to play.

Where’s the double standard? Quo Primum didn’t state:

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor whomsoever of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

The Council of Trent did.