Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

[ProVobis]

I feel like I’m supposed to read between the lines, so here’s my attempt… So do you mean to say that, with the exception of two traditional Latin Masses, I’ve been attending invalid “Masses” all my life? As far as I’m aware, in at least a vast majority of the Masses I’ve attended, the form and matter were present, there were no liturgical abuses, nothing “wrong” per se - (except for the argument by some that it isn’t the TLM).

They better be valid as I’ve been going to them most of my life. But the new words of Consecration and some of the bread they use do have always bothered me and I’m surprised most just take it in stride, some even persecuting you for even doubting some novelties they believe without questioning.

 

[catharina]

They better be valid as I’ve been going to them most of my life. But the new words of Consecration and some of the bread they use do have always bothered me and I’m surprised most just take it in stride, some even persecuting you for even doubting some novelties they believe without questioning.

I’ve seen no novelties. I haven’t seen or discovered any. I’ve heard ABOUT them only here.

 

[LilyM]

Saying that the Pauline Mass as a whole is invalid because some dioceses use or have used invalid matter is like saying the TLM is invalid because some priests didn’t even KNOW the proper words of consecration, let alone say them!

I’ll quote, because it’s a telling illustration that there’s nothing new under the sun in terms of abuses, from a sermon of St Bernardino of Siena from 1427, found at fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2sermons.html:

". . . Hear now what befel once upon a time; for this is to our present point. There were two priests who spake together, and one said unto the other, “How do you say the words of consecration for Christ’s Body? “I” (said the other) “I say Hoc est Corpus meum” Then began they to dispute one with other: “You say not well”-“Nay, it is you who says ill”-and, as they disputed thus, there came another priest to whom they told the whole matter, and who said: “Neither one of you says well, nor the other, for the true words Hoc est corpusso meusso”: and proceeded by demonstration: “You see how he says corpusso, wherefore the adjective should be meusso; therefore (I say) henceforth say you nothing else but: Hoc est corpusso meusso.” To which speech the others consented not: wherefore they accorded together to a parish priest near by, going to him of set purpose and laying the case before him. Then the parish priest answering "Ha, what needs all this ado? I go to it right simply; I say an Ave Maria over the Host!” (my emphasis)

 

[Timothysis]

Or is this just another exercise to criticise the NO mass, or the church, or to support the SSPX?

Bingo.

 

[LilyM]

Saying that the Pauline Mass as a whole is invalid because some dioceses use or have used invalid matter is like saying the TLM is invalid because some priests didn’t even KNOW the proper words of consecration, let alone say them!

I’ll quote, because it’s a telling illustration that there’s nothing new under the sun in terms of abuses, from a sermon of St Bernardino of Siena from 1427, found at fordham.edu/halsall/source/bernardino-2sermons.html:

". . . Hear now what befel once upon a time; for this is to our present point. There were two priests who spake together, and one said unto the other, “How do you say the words of consecration for Christ’s Body? “I” (said the other) “I say Hoc est Corpus meum” Then began they to dispute one with other: “You say not well”-“Nay, it is you who says ill”-and, as they disputed thus, there came another priest to whom they told the whole matter, and who said: “Neither one of you says well, nor the other, for the true words Hoc est corpusso meusso”: and proceeded by demonstration: “You see how he says corpusso, wherefore the adjective should be meusso; therefore (I say) henceforth say you nothing else but: Hoc est corpusso meusso.” To which speech the others consented not: wherefore they accorded together to a parish priest near by, going to him of set purpose and laying the case before him. Then the parish priest answering "Ha, what needs all this ado? I go to it right simply; I say an Ave Maria over the Host!” (my emphasis)

(I ran out of time to edit and add the following comments):

while I accept that Pauline Masses have been invalidated by mangling of the words of consecration, there is no way on earth that anyone nowadays would accept a Hail Mary being said in their place!

 

[BrendanD]

I don’t get it…Pax et Caritas correctly and truthfully describes some invalid Masses. He doesn’t say anything at all related to hell or the SSPX, and everything he says is in full agreement with Rome and the Church. And the response is to accuse him of condemning people to hell, supporting the SSPX, and criticizing the Church

Nobody in this thread has claimed that the Novus Ordo itself is invalid. They’ve said that it is invalid to use invalid matter, which is exactly the teaching the Church.

