Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[agnes_therese]

I can’t believe that the Holy Spirit would allow for a lesser or inferior form for His faithful to follow. How do I convince her that this would never happen?

Frankly, I don’t think you can convince someone who “sites instances in history when popes and councils taught heresy, etc.” That doesn’t sound like she’s going to be interested in anything that doesn’t confirm her own views.

 

[ProVobis]

On Pentecost, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages… and that day about three thousand persons were added. How’s that for efficacious?

Translations were better in those days.

 

[TheDoctor]

But what about her contention that one is more efficacious than the other? The Holy Spirit still guides the Church. I can’t believe that the Holy Spirit would allow for a lesser or inferior form for His faithful to follow. How do I convince her that this would never happen?

I would ask her which of the following forms of liturgy is better than the EF and why: Alexandrean, Antiochene, Armenian, Byzanitne, Chaldean or Maronite. She will not be able to answer (these btw are all rites used by our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters). The point is that any properly promogulated rite for Mass or Divine Liturgy is perfect so none can be better. One rite may speak more to a particular person, however to pit one against the other is foolish and shows a deep lack of understanding.

 

[xzereus]

the inerrancy principle applies to the theological lessons encoded in the missal.

…

The pope can make no error in matters teaching of the Faith nor Doctrine

Can you provide some basis for your first assertion (that the inerrancy principle applies to what is in the missal)?

Additionally, one of the “parts” of the inerrancy principle that you mentioned is simply a fabrication. The pope can most definitely err in matters of faith. Pope John XXII famously proposed that the dead do not achieve the beatific vision until Judgement day, a “theory” that we know through Church teaching to be false. It is claimed that Pope Saint John XXIII himself said, “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” Pope Benedict XVI, similarly: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.” A simple google search can get you more information on this.

I would suggest reading the First Vatican Council on how papal infallibility is actually defined by the Church. (ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm)

 

[R_C]

I can’t believe that the Holy Spirit would allow for a lesser or inferior form

Daniel 8:12

<<And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins…And I heard one of the saints speaking, and one saint said to another, I know not to whom that was speaking: How long shall be the vision, concerning the continual sacrifice, and the sin of the desolation that is made: and the sanctuary, and the strength be trodden under foot? And he said to him: Unto evening and morning two thousand three hundred days: and the sanctuary shall be cleansed.>>

Never forget that God is merciful but is also just, and He does chastise.

Please note that the issue that many have with the Missale of Paul VI is not the Missale per se, but the way it is being or has been applied, as Summorum mentioned. In theory an Ordinary Form Mass can be offered in a way that is almost identical to an Extraordinary Form - even with chant, incense, ad orientem, Latin prayers, etc. However this is quite rare. I have however witnessed your average parish Ordinary Form celebrated by some young priests in a way that is almost identical to the way older priests celebrate the Extraordinary Form - that is to say, without the urge to entertain the congregation, and praying as if speaking to God the Father rather than to or for the congregation.

 

[R_C]

On Pentecost, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages… and that day about three thousand persons were added. How’s that for efficacious?

They spoke the same language, but the others understood them even when they proceeded from other places.

The curse and chastisement of man’s pride at Babel was to remove the blessing of a single tongue and allow for many different vernacular languages and dialects to spread, so that man would be divided. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has undone the curse by enabling the disciples to speak their one tongue and opening everyone’s ears in order to understand them - rather than forcing the twelve to learn the language of every place they had to travel to.

In time, the Holy Spirit granted less extraordinary graces such as the ones we read of in Acts. However, by guiding the Church into adopting Latin as her sacred, non-vernacular, universal language, the curse of Babel was equally undone - one language through the world for Holy Scripture and Liturgy, and then the local priests could explain (by the grace of knowledge and understanding) the meaning of Scripture in the local dialect (much like Christ adopted examples to manifest the mysteries of the Kingdom).

St. John XXIII had this to say in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia:

the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.”

She further requires her sacred ministers to use it …] For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.

…] the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority …]But Latin is indeed such a language.

…] the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular. …]

And We also, impelled by the weightiest of reasons – the same as those which prompted Our Predecessors and provincial synods – are fully determined to restore this language to its position of honor, and to do all We can to promote its study and use.

