FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: John Salza's Banal Argument Against the NO
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Recently on CFN was posted an article by Mr. John Salza. It is here: http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page66/salz..._ordo.html. The article recycles an argument made by Fr. Kramer against the New Mass. This arguement is thus:

1. Catholics must celebrate only the “received and approved rites” of the Church as a matter of Divine Law
2. The Novus Ordo Mass is a “new rite” of Mass – conceived, as it was, by a liturgical commission following Vatican II
3. Therefore to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass is against divine law.


This logic, while seeming to be valid, has a faulty premise.

Concerning premise one, John Salza posits that received and approved rites means only a strict/literal continuation with what preceded. While he points out John XXIII's addition of St. Joseph to the Canon, and his reform of the rubrics, changes which are deemed insubstantial, he seemed to overlook the changes by Pius XII for Holy Week, which were significant changes and new rites. According to his strict measure, Holy Week as "conceived, as it was, by a liturgical commission" in the early 1950s would be a violation of divine law. But please, friends, do not worry. His strict measure is false. "Received" means the reception of a rite as delivered to the person through someone with authority to pass it on. Thus an approved liturgy of the Church, approved by the appropriate authorities, is "received". "Approved" means that the appropriate authority has sanctioned it use. The New Mass fits the true definition of a “received and approved rite” of the Church. To prove that his notion of new rites is faulty, and his notion of substantial change, I present:



1) The Church may change Her rites in any way She sees fit as long as the substance is preserved.

Session 21, Pius IV/Council of Trent, D931 Wrote:It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, preserving their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places.

Super Quibusdam, Clement VI, D570m Wrote:In the tenth place, if you have believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, in order that they may be saved, provided that those matters are always preserved which belong to the integrity and necessity of the sacraments.

Ex Quo, Pius X, D2147a Wrote:... the Catholic doctrine on the most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is not left untouched when it is taught inflexibly that the opinion can be accepted which maintains that among the Greeks the words of consecration do not produce an effect unless preceded by that prayer which they call epiclesis, although, on the other hand, it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments ...

Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, D2301 Wrote:And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord in the course of the ages the Church has not, and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the "substance of the sacraments," that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.

2) The substance of the rite is the sacramental intention, form, and matter.

Exultate Deo, Eugenius IV/Council of Florence, D695 Wrote:All these sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the sacrament is not fulfilled.

Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII, D1963 Wrote:In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form".


Now Mr. Salza pulls out St Paul to prove his case. He says, "St. Paul emphasizes that we must believe and practice only what we have 'received' from Christ and the apostles which has been 'delivered' unto us, and which includes the liturgical rites of the Church." This is true, and this core is called the "deposit of faith" and the "substance" of the sacrament. Never can we change these things. But you see that there is much doctrinal development to uppack implicit aspects in the deposit of faith, and there is much change, abolition, and creation of rites in our worship "for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places." New rites are entirely permitted, as long as the words of consecration delivered by our Lord are preserved.

In addition, Mr. Salza pulls out Trent saying, "...or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones ..." Suffice it to say, this refers to people who do not have the authority to change rites. This same type of statement was made in the post-Vatican II era as priests and even bishops took it upon themselves to change the Mass without authorization. The anathema is against unauthorized change of the rites, not the mere changing of the rites which Trent already admitted as in concord with our Faith in Session 21. Not even a decree like Quo Primum can change this, since no past Pope in matters like this (outside of definitions of faith and morals) can bind another future Pope if we wished to reform the Mass. Even Fr Kramer admits as much.

So Mr. Salza, while I am sure he is good intentioned, has misunderstood the matter, and his logic fails because he thinks a "received and approved" rite cannot be changed in all places save the substance, or that Quo Primum contradicted Session 21 of the Council of Trent, and bound future Popes forever. He also overestimates the "substance" of the Mass to things which are not the substance -- the Canon, the prayers, etc. All the Mass is able to be changed except the words of Christ. Now with that we can argue that the change must be in a certain direction, or the new rite would need certain requisites in order to be reverent. But these matters are another debate.