 

[marchoi]

Nobody in this thread has claimed that the Novus Ordo itself is invalid. They’ve said that it is invalid to use invalid matter, which is exactly the teaching the Church.

I think the issue at hand is not the invalid matter - we all agree that invalid matter = invalid Mass. I think the greater issue is that of the words of consecration (at least it appears to me as such). Case in point:

while I accept that Pauline Masses have been invalidated by mangling of the words of consecration, there is no way on earth that anyone nowadays would accept a Hail Mary being said in their place!

So apparently I’ve been going to an invalid Mass my entire life. Great.

 

[BrendanD]

So apparently I’ve been going to an invalid Mass my entire life. Great.

If they were using the proper form and matter, they were definitely valid. I think everyone in this thread would agree that the Novus Ordo is valid when done correctly.

LilyM was just pointing out that both the NO and TLM can have the problem of the priest messing up the consecration.

 

[Walking_Home]

I think the issue at hand is not the invalid matter - we all agree that invalid matter = invalid Mass. I think the greater issue is that of the words of consecration (at least it appears to me as such). Case in point:

So apparently I’ve been going to an invalid Mass my entire life. Great.

---

I don’t believe LilyM meant all the Pauline Masses are invalid–but those with mangled words that invalidate the consecration.

 

[LilyM]

So apparently I’ve been going to an invalid Mass my entire life. Great.

Your entire life? I didn’t mean to say that the words as promulgated by Paul VI or translated by the ICEL are invalid. The Vatican, when it stated that a new English translation was in preparation, made it clear that the current translation is perfectly valid.

I just meant that some priests (in both forms) have substituted quite different words than those stipulated, which DO invalidate it. This would be more of a problem, I would imagine, in the TLM where the words are NOT always spoken aloud by the priest.

The Pauline Mass has the advantage that they are ALWAYS said aloud so a) the congregation in general knows (if they’re educated) when they’re getting an invalid consecration, and b) you in particular can hear, and thus have the option of attending another Mass and/or another parish, and taking action to set things right, if it IS invalid

 

[ProVobis]

Bingo.

If you can’t stand criticism of the NO, then you better not read everything the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about it. Calling a liturgy fabricated is not exactly the most flattering.

 

[ProVobis]

Your entire life? I didn’t mean to say that the words as promulgated by Paul VI or translated by the ICEL are invalid. The Vatican, when it stated that a new English translation was in preparation, made it clear that the current translation is perfectly valid.

Yes, but did anyone expect to hear differently? What choice does the Benedictine Papacy have but to claim its current liturgy is valid? They’re not going against it, but the fact that they came out with the statements concerning the validity meant that there were/are probably many doubts and questions regarding the current precarious state of all vernacular translations.

I just meant that some priests (in both forms) have substituted quite different words than those stipulated, which DO invalidate it. This would be more of a problem, I would imagine, in the TLM where the words are NOT always spoken aloud by the priest.

In the EF, the words are spoken so that at least a few can clearly hear the Latin words that the priest, while bowing low over the Host and Wine, pronounces slowly and distinctly. It is not in the more casual and narrative style as is used in the OF, something that I’ve often had a beef with besides the actual words used.

The Pauline Mass has the advantage that they are ALWAYS said aloud so a) the congregation in general knows (if they’re educated) when they’re getting an invalid consecration, and b) you in particular can hear, and thus have the option of attending another Mass and/or another parish, and taking action to set things right, if it IS invalid

You forgot to include the advantage of facing the people with a microphone in pronouncing those words too.

By the way, pronouncing the Canon of the Mass aloud (not in a low tone) is against the canons of Trent but you knew that, right?

 

[LilyM]

ProVobis:

Yes, but did anyone expect to hear differently? What choice does the Benedictine Papacy have but to claim its current liturgy is valid? They’re not going against it, but the fact that they came out with the statements concerning the validity meant that there were/are probably many doubts and questions regarding the current precarious state of all vernacular translations.

Why SHOULD anyone expect to hear differently? Seriously, if Christ and the Holy Spirit between them cannot and do not protect from built in invalidity something so utterly central to faith and morals as the Eucharist, then His promises to protect the Church would appear to be worth less than the breath He expended in making them.