…] We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored.

…] Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully. n the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy

The Vatican II Constitution on Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium further stated:

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. …] since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants …] Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

When a few years ago Benedict XVI established the Pontifical Academy for Latin with Motu Propio Latina Lingua, he affirmed:

The Latin language has always been held in very high esteem by the Catholic Church and by the Roman Pontiffs. They have assiduously encouraged the knowledge and dissemination of Latin, adopting it as the Church’s language, capable of passing on the Gospel message throughout the world. This is authoritatively stated by the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of my Predecessor, Blessed John XXIII.

In our time too, knowledge of the Latin language and culture is proving to be more necessary than ever for the study of the sources, which, among others, numerous ecclesiastical disciplines draw from, such as, for example, theology, liturgy, patristics and canon law, as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council teaches (cf. Decree Optatam Totius, n. 13).

In addition, precisely in order to highlight the Church’s universal character, the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, the most important documents of the Papal Magisterium and the most solemn official Acts of the Roman Pontiffs are written in this language in their authentic form.

It … appears urgently necessary to support the commitment to a greater knowledge and more competent use of Latin, both in the ecclesial context and in the broader world of culture. I

 

[R_C]

Because the graces are from Christ not the priest. For what she says to be true that would make the graces subject to some human agency beyond what Christ required. Our Lord required, the bread the wine and the words of consecration. If what she said was true then the priest would decide how much grace you receive base on him choosing one form or the other.

You are forgetting the distinction between grace ex opere operato inherent the Sacrament, and grace ex opere operantis.

Christ freely grants grace in the Sacraments, but He does not force that grace into our souls.

There are subjective factors which can at least partially determine the amount of grace obtained - or we can say that “what is received is received according to the disposition of the receiver” - which is termed ex opere operantis. The Catechism says:

1128 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

 

[R_C]

I would suggest reading the First Vatican Council on how papal infallibility is actually defined by the Church. (ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm)

Do not make the mistake of considering Papal infallibility to be limited to the ex cathedra extraordinary pronouncements.

The pope can exercise his papal infallibility in two ways. One is called the Extraordinary Magisterium, and the other is called Ordinary Magisterium.

Ex cathedra (Latin for from the chair) pronouncements from the pope are considered infallible teachings. The only two ex cathedra pronouncements in 2,000 years have been the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950). When the pope teaches ex cathedra, he’s exercising his universal authority as Supreme Teacher of a doctrine on faith or morals, and he’s incapable of error.

The second way that an infallible teaching is taught to Catholics is through the Ordinary Magisterium, which is the more common and typical manner, hence the reason why it’s called ordinary. This teaching of the popes is consistent, constant, and universal through their various documents, letters, Papal encyclicals, decrees, and so on.

It is never a new doctrine but rather one that has been taught ubique, semper et ab omnibus (Latin for everywhere, always and by all). In other words, when the pope reinforces, reiterates, or restates the consistent teaching of his predecessors and of the bishops united with him around the world, that’s considered the Ordinary Magisterium and should be treated as infallible doctrine.

Encyclicals are not ex cathedra pronouncements. They are, however, the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, which is equally infallible when it concerns faith and morals and reiterates the constant, consistent, and universal teaching of the popes and bishops.

Their content requires religious submission of mind and will of faithful Catholics around the world. So-called dissent from Papal teaching in encyclicals is not part of Catholic belief.

Rev. John Trigilio, Jr. and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti

These [Papal] documents have come to be recognized as the most frequently used vehicles of the Holy Father’s ordinary teaching of the flock entrusted to his care.

All the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent.

They all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.

An astonishingly large number of prominent theologians can be found among those who take no adequate cognizance of the encyclical letters in their treatises on papal infallibility. These men content themselves with an examination of and a theological demonstration for the formula by which the Vatican Council defined the Holy Father’s infallibility. As a group these writers frequently give the impression that they consider only those truths proposed by the Holy Father solemni iudicio as infallibly defined, to the exclusion of those truths which he sets forth ordinario et universali magisterio.

This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.

