Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

[Binx]

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.

Grammatically speaking, from the punctuation given in this translation, “according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone” is a non-restrictive phrase that defines a distinguishing feature of “the rite of the Roman Church.” But the subject for the verb, “is,” is the word, “rite.” Thus if we remove the nonrestrictive phrase, the paraphrased meaning of the main clause is as follows: If anyone says that the Roman rite is to be condemned … let him be anathema.

It could also be argued that the more subtle assertion being made in the canon rests in the non-restrictive phrase itself: namely that the Roman Church does indeed call for “a part of the canon and the words of consecration” to be “pronounced in a low tone.”

 

[ProVobis]

Grammatically speaking, from the punctuation given in this translation, “according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone” is a non-restrictive phrase that defines a distinguishing feature of “the rite of the Roman Church.” But the subject for the verb, “is,” is the word, “rite.” Thus if we remove the nonrestrictive phrase, the paraphrased meaning of the main clause is as follows: If anyone says that the Roman rite is to be condemned … let him be anathema.

It could also be argued that the more subtle assertion being made in the canon rests in the non-restrictive phrase itself: namely that the Roman Church does indeed call for “a part of the canon and the words of consecration” to be “pronounced in a low tone.”

Anyone care to dissect the rest of this canon? Are we as free now not to mix water with the wine as much as we like to use microphones for the Canon and, of course, say it only in the vernacular?

Canon IX.—If anyone 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; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

You may be onto something here. I guess one can say they’ve extended the expiration date of the “for all” validity through at least 2010. Or was it 2001?

 

[Michael96]

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

Tom

I respect the logic of your arguement.

But I am left wondering about how you must voew God, if you think that he would send you to hell for attending the “wrong” type of mass.

I’m very much with Catherine of Sienna on our final fate, that it is essentially our choice. If we spend our lives turning to God in repentance then we will naturally do the same at death. And if we continually try to reject God in life, then we will likely do the same in death.

I just can’t understand an image of God that would reject people who honestly tried to follow him, even if they were mistaken.

 

[cam100]

Anyone care to dissect the rest of this canon? Are we as free now not to mix water with the wine as much as we like to use microphones for the Canon and, of course, say it only in the vernacular?

Canon IX.—If anyone 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; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.

Notice that this canon consists of a number of disciplinary rules. It is not a declaration of dogma. Thus, everything in this canon is alterable by the Church. If the Church permits something today that was previously forbidden by this canon, we need not fear. The Church has the authority to do so. We can have opinions about whether a change in laws is prudent or not, but we still accept the Church’s authority to bind and loose.

 

[ProVobis]

Notice that this canon consists of a number of disciplinary rules. It is not a declaration of dogma. Thus, everything in this canon is alterable by the Church. If the Church permits something today that was previously forbidden by this canon, we need not fear. The Church has the authority to do so. We can have opinions about whether a change in laws is prudent or not, but we still accept the Church’s authority to bind and loose.

Maybe, but I don’t think I want to mess with anathema sit.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Michael,

What if there are invalid Masses, but God does not damn people for attending them? They might still be deprived of the graces of a Holy Communion.

Mike

Tom

I respect the logic of your argument.

But I am left wondering about how you must view God, if you think that he would send you to hell for attending the “wrong” type of mass.

I’m very much with Catherine of Sienna on our final fate, that it is essentially our choice. If we spend our lives turning to God in repentance then we will naturally do the same at death. And if we continually try to reject God in life, then we will likely do the same in death.

I just can’t understand an image of God that would reject people who honestly tried to follow him, even if they were mistaken.

It is our choice but not only our choice. We need help from God. Some of us, I think, need more help than others.

 

[LilyM]

Michael,

What if there are invalid Masses, but God does not damn people for attending them? They might still be deprived of the graces of a Holy Communion.

Mike

What, like they’re deprived of the grace of the sacrament of baptism if they desire to be baptised but (for example) live in a remote area with no-one else around to pour water and say the words? (I’m trusting you’ve heard of ‘baptism of desire’ in saying this, by the way)

Or deprived of the grace of absolution if they have perfect contrition for their sins but no priest becomes available to hear their confession?

I trust you see where the logic of this is tending.

Being as how we can’t read minds, and yet intention is a critical part of confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist, truth is you can’t EVER be 100% sure that ANY Mass, however properly everything is done, is valid. After all, High Church Anglicans and Episcopalians have services that are incredibly similar to our Masses yet dont’ validly confect the Eucharist.

All you can do is trust and look for conformity with the rubrics.

I firmly believe that God, who doesn’t deny the graces of baptism or absolution to any who are disposed to receive them even if sacramental means to do so are lacking, will not deny the graces of communion to any who are desirous of and disposed for it. There are, after all, stories of saints, such as Stanislaus Kostka and the seers of Fatima, having angels bring them Holy Communion when it was otherwise unavailable …

 

[ethelzguy]

Unfortunately, this whole thing smells a bit like the TLM crowd looking for another reason to “diss” the NO/OF.