Some people might have concerns, sure, and the Vatican as good shepherds have acted to reassure them. Whether those concerns are reasonable ones is a different matter entirely.

By the way, pronouncing the Canon of the Mass aloud (not in a low tone) is against the canons of Trent but you knew that, right?

For reference here’s the Canon. From the 22nd session:

"CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; … let him be anathema. "

The above actually means, just as it says, that you can’t CONDEMN the saying of the Canon in a low tone. Doesn’t mean priests can’t pronounce it loud and clear though, to do so is not to condemn those who DO say it in a low tone.

So your understanding of that canon isn’t correct. But you knew that, right?

 

[SFD]

For reference here’s the Canon.

22nd session:

"CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; … let him be anathema. "

The above actually means, as it says, that you can’t CONDEMN the saying of it in a low tone. Doesn’t mean you can’t choose to pronounce it loud and clear though.

So your understanding of that canon isn’t correct. But you knew that, right?

Are you sure you understand this canon, LilyM?

Is the anathema only for those who verbally condemn “the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone”? Does it really say that?

SFD

 

[LilyM]

Are you sure you understand this canon, LilyM?

Is the anathema only for those who verbally condemn “the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone”? Does it really say that?

SFD

Wha…? I said nothing of verbally condemning. Neither does the Canon.

To take one course of action (such as pronouncing the canon audibly) is not in any way to condemn those who don’t.

 

[ethelzguy]

If you can’t stand criticism of the NO, then you better not read everything the then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about it. Calling a liturgy fabricated is not exactly the most flattering.

Not flattering indeed. But was he speaking for the Pope and the Church hierarchy when he gave this commentary? Is his commentary part of official Church document or teaching?

We all have opinions. And then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion certainly holds more sway than mine. Nonetheless, there have been many opinions expressed by bishops and cardinals that are not part of official Church teaching.

 

[ProVobis]

For reference here’s the Canon. From the 22nd session:

"CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; … let him be anathema. "

The above actually means, just as it says, that you can’t CONDEMN the saying of the Canon in a low tone. Doesn’t mean priests can’t pronounce it loud and clear though, to do so is not to condemn those who DO say it in a low tone.

So your understanding of that canon isn’t correct.

Ummmm. (or is that your line?)

Seems to me that if one goes against the low tone, whether by high tone or by saying so, he or she acts in opposition to the spirit of this canon. Only my opinion of this translation, though. Maybe one can reach a different conclusion from the Latin version. Does anyone have it?

 

[ProVobis]

Nonetheless, there have been many opinions expressed by bishops and cardinals that are not part of official Church teaching.

But they all claim to be official or sound official. What gives?

 

[catharina]

Yes, but did anyone expect to hear differently? What choice does the Benedictine Papacy have but to claim its current liturgy is valid?

What choice? Are you implying that Pope Benedict is being duplicitous?
**He “claims” rather than he states? **

You found such thoughts to be amusing?
Do you intend to foster rancor and division as a way of life?
Much too sad for words.

 

[AFISHN]

I’d be curious as to what percentage of English-speaking Catholics (church goers and non-church goers) have absolute (100%) certitude of the validity of the English Mass.

I’m surprised no one responded to ProVobis’ curiosity!!!
So let me respond with a true story.

I’m a simple fellow,but love to read.
I studied and spent probably over 1,000 hours reading the issues involved with the N/O’s validity for over 4 years.

I prayed for some help with my concerns for 4 years and had a RC priest & confessor,as my spiritual guide.

Then one day I reached for my bottle of daily vitamins.
When I happened to examine the bottle for the expiratioin date ,I noticed that the last digit of the year was blurry and I couldn’t clearly read it.

So the question became are the vitamins potent(read “valid”) or impotent(read "invalid’).

Having doubts,I immediately discarded the old bottle and bought a new bottle of vitamins with a very clear validity date.

That’s when the light bulb went off in my head.

Now there was NO Doubt that the Ukranian Catholic Byzantine Rite was a valid Liturgy…however,I(and others) had some serious doubts as to the NO’s validity.

THAT IS WHY I CHANGED RITES IN 1987 from the Latin Rite to the Ukranian Catholic Rite !!!

The stakes were too high(my soul) for me to take a chance with uncertainty
Tom