FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Re:Novus Ordo Masses
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
To answer the original question...

The general consensus of most theologians is that "for all" doesn't invalidate the Sacrament or the Mass.  But it's a bad translation and the people who translated it wrong - on purpose I might add - will have to answer to God for any confusion they caused during Mass.

I agree with Scipio in principle.  The validity of the Novus Ordo is probably the least of the problems, generally speaking.  There will be cases of invalid Masses, but the widespread sacrilege and the Missal itself are problems and why I think it is better to drive 2 hours to a TLM once a month than go to a NO every week.

I don't agree, however, with the thought that the Missal as promulgated is invalid or that Quo Primum comes into play here.  I used to be on the side of the Quo Primum argument, but the more I thought about it, the more it didn't pan out.  Basically, the Holy See didn't abrogate the Tridentine Missal (though some tried), it added another Missal (the NO or Pauline Missal) to valid use.  So, nothing really violated Quo Primum, IMO, though people tried to violate it. 

This was made clear when B16 said the Mass was never abrogated and permission was not needed to say it - exactly what is binding by QP, if anything.

Some can argue about the 1962 Missal violating it, but that Missal is good enough for the SSPX and FSSP.  Plus, one would have to go back a lot farther to find the first change in the Tridentine Missal because it did change.  I think it was the intent of QP is to make the Tridentine Mass the equivalent of the "Vulgtate" for liturgy - that it is perfect and there are no errors and it may always be said.  I don't think the intent was that no Pope could ever change the Missal or promulgate another one.  But that's my opinion only.
I believe that Quo Primum has to do with the essentials of the Latin Mass, which have been with us since the days of the Apostles.  The Novus Ordo Mass is an amended form, and indeed did away with several of the essentials of the Mass.




The History and Nature of the Tridentine Mass and Problems with the New Mass

In 1970, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass that is now used throughout the world in Catholic churches. Before this time, Roman Rite of the Mass or what is commonly referred to as the “Tridentine” or “Latin” Mass, was used by the Church. The Canon, or main part, of this Tridentine Mass, “goes back without essential change, to the age when it developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world. The final result of our enquiry is that in spite of unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours” (Fortescue Adrian)  which “no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details.” Thus the traditional Roman Mass in all its essentials was passed on by St. Peter, the first pope, and reached its complete perfection with Popes St. Damasus (fourth century) and St. Gregory the Great (sixth century).

Blessed Pope Pius IX, when requested to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon, replied: “I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?” By this he sought to indicated not only that he was aware of the sacredness of the liturgy and that it ought not to be dealt with as some common issue but also that the Popes of the Church have always acknowledge that the liturgical worship of the Church, touches to the center of the faith itself. For this reason when Pope Gregory (590-604) sought to add the words “diesque nostros in tua pace disponas” [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon, the Catholics of Rome were so outraged at this act that they threatened to kill him because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. From that time, no pope dared to change the Ordo of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Mass was affirmed to be complete and unchangeable in the mind of the Church. The Council of Trent taught the same in the following Canon:  “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church… may be changed by any pastor of the Churches to any new ones: let him be anathema.”   Because of the hallowed sacredness of the Roman Rite and to protect it, Pope St. Pius V codified the Traditional Latin Mass using the strongest language in the proclamation Quo Primum in 1570. It says in part:

“At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . “And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

This Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of Mass), but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Holy See.
(04-07-2010, 05:01 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that Quo Primum has to do with the essentials of the Latin Mass, which have been with us since the days of the Apostles.  The Novus Ordo Mass is an amended form, and indeed did away with several of the essentials of the Mass.

The Pope called it a banal fabrication.  It is not an amended form of the TLM Missal.  It is a patchwork quilt of all kinds of things, some created out of whole cloth.

The NO is as much an amended form of the TLM Missal as the Taj-Mahony is an amended form of Notre Dame.

Though, when people want to tear down a house and build a new one and can't get a permit, they tear down everything but the chimney and foundation and call it a "remodel"; all that is required is some remaining piece of the original structure.

So, I suppose the NOM is a "remodel" in that sense, but truthfully, it isn't.

Quote:his Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of Mass), but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Holy See.

You seem to contradict yourself.  First you say it is an amended form, then you say it is a new construct.  Which is it?
BTW, I think you're misreading it:

Quote:we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally

What can't be revoked or amended?  "this present order and decree of ours" - not the Missal.

Here is another translation of Quo Primum from the Vatican so we don't think it's a translation error:

Quote:We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See
(04-07-2010, 05:05 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-07-2010, 05:01 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I believe that Quo Primum has to do with the essentials of the Latin Mass, which have been with us since the days of the Apostles.  The Novus Ordo Mass is an amended form, and indeed did away with several of the essentials of the Mass.

The Pope called it a banal fabrication.  It is not an amended form of the TLM Missal.  It is a patchwork quilt of all kinds of things, some created out of whole cloth.

The NO is as much an amended form of the TLM Missal as the Taj-Mahony is an amended form of Notre Dame.

Though, when people want to tear down a house and build a new one and can't get a permit, they tear down everything but the chimney and foundation and call it a "remodel"; all that is required is some remaining piece of the original structure.