The magisterium of the Church has been equipped with help from God by reason of which the first sort of teaching gives infallible truth, while the second affords infallible security. Employing the plentitude of its power, the teaching Church operates as the auctoritas infallibilitatis. Working, not to define, but merely to take those steps it deems necessary to safeguard the faith, it is the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis. To this auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis and to the teachings it sets forth, the faithful owe the obedience of respectful silence and of an internal mental assent according to which the proposition thus presented is accepted, not as infallibly true, but as safe, as guaranteed by that authority which is divinely commissioned to care for the Christian faith.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

 

[dans0622]

Missale Romanum (1969) was an Apostolic Constitution, the highest level of decree by a Pope. …

Hello,

Yes, that is the most “weighty” document form. But, most of the time, such documents have nothing at all to do with faith or morals and so are not possible subjects of infallibility. Instead, they address strictly legal matters, such as the erection/modification of dioceses (by far, the majority of Ap. Const. are devoted to this).

Dan

 

[commenter]

… It is claimed that Pope Saint John XXIII himself said, “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.”…

Pope Saint John XXIII left much writings and statements on public record. Please refer only to them.

I wish people would not reference statements that this Pope, or that saint, supposedly, maybe, could have said, this, or something like this. OK, the poster did mention that it was claimed he said this, but it sticks in the back of some reader or listener’s mind and gets passed along as if it were a confirmed statement. Maybe the Saint said this, maybe he said something similar, maybe someone else said that, maybe he was said this as quoting what his opponents wanted to hear, maybe he never said anything like this. But once it goes on the Internet, it may as well have been in an encyclical.

This hearsay type reporting is the sort of thing that happens all the time under our current Pope, and it dilutes the strength of what Pope Francis is actually teaching. The same is true of his predecessors.

 

[Chatter163]

The validity of the translations came into question before the Missal of 1970 became actually promulgated. Many misinterpreted the mere questioning of those translations to be taken as calling the New Missal invalid which didn’t make sense, at least not to me. My understanding is the transitional Mass had some problems in that there were too many canon options available; it was probably one of the reasons the Missal of 1970 was promulgated.

Actually, that is not the case. For most of the period between 1964-1969, there was only the Roman Canon available. The other three eucharistic prayers were not promulgated until 15 August 1968, the last reform before the missal of Paul Vi was promulgated on 3 April 1969, with the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum. Until 22 October 1967, the Canon of the Mass was only to be said silently, in Latin. The translations of the interim Order of Mass 1964-1969 were quite different, as the earlier translations of 1964-1966 were quickly made by the various bishops’ conferences, and avoided some of the most controversial elements of the later ICEL translations. The response to “The Lord be with you” was “And with your spirit.” The infamous pro multis controversy was not yet in place, because “and many” was used in the words of consecration of the chalice. Consubstantialem Patri was rendered “of one substance with the Father”–again a far cry from the later version.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, that is not the case. For most of the period between 1964-1969, there was only the Roman Canon available. The other three eucharistic prayers were not promulgated until 15 August 1968, the last reform before the missal of Paul Vi was promulgated on 3 April 1969, with the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum. Until 22 October 1967, the Canon of the Mass was only to be said silently, in Latin. The translations of the interim Order of Mass 1964-1969 were quite different, as the earlier translations of 1964-1966 were quickly made by the various bishops’ conferences, and avoided some of the most controversial elements of the later ICEL translations. The response to “The Lord be with you” was “And with your spirit.” The infamous pro multis controversy was not yet in place, because “and many” was used in the words of consecration of the chalice. Consubstantialem Patri was rendered “of one substance with the Father”–again a far cry from the later version.

There appeared to be a lot of moving parts during the 60’s. They definitely weren’t uniform from parish to parish, language to language. There may have been plans to implement the New Mass earlier, save for the bishops’ initial disapproval of it, I forget the year. I read somewhere where there were like 20 different Eucharistic Prayers on the table before the Pope settled on the four which exist today. Maybe there’s a timeline of this somewhere. Too many things happened seemingly at once.

