Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FNDRB58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
I do. I observe when I attend Protestant liturgies as I’ve stated before. I participate in Catholic Masses. How’s that? 😛

Again, keep in mind the ecumenical spirit under which it’s done.
Click to expand...
OK, you get points for the segue.

My secretary was getting married, so all of us in the office went to the wedding. High Lutheran, and looked nearly identical to the Mass. But the OF came first. So also high Episcopal;very similar, and followed the introduction of the OF. An implication seemed to be made that they were all jointly decided in Rome. Not.
 
otjm said:
So what? The Council was giving a “big picture” of changes, not dictating those changes. I have yet to understand this appeal back to the Council documents, as if they were somehow binding with a narrow script of what changes, if any, which could be made. Nothing in the documents, and nothing in Church history, indicates that that a Council’s directions are the sum total of anything which is to be done.
Click to expand...
But if one is to accept Vatican II, it is understood that the documents must carry significant weight, no? One can’t hold someone else to submission to the entire council while he himself feels free to ignore or toss out parts he doesn’t like (organ, Gregorian chant, etc.). What’s good for one side, should be good for the other.
 
otjm said:
So what? The Council was giving a “big picture” of changes, not dictating those changes. I have yet to understand this appeal back to the Council documents, as if they were somehow binding with a narrow script of what changes, if any, which could be made. Nothing in the documents, and nothing in Church history, indicates that that a Council’s directions are the sum total of anything which is to be done.
Click to expand...
Well said, otjm. What they overlook, whether innocently unaware, or rigidly holding the Constitution’s wording to their literal interpretation, is the appointment of a Consilium by Pope Paul VI’s Motu Proprio to implement the changes set forth in the Council document. It reads:
  1. That these documents should immediately be properly carried out everywhere and any possible doubts on interpretation removed are matters of the utmost importance. Therefore, by papal mandate, the Consilium has prepared the present Instruction. It sets out more sharply the functions of conferences of bishops in liturgical matters, explains more fully those principles stated in general terms in the aforementioned documents, and authorizes or mandates that those measures that are practicable before revision of the liturgical books go into effect immediately.
40.png
otjm:
To which I would add, too often those who want to quote the council documents as somehow setting limits beyond which no one could go, are the same people who in the next breath will give such faint praise to the Council, and to the documents, as to lead to an almost inevitable conclusion that it was the work of Modernists, if not the Masons themselves.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: OTOH, you and I have seen folks downplay the Council documents as “pastoral” and “non-binding” when they voice objection to certain aspects; yet when it is convenient to uphold their view point, they will adamantly complain that the documents are not being adhered to. 🤷
 
The SSPX does not reject the validity of the Novus Ordo.

As for what happened after Vatican II with the liturgy…well…let’s just start with Latin and chant and then see how seriously the council document was heeded.
 
AlexV said:
The SSPX does not reject the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
And pigs fly. When they publicly state that the OF is evil and may put one’s faith at risk, that is what they are saying. Maybe they don’t use the words you would prefer, but any plain reading (particularly given their predilection for playing verbal cat-and-mouse) says they reject it. No intelligent reading would say otherwise.
AlexV said:
As for what happened after Vatican II with the liturgy…well…let’s just start with Latin and chant and then see how seriously the council document was heeded.
Click to expand...
That is a non sequitur, for starters. Gregorian Chant was struggling before Vatican 2; and what has occurred since is a strong preference for congregational singing, and away from choir singing.

And as to Latin, it would appear that the desire for the vernacular has been overwhelming. Latin is still the official language of the Church; it’s use in the Mass is less than what was envisioned, but is starting to come back.

And not to make too fine a point of it, but the bishops who were at Vatican 2, who signed the documents, were the ones who obviously felt that it was at best hortatory and not mandatory. Since they signed the documents, and since they implemented the OF, perhaps they might be the ones you should take up the issue with?

I am not against Latin - having studied it both in high school and in college. So don’t presume I am against it. But you do seem to be overlooking a minor issue about who signed the documents and subsequently made choices about implementation.
 
Brendan_64 said:
She accepts that both forms of the Mass are valid. She is free to prefer one form of the Mass to the other, and she is free to exclusively attend one form.