So, I suppose the NOM is a "remodel" in that sense, but truthfully, it isn't.

Quote:his Mass that Pope St. Pius V was confirming in Quo Primum was not some new construct like the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of Mass), but was essentially the Apostolic Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome. Nor is it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but it is the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Holy See.

You seem to contradict yourself.  First you say it is an amended form, then you say it is a new construct.  Which is it?

Accoridng to those who created it, it is both.  In truth, it is a new rite of Mass.  What I believe is that the Modernist liberals in the Church were going to amend the Mass, but when they realized that they couldn't do that, they simply made a whole new Mass.  Either way, it is wrong.

I also will never truly understand that quote from the Pope.  He indeed called it a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Then why in the world doesn't he do something about it!?  Why doesn't he totally nullify this "banal production" and return the Church fully to her true universal form of worship?  This boggles my mind...
(04-07-2010, 05:12 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Accoridng to those who created it, it is both.  In truth, it is a new rite of Mass.  What I believe is that the Modernist liberals in the Church were going to amend the Mass, but when they realized that they couldn't do that, they simply made a whole new Mass.  Either way, it is wrong.

OK, so it's not an amendment then.

Quote:I also will never truly understand that quote from the Pope.  He indeed called it a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Then why in the world doesn't he do something about it!?  Why doesn't he totally nullify this "banal production" and return the Church fully to her true universal form of worship?  This boggles my mind...

That's a different question.
(04-07-2010, 04:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]but the widespread sacrilege and the Missal itself are problems and why I think it is better to drive 2 hours to a TLM once a month than go to a NO every week.

I can believe that in some situations this is true but I do not think that it is necessarily always so.  It depends on the circumstances.  One factor is what the available NO Masses are like.  In practice, the Novus Ordo can range from reverent and abuse-free to heretical and sacrilegious.    Some may be so spiritually harmful that it is better to not go to Mass at all, but others may be better than nothing.    If the only accessible TLM  is only available once a month, then it is worth investigating what NO options are available for the other weeks.
(04-07-2010, 05:12 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I also will never truly understand that quote from the Pope.  He indeed called it a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Then why in the world doesn't he do something about it!?  Why doesn't he totally nullify this "banal production" and return the Church fully to her true universal form of worship?  This boggles my mind...

He is doing something about it.  He is showing the that receiving Communion on the tongue and kneeling is the norm.  He is establishing better translations into the vernacular.  Perhaps most effectively,  he is making the TLM more available.  Exposure to the TLM has the potential to help people more clearly understand what liturgy is supposed to be like.
(04-07-2010, 05:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-07-2010, 04:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]but the widespread sacrilege and the Missal itself are problems and why I think it is better to drive 2 hours to a TLM once a month than go to a NO every week.

I can believe that in some situations this is true but I do not think that it is necessarily always so.  It depends on the circumstances.  One factor is what the available NO Masses are like.  In practice, the Novus Ordo can range from reverent and abuse-free to heretical and sacrilegious.    Some may be so spiritually harmful that it is better to not go to Mass at all, but others may be better than nothing.    If the only accessible TLM  is only available once a month, then it is worth investigating what NO options are available for the other weeks.

I totally disagree with this.  The N.O. Mass is condemend by its own nature.  The removal of the prayers that protected the holiness of the Mass is a huge sacrilege in itself, which is ingrained in the fabric of every N.O. Mass.  Besides, you will hardly find an N.O. Mass without a Protestant Supper Table in use, unveiled women, altar girls, and people recieving Christ in their hands while standing.
(04-07-2010, 05:21 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-07-2010, 05:12 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I also will never truly understand that quote from the Pope.  He indeed called it a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Then why in the world doesn't he do something about it!?  Why doesn't he totally nullify this "banal production" and return the Church fully to her true universal form of worship?  This boggles my mind...

He is doing something about it.  He is showing the that receiving Communion on the tongue and kneeling is the norm.  He is establishing better translations into the vernacular.  Perhaps most effectively,  he is making the TLM more available.  Exposure to the TLM has the potential to help people more clearly understand what liturgy is supposed to be like.

Until an official, Church-wide proclamation comes out condemning Communion in the hand while standing, then nothing is truly being done about it.  The only answer to this problem is to return the Church COMPLETELY to the official worship.  Indeed, this cannot be done overnight.  But what could be done is this:

1)  enforce the consecration to be said in Latin, with the true words of Christ used, in ad oreintam (priest facing away from the people - eastward)
2) no more Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers
3)  no more altar girls
4) no more women speaking in Church (i.e. reading the epistle)
5) no more recieving Communion standing OR in the hand, only kneeling and on the tounge, and only under one kind
6) the re-addition of the prayers stripped from the Mass
7) removal of all "tables" and exculsive use of true altars

This would do as an "emergency Mass" until the priesthood was re-trained in the TLM.  If not this way, then the Church could tell the faithful to try and find a church that has a real TLM, and if a distance hardship is in play, then spiritual communion at home until the priesthood is prepared.  There is a lot that could be done to fix the situation in the Church, it is just that it is simply not being done, or too small of steps are being made while souls are being lost by the thousands.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21