 

[Filioque]

The Ottaviani Intervention is often used as an attempt to disprove the validity of the NOM. However what it addressed were some of the radical changes proposed prior to the issuing of the new missal by Pope Paul VI. By the time it was published, the issues that Cardinal Ottaviani and others had with the proposed Liturgy were addressed by Pope Paul VI. Sadly some still bring it up, who have either never read it, or have read it out of context thinking it was addressing the final Typical (latin) missal promulgated in 1970

There was also a book published by Herder called the “Experimental Liturgy Book” Which claimed it had ecclesiastical approval, however it was composed of all sorts of prayers and canons which were approved, but not by Catholic ecclesiastical sources. It included all sorts of Eucharistic prayers, and more radical priests and communities used it without any authorizations, other radicals simply made up their Eucharistic Prayers, based on the idea of spontaneous prayers of the bishops in the early Church, many may not have had any basis in early prayers, but rather the new “theology” that was making it’s way around the western Church.

 

[agnes_therese]

Thank you for that explanation. I’ve heard of the Ottaviani Intervention, but never really looked into the circumstances.

The Ottaviani Intervention is often used as an attempt to disprove the validity of the NOM. However what it addressed were some of the radical changes proposed prior to the issuing of the new missal by Pope Paul VI. By the time it was published, the issues that Cardinal Ottaviani and others had with the proposed Liturgy were addressed by Pope Paul VI. Sadly some still bring it up, who have either never read it, or have read it out of context thinking it was addressing the final Typical (latin) missal promulgated in 1970

There was also a book published by Herder called the “Experimental Liturgy Book” Which claimed it had ecclesiastical approval, however it was composed of all sorts of prayers and canons which were approved, but not by Catholic ecclesiastical sources. It included all sorts of Eucharistic prayers, and more radical priests and communities used it without any authorizations, other radicals simply made up their Eucharistic Prayers, based on the idea of spontaneous prayers of the bishops in the early Church, many may not have had any basis in early prayers, but rather the new “theology” that was making it’s way around the western Church.

 

[1ke]

It was developed by a commission of experts, including some Protestant ministers, under cardinal Bugnini.

I hope you realize that the story of Protestants developing the NO is a sedevacantist fabrication. We should not encourage this myth by repeating it as a fact.

 

[Filioque]

1Ke:

Thanks, I just returned from a visit to my sister for the first anniversary of her husband’s passing, (Requiescat in Pacem) and a retreat for myself. I missed the Protestant contributors.

History shows us that at Trent and other Ecumenical Councils, Orthodox and later from the 16th Century Protestants were invited as observers in an effort to win them back to communion. Luther and others were even granted safe passage to and from the Council of Trent to be given an opportunity to explain their theology. So Vatican II did not invent having non-Catholic observers…

 

[1ke]

So Vatican II did not invent having non-Catholic observers…

Yes, I am aware that there were non-Catholics invited to Trent and VII as observers and that there were Protestant observers at VII.

However, that isn’t what R_C stated. R_C stated that a “commission” developed the NO Mass and that Protestant ministers were on the commission. That is not factually correct.

 

[pnewton]

They spoke the same language, but the others understood them even when they proceeded from other places.

That is an interesting theory, one that some people believe could be what happened. I do not think the Church teaches one way or another though. The reason I do not believe it is the rest of the New Testament. There is a gift called that of tongues which is not gift or hearing, but of speaking.

In any case, Latin wasn’t the first language of the Church. It is arguably the most useful, but it will not be the last. It is** a** language.

It may be the person the OP speaks of has made some idol out of this tool. If so, that is a hard thing to address.

 

[Filioque]

Yes, I am aware that there were non-Catholics invited to Trent and VII as observers and that there were Protestant observers at VII.

However, that isn’t what R_C stated. R_C stated that a “commission” developed the NO Mass and that Protestant ministers were on the commission. That is not factually correct.

My comment was not directed at yourself, but rather a general posting in addition to your reply to R_C for those who face the falsified charges of Protestant advisors on the NOM reforms.

 

[ProVobis]

That is an interesting theory, one that some people believe could be what happened. I do not think the Church teaches one way or another though. The reason I do not believe it is the rest of the New Testament. There is a gift called that of tongues which is not gift or hearing, but of speaking.

Yes, but try that with infallible teachings such as “Transubstantio” and “Consubstantialem Patri” (as we’ve discussed on another thread).