Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[OraLabora]

May I take your analogy a step further, more in line with what I observe today?
If the nostalgic folks who love steam engines begin to cast aspersions on the new diesels, rather than quietly maintain their preference, that’s where I would say their nostalgia has turned to rancor and is divisive, having no positive advantage other than to incur enmity.

You should have heard some of the debates in the 60s and 70s about whether steam or diesel was better.

It would put the EF vs OF debate to shame because, well certainly more colourful language was used

There’s not so much of that anymore though. When it comes to trains, the laws of physics are conclusive: steam engines are way too thermally inefficient, and far to costly to maintain.

 

[agnes_therese]

So if what was done in the ancient church or in a 12th century monastery, it’s okay to bring up, but if something in the 40’s and 50’s is brought up, it must be a traditionalist who brings up that era?

Where did I say any such thing? I’d appreciate you pointing out that post, because I just can’t seem to find it . . . .

 

[agnes_therese]

Yeah, because calling peole “holier than thous” would never be an instance of divisiveness.

We could end the divisiveness instantly. Everyone repeat after me:

“Both COTT and CITH are approved by the Church. Both are valid methods of reception of Holy Communion. Either (or both!) can be used by any Catholic, and neither choice infers greater or lesser reverence and respect for Our Lord.”

There, wasn’t that easy?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

During Vatican II , was the new order of the Mass infallibly defined or declared?

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.

The above is the subject of this thread.
Not CITH.
I HIGHLY suggest we return to the subject of the OP and stay there.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

ditto!!!

 

[GangGreen]

Both Masses are equal in dignity and are valid. The End.

One thing about

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.

I could say that the Holy Spirit will guarantee a Mass that has all of the elements of a proper, valid Mass. Anyone who denies that is treading in very dangerous territory. However, that is not to say that each Mass is perfect. Both versions have their issues. There are reasons why the Mass changed over time. Whether the issues with each are big or small is another debate that has been had here a thousand times.

Either way, I think the OP’s question has been answered already.

 

[Brendan_64]

Both Masses are equal in dignity and are valid.

Absolutely, and any Catholic that says otherwise is at odds with the teaching of the Church. But the person the OP is debating with does accept the validity of the OF/NO Mass.

I could say that the Holy Spirit will guarantee a Mass that has all of the elements of a proper, valid Mass. Anyone who denies that is treading in very dangerous territory.

This is true, however the way the OF Mass has been interpreted by many priests has led to frequent abuses, and as John Paul II said (in RS) in certain areas have become habitual. A false understanding of ‘freedom’ (following VII) has led to such ‘innovations’ which are in fact abuses. So while the form of the OF Mass as outlined in a strict following of the rubrics in conjunction with unswerving adherence to Church instruction, discipline and teaching is to be commended, too often this is not the case and the desire to adapt and innovate to suit surroundings and prevailing culture etc. results in the widespread abuses that resulted in John Paul II issuing Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Therefore it is an unfortunate fact that you are more likely to see examples of liturgical abuse (even if it does not invalidate the Mass) at an OF Mass, than you are at an EF Mass. This is not the fault of the form of the Mass, but of the ‘interpretations’ and adaptations of the priest celebrating it. Sadly it does feel like the air of ‘innovation’ of the Liturgy is on the rise recently within the Church (certainly in the UK anyway). In my opinion this is closely linked with the recent increase in noise made by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ people within the Church.

 

[simple_soul]

Absolutely, and any Catholic that says otherwise is at odds with the teaching of the Church. But the person the OP is debating with does accept the validity of the OF/NO Mass.

This is true, however the way the OF Mass has been interpreted by many priests has led to frequent abuses, and as John Paul II said (in RS) in certain areas have become habitual. A false understanding of ‘freedom’ (following VII) has led to such ‘innovations’ which are in fact abuses. So while the form of the OF Mass as outlined in a strict following of the rubrics in conjunction with unswerving adherence to Church instruction, discipline and teaching is to be commended, too often this is not the case and the desire to adapt and innovate to suit surroundings and prevailing culture etc. results in the widespread abuses that resulted in John Paul II issuing Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Therefore it is an unfortunate fact that you are more likely to see examples of liturgical abuse (even if it does not invalidate the Mass) at an OF Mass, than you are at an EF Mass. This is not the fault of the form of the Mass, but of the ‘interpretations’ and adaptations of the priest celebrating it. Sadly it does feel like the air of ‘innovation’ of the Liturgy is on the rise recently within the Church (certainly in the UK anyway). In my opinion this is closely linked with the recent increase in noise made by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ people within the Church.

Brendan,

From reading your posts in this thread and others, and in reading posts of other posters who are of like mind, what you all seem to see as abuses seems to go beyond what the Church sees as abuses. This is what I am seeing and understanding from everything that is being said and what I have observed first hand while attending the OF.
And like Sirach said on a post quite a while back, there are proper Chanels for reporting those abuses if they are lagitimate which I do not believe includes coming into threads like this one and indirectly trying to prove to those of us who do not agree with you that the way the majority of the Church celebrates the OF is full of abuses.

 

[GangGreen]

Absolutely, and any Catholic that says otherwise is at odds with the teaching of the Church. But the person the OP is debating with does accept the validity of the OF/NO Mass.

This is true, however the way the OF Mass has been interpreted by many priests has led to frequent abuses, and as John Paul II said (in RS) in certain areas have become habitual. A false understanding of ‘freedom’ (following VII) has led to such ‘innovations’ which are in fact abuses. So while the form of the OF Mass as outlined in a strict following of the rubrics in conjunction with unswerving adherence to Church instruction, discipline and teaching is to be commended, too often this is not the case and the desire to adapt and innovate to suit surroundings and prevailing culture etc. results in the widespread abuses that resulted in John Paul II issuing Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Therefore it is an unfortunate fact that you are more likely to see examples of liturgical abuse (even if it does not invalidate the Mass) at an OF Mass, than you are at an EF Mass. This is not the fault of the form of the Mass, but of the ‘interpretations’ and adaptations of the priest celebrating it. Sadly it does feel like the air of ‘innovation’ of the Liturgy is on the rise recently within the Church (certainly in the UK anyway). In my opinion this is closely linked with the recent increase in noise made by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ people within the Church.

I agree that there are abuses. Let’s not forget that the EF was quite abused back in the old days. The vast majority of priests celebrate only the OF, some both, and some only the EF (FSSP, ICK, etc.). So when the highest percentage celebrate the OF, you’ll have a much higher percentage who may abuse it. In the EF it’s a Mass the priests specifically seek out to do, so they’re less likely to abuse it.

The first issue is education. Sacrosanctum Concilium has a few paragraphs on the importance of this. If priests and laity are educated properly, these would not occur as frequently. If priests aren’t well educated in the Mass they won’t appreciate it. If laity aren’t well educated in the Mass, then abuses can just become accepted practice. Also, if pastors and bishops came down hard on the priests who abused the Mass, that would end it right there.

There are things that are allowable in the OF that I just don’t like. They’re not necessarily an abuse, but they’re allowed, so what can I say? When you look at the EF, you have an issue of a lot of people not understanding the Mass and a lot of it being said in quiet. Today most people can at least follow along with a book to know whether the priest is speeding along or omitting parts… I don’t think it was as accessible pre-VII. Now, we have a missal that gives many options and isn’t very concrete as to exactly how things should be done. This obviously gives rise to many of the innovations that you speak of.