 

[AlexV]

Abuses are not the fault of those who note them.

 

[childofmary1143]

I wanted to reiterate what GeraldP said.

Without a doubt, some Novus Ordo Mass have been invalid. There have been at least two diocese in the US that used invalid matter for years. The Diocese of Cincinnati OH was one; and, as Gerald said, Father Corapi mentioned another one on the east coast (although he didn’t tell which one). If I am not mistaken, one of these diocese used invalid matter FOR 10 YEARS.

All that time, the only Catholics in those diocese who went to a valid Mass were the Traditionalists, such as the SSPX, who were out of normal relations with Rome; and anyone who attended Eucharistic adoration was adoring bread and nothing more.

I’ll never forget listening to Mother Angelica when someone called in and said “Mother, last Sunday Father consecrated a Cake at Mass. Was that calid”? Mother Angelica, withi complete disgust in her voice, said: Honey, you got nothin".

For those who don’t know, the “matter” of the eucharist is the bread. It has to be actual bread. Only bread can be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. Thus, if anything is added to the “recipe”, it bcomes something other than bread and the change does not take place. Thus you have an invalid Mass; or NO Mass (pun intended).

I wonder how many diocese in the U.S today are using invalid matter today? After all, it took 10 years before it was discovered in one diocese. This is what happens when you have wolves in sheeps clothing running the Church.

This reminds me of a quote from St. John Eudes. He says that the greatest punishment God can inflict on his people is giving them corrupt leaders and Priest. He also said that this is a sure sign that God was extremely angry with His people.

We deserve the punishment we have received. Fortunately, God has provided a few safe havens during this crisis. But if you attend Mass at one of the “safe havens”, you will have to suffer ridicule and name calling - but it’s worth it.

I would like to read more about these 2 dioceses that have been using invalid matter. Can you provide any links that describe this in greater detail.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I would like to read more about these 2 dioceses that have been using invalid matter. Can you provide any links that describe this in greater detail.

I only have documentation of one of them (the one in Cincinnati) and it is in a book. The other was mentioned recently in a sermon on EWTN by Fr. Corapi. He said in was a diocese on the east coast, but didn’t say which one. Maybe you can send Fr. Corapi an e-mail and see if he will give you more information. If so, please pass it along.

 

[AFISHN]

Michael96lease let me respectfully respond to one of your points:

" I am left wondering about how you must view God, if you think that he would send you to hell for attending the “wrong” type of mass."

Nowhere in my post above,Michael96, do you find this assertion about God sending anyone to hell or no mention at all about how I personally view God!!!

However,once I had sufficient knowledge to have an honest doubt about the NO,then it was incumbent on me to find a rite/Liturgy where there was absolutely no doubt.

What I am fearful of,and I will leave that for another time and another post where I am prepared to state (and reply to the hornet nest I kick over with that post )as to why I suspect that the NO may be worse than an invalid liturgy but may even be the the"abomination of desolation"!

 

[LilyM]

Michael96lease let me respectfully respond to one of your points:

" I am left wondering about how you must view God, if you think that he would send you to hell for attending the “wrong” type of mass."

Nowhere in my post above,Michael96, do you find this assertion about God sending anyone to hell or no mention at all about how I personally view God!!!

However,once I had sufficient knowledge to have an honest doubt about the NO,then it was incumbent on me to find a rite/Liturgy where there was absolutely no doubt.

What I am fearful of,and I will leave that for another time and another post where I am prepared to state (and reply to the hornet nest I kick over with that post )as to why I suspect that the NO may be worse than an invalid liturgy but may even be the the"abomination of desolation"!

How can you possibly with any pretence at honesty say you have ‘absolutely no doubt’ with the TLM?

Do you personally supervise the preparation of THEIR hosts and altar wine to know beyond doubt that they have valid matter?

Just as importantly, do you read the priest’s mind to know that he has the correct intention?

As for the NO - of course it’s possible to have doubts about the validity of individual priests, individual parishes or dioceses even, and their Masses.

To cast aspersions on the whole NO because of these doubts makes as little sense as blaming the medical profession as a whole for the faults of a few doctors, or the teaching profession as a whole because some schools or school districts are poorly run.

 

[ProVobis]

After all, High Church Anglicans and Episcopalians have services that are incredibly similar to our Masses yet dont’ validly confect the Eucharist.

You may encounter some ecumenists that will disagree with you on this. Not to mention the Anglicans and Episcopalians who value sacraments almost as much as, if not more than, Catholics.

But be that as it may, what do you think of this 1983 Canon Law?