Finally, Mr. Salza says, "Finally, Our Lord tells us 'by their fruits you shall know them' (Mt 7:16,20). If the Novus Ordo Mass were truly a 'received and approved rite' of the Church, then it could not have produced the rotten fruits we have seen since its introduction." Unfortunately this charge can be leveled against the traditional Mass. Not only did the Protestant Revolt take place from the cradle of the traditional Mass, but also the generation in the 60s that fell away and rebelled against the Faith were nourished on that Mass. So truly in this equation of fruits, we must admit the question is more complex. Correlation does not equal causation.
I usually don't resort to or need Salza's arguments, but you have to admit, what's wrong with a banal argument for a banal liturgy?
you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

(11-15-2012, 02:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

Better than to constantly attack the Mass which you know most Catholics in the world, including a good many who post at Fish Eaters (myself included) must attend some or all of the time.

The hate expressed here towards Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form has me seriously questioning whether I would attend an EF Mass if one became available to me.  I ask myself, "Why would I want to worship with people who hate me for attending the OF when no EF was available?"

When there is no EF Mass available in their area, Catholics have to choose whether to attend the OF or be "home-aloners."  Since I have yet to see an OF Mass that was not said properly and reverently, I think attending Mass is the better choice. 

When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

(11-15-2012, 03:21 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 02:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

Better than to constantly attack the Mass which you know most Catholics in the world, including a good many who post at Fish Eaters (myself included) must attend some or all of the time.

The hate expressed here towards Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form has me seriously questioning whether I would attend an EF Mass if one became available to me.  I ask myself, "Why would I want to worship with people who hate me for attending the OF when no EF was available?"

When there is no EF Mass available in their area, Catholics have to choose whether to attend the OF or be "home-aloners."  Since I have yet to see an OF Mass that was not said properly and reverently, I think attending Mass is the better choice. 

When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

I think your perception of "hate" may have as much to do with you as it has to do with the words of others.  You may be surprised to discover who attends the NO when a TLM is not available.
(11-15-2012, 02:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

I am defending the integrity of the Church, attempting to influence fellow traditionalists to improve their arguments and to be better informed, and to destroy those block which the SSPX and other traditionalists hold to reconciliation.
(11-15-2012, 03:21 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

You mean when you're stuck in some hellhole of a city with no means of transportation and the nearest TLM is over an hour away?

Yeah, I've been there and done that.
(11-15-2012, 03:28 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 03:21 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 02:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

Better than to constantly attack the Mass which you know most Catholics in the world, including a good many who post at Fish Eaters (myself included) must attend some or all of the time.

The hate expressed here towards Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form has me seriously questioning whether I would attend an EF Mass if one became available to me.  I ask myself, "Why would I want to worship with people who hate me for attending the OF when no EF was available?"

When there is no EF Mass available in their area, Catholics have to choose whether to attend the OF or be "home-aloners."  Since I have yet to see an OF Mass that was not said properly and reverently, I think attending Mass is the better choice. 

When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

I think your perception of "hate" may have as much to do with you as it has to do with the words of others.  You may be surprised to discover who attends the NO when a TLM is not available.

You mean that certain people who purport to hate the OF actually attend it when an EF is not available?  I know that. 

I'm just very tired of trads' sense of superiority over non-trad Catholics and tired of it being expressed so frequently here.

You may not have read it, but Vox has written in the Announcements about the e-mails she gets from people who have been turned off to tradition, or to Catholicism as a whole, by the mean-spirited posts in the forums.  I'm not the only one who thinks it's a problem.
(11-15-2012, 06:08 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 03:21 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

You mean when you're stuck in some hellhole of a city with no means of transportation and the nearest TLM is over an hour away?

Yeah, I've been there and done that.


I'm homebound, but in a beautiful area, thanks be to God.

The nearest EF is over two hours away, I'm forty years older than you, and disabled. 

You have not been there and done that.  Pray that you never are.







(11-15-2012, 09:19 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 03:28 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 03:21 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-15-2012, 02:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]you spend an inordinate amount of time defending a mass you don't even find worth attending. 

Better than to constantly attack the Mass which you know most Catholics in the world, including a good many who post at Fish Eaters (myself included) must attend some or all of the time.

The hate expressed here towards Catholics who attend the Ordinary Form has me seriously questioning whether I would attend an EF Mass if one became available to me.  I ask myself, "Why would