There are a lot of Catholics who would never consider attending a Latin Mass, as they feel that it would not meet their own personal spiritual requirements, so why should it be wrong with those would never consider attending an OF Mass, as they feel it would not meet their own personal spiritual requirements?

So long as Catholics accept that both forms of the Mass are valid, there is no problem with exclusively attending one or the other out of personal spiritual needs. We all have different spiritualities and under Canon Law we each have the right to follow our own spiritual lives, so long as doing so does not put us at odds with the teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
That is not the issue of our debate…we both recognize that both forms are valid (though she reluctantly admitted that) but she believes one the EO is more efficacious (imputes more grace) than the other. I say no, that is impossible.
 
Sirach2 said:
It is also fair to say that IF the OF was a “lesser” form or is less efficacious" as was stated in the OP, that the Holy Spirit would have intervened sometime during the last 52 years to make appropriate changes. Three popes, all having the authority to issue a Motu Proprio on their own authority, have not found cause to do so. Neither have the College of Bishops petitioned Rome to revise the OF liturgy. except for the linguistic changes a couple years ago.

The only ones complaining are the very tiny minority of folks who mistakenly believe the EF is superior and are clamoring to have them celebrated more often.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. 👍 The Holy Spirit still guides the Church even when there is no infallible declaration made…99.99% of the faithful would not be observing a lesser form and for so long. It just wouldn’t happen if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

On top of that, my fellow debater has to have an authority to believe that one form is greater than the other…she only sites God as her authority. So I guess she doesn’t believe in the verse, “Who hears you hears me”, and is going off her own interpretation of the efficacy of the two forms. Sad really.
 
FNDRB58 said:
That is not the issue of our debate…we both recognize that both forms are valid (though she reluctantly admitted that) but she believes one the EO is more efficacious (imputes more grace) than the other. I say no, that is impossible.
Click to expand...
If she believes that, then she is arguing that the Eucharist received at an EF Mass transmits more grace than the Eucharist at an OF Mass? How can she believe that and still believe that both forms are valid? Surely the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ? Does she believe that there are two Christs, one of which transmits more grace than the other?

A person could argue that what we give to God differs in the two forms of Mass (reverence, respect, etc.) but it does not make sense to argue that what God gives to us in terms of grace differs in the two forms of Mass. The Eucharist is the Eucharist. We do not earn God’s grace in the Mass according to the level of effort and reverence we put in.
 
Brendan_64 said:
If she believes that, then she is arguing that the Eucharist received at an EF Mass transmits more grace than the Eucharist at an OF Mass? How can she believe that and still believe that both forms are valid? Surely the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ? Does she believe that there are two Christs, one of which transmits more grace than the other?

A person could argue that what we give to God differs in the two forms of Mass (reverence, respect, etc.) but it does not make sense to argue that what God gives to us in terms of grace differs in the two forms of Mass. The Eucharist is the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. I’ll bring this argument up to her…

👍
 
FNDRB58 said:
Exactly my point. 👍 The Holy Spirit still guides the Church even when there is no infallible declaration made…99.99% of the faithful would not be observing a lesser form and for so long. It just wouldn’t happen if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
Click to expand...
But the Protestants also believe in the Holy Spirit. Just sayin…
 
otjm said:
That is a non sequitur, for starters. Gregorian Chant was struggling before Vatican 2; and what has occurred since is a strong preference for congregational singing, and away from choir singing.
Click to expand...
Indeed it had been struggling as was Latin, but nevertheless the restoration was something the Council Fathers envisioned, not to mention Veterum Sapientia, which btw was also an Apostolic Constitution. Seems as if one accepts the 1970 Missale Romanum, he or she should also be accepting VS and SC equally if not more so IMO. It’s not a popularity issue, which the ICEL was successful in making it, at least until recently.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s not a popularity issue, which the ICEL was successful in making it, at least until recently.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Church documents, constitutions and instructions, ought not to be seen as things that can be over-ruled locally by congregations, or Bishops’ conferences.
 
Brendan_64 said:
A person could argue that what we give to God differs in the two forms of Mass (reverence, respect, etc.) but **it does not make sense **to argue that what God gives to us in terms of grace differs in the two forms of Mass. The Eucharist is the Eucharist. We do not earn God’s grace in the Mass according to the level of effort and reverence we put in.
Click to expand...
Exactly…but then again, emotional arguments rarely make sense
 
Some posts here are very uninformed and naive. The astonishing drop in Mass attendance and tge crisis of vocations and the wreck of catechesis amd priestly formation should ne clear signs of the fruits of some of the misguided and misled applications of the Council. The Holy Spirit does NOT prevent such things from happening. Amazing things have happened through the Church history, terrible mistakes for which official apologies have been made. Sticking our head in the sand or clapping like penguins to the anti-liturgical efforts of the last living modernists who wish to de-Catholicize the liturgy into a woldly sort of entertainment leads nowhere. The atrocious liturgical abuses that have been and still are committed even by bishops shows that this is not over. Clear-minded, orthodox theologians and liturgists have extensively written on this matter. One cannot question the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae but there is a lot to be reformed.
 
R_C said:
Some posts here are very uninformed and naive. The astonishing drop in Mass attendance and tge crisis of vocations and the wreck of catechesis amd priestly formation should ne clear signs of the fruits of some of the misguided and misled applications of the Council. The Holy Spirit does NOT prevent such things from happening. Amazing things have happened through the Church history, terrible mistakes for which official apologies have been made. Sticking our head in the sand or clapping like penguins to the anti-liturgical efforts of the last living modernists who wish to de-Catholicize the liturgy into a woldly sort of entertainment leads nowhere. The atrocious liturgical abuses that have been and still are committed even by bishops shows that this is not over. Clear-minded, orthodox theologians and liturgists have extensively written on this matter. One cannot question the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae but there is a lot to be reformed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, and perhaps not. I don’t live on the East Coast, and have not attended Mass there, so I can’t say what is going on. But in the last ten years I have attended Mass in North Dakota, Washington, California, Utah and numerous parishes in Oregon. Atrocious abuses simply are not occurring all over. It started with the group often referred to as the “John Paul 2” priests, and has been increasing since the 90’s - which is over the last 20 years.

A whole lot of ink has been given to “modernism”, most of which is simply using a code word for “something seems wrong, and I don’t know what it is, but I like the sound of this word”. Modernism came out of the Enlightenment and was prevalent in the early 1900’s.After 80 to 100 years, issues we are dealing with are from other sources as that (modernism) was replaced by post modernism, and a whole host of other “isms”.

Why is it that so much of the abuse seen in the Mass in the 60’s and 70’s was done by priests who were ordained in the 50’s and the 40"s? They were all modernists? Not hardly likely, Far more likely, they were in a whiplash reaction to the strictures of the Church before Vatican 2. Someone who has been tightly restrained for a long time often shows a strong reaction when given freedom from those strictures, and that has nothing to do with modernism; it is a very normal, observable human reaction.
 
FNDRB58 said:
I am debating a fellow Catholic who will only attend the Latin Mass because though she admits that the new Mass is valid, she says it is of a “lesser” form or is less efficacious. I know this is false and asked her by what authority can she say this. I told her that the Holy
Spirit would not guide the Church to develop a new form that is inferior to which she sites instances in history when popes and councils taught heresy, etc.
Click to expand...
Does she believe that Vatican II was an authentic council? Because the Council itself declared in Sacrosanctum Concilium 4 “In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity”
 
R_C said:
Sticking our head in the sand or clapping like penguins to the anti-liturgical efforts of the last living modernists who wish to de-Catholicize the liturgy into a woldly sort of entertainment leads nowhere. The atrocious liturgical abuses that have been and still are committed even by bishops shows that this is not over.
Click to expand...
Today is Mother’s Day, and besides my own mother who is deceased, my spiritual Mother is the Church. In the same way that I would not stand still and allow a ruffian throw eggs at my living or deceased mother, I cannot let this abusive depiction of our Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ, go unchallenged.

R_C, clearly you are in the infinitessismal minority of traditionists who enjoy slinging mud at this Bride. Would that you might consider the harm you do towards unity, and the image you present of the negativity prevailing in your own soul.

May God rebuke you, I humbly pray, and teach you to respect His Bride in your conversation.
 
Catholics have every right to deplore liturgical abuses and the like. The mud slinging at the Church is done by those who perpetrate abuses…not by those who decry them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top