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[LilyM]

You may encounter some ecumenists that will disagree with you on this. Not to mention the Anglicans and Episcopalians who value sacraments almost as much as, if not more than, Catholics.

But be that as it may, what do you think of this 1983 Canon Law?

So? I don’t care what ‘ecumenists’, whoever they may be, say.

I care what the Magisterium says, which is that Anglicans and Episcopalians do not have Apostolic succession (apart from a very very few cases where such succesion is provable), and thus do not have valid Holy Orders or a valid Eucharist.

Note that the canon refers to churches ‘in which these sacraments are valid’. We do recognise the Orthodox as having Apostolic succession, and hence valid sacraments, although we are not to receive them unless no valid Catholic sacrament is available - there is no possibility of any sort of ‘spiritual advantage’ such as the Canon stipulates UNLESS such is the case.

SSPX would be another case where at least some priests are validly ordained, and thus can minister valid sacraments, though others are questionable due to the excommunication of bishops.

Again, to be used really in the case where no valid sacraments can be obtained from a minister in full communion with Rome as opposed to of irregular status. There is highly unlikely to be any spiritual advantage, IMHO, in going outside of such priests and bishops in full communion for the sacraments. And considerable ‘danger of indifferentism’, since wholhearted subjection to the Roman Pontiff is a central tenet of Catholicism and that at least is a point which is likely to be blurred by going to the SSPX.

As leaky and storm-tossed as the bark of Peter may be, it is still better to stay securely within than have either one limb or your whole body outside and unprotected in the ocean. And the phrase ‘physically or morally impossible’ is very telling. One may have doubts, many do, but ‘moral impossibility’ is an extremely strong term, its pairing with ‘physical’ impossibility suggests a very narrow and restrictive definition of that term indeed.

 

[ProVobis]

LilyM, thanks for your thoughts on this. Much appreciated.

 

[SFD]

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

Exactly. That was my point.

LilyM:

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

The canon is not about us condemning anyone for anything. The canon is directed at those who despise the canon being said in a low tone…and how would they show that opposition? By insisting it be said in an audible tone.

What is the purpose of the canon then? Only to stop those who are so disposed to condemn the low tone? Or anathematise those who by their act condemn the low tone by sustituting an audible one?

SFD

 

[SFD]

LilyM:

Again, to be used really in the case where no valid sacraments can be obtained from a minister in full communion with Rome as opposed to of irregular status. There is highly unlikely to be any spiritual advantage, IMHO, in going outside of such priests and bishops in full communion for the sacraments. And considerable ‘danger of indifferentism’, since wholhearted subjection to the Roman Pontiff is a central tenet of Catholicism and that at least is a point which is likely to be blurred by going to the SSPX.

LilyM,

Exactly what is “full communion” with Rome? Can you find some pre-Vatican II discussion of this concept? Also, I don’t see how an “irregular status” can be considered “partial communion” either.

at least is a point which is likely to be blurred by going to the SSPX

There is some truth in this…but consider the dogmas of the Church that not only get “blurred”…but completely obliterated in the typical Novus Ordo parish.

SFD

 

[LilyM]

Exactly. That was my point.

OK, if you want to restate the bleeding obvious and create an argument where none existed, be my guest.

The canon is not about us condemning anyone for anything.

My argument is equally applicable to condemning rites as well as people. And choosing a differerent rite absolutely doesn’t constitute condemnation of another rite.

You’re suggesting by this logic that Pope Benedict, among the many other bishops and priests who personally celebrate and quite clearly deeply love and esteem the TLM, condemn it whenever he or they celebrate a Pauline Mass, since a lot of clerics dont restrict themselves to Masses of the one form. Taking your argument to its natural conclusion demonstrates its illogicality.

The canon is directed at those who despise the canon being said in a low tone…and how would they show that opposition? By insisting it be said in an audible tone.

Firstly - those who wrote the canon were quite capable of saying ‘despise’ if they meant ‘despise’ - but they didn’t say ‘despise’, did they? They weren’t lacking the mental capacity to use words which expressed exactly what they intended.

Secondly, let’s assume you’re right. This would then be true - IF an audible canon in fact WERE insisted upon. Those who wish never to say the Canon audibly are free to, for example, join the ICKSP or FSSP who exclusively say the Tridentine Mass, so that they don’t have to - ever. So there’s no insisting in the case.

What is the purpose of the canon then? Only to stop those who are so disposed to condemn the low tone? Or anathematise those who by their act condemn the low tone by sustituting an audible one?

SFD

As I said, the act of choosing the latter doesn’t constitute or signify condemnation at all. Does choosing to wear purple mean I despise or condemn the colour blue? Not a bit. Does choosing spaghetti for lunch mean I despise or condemn lasagne? Of course not, I love both and am only sorry that I can’t eat both at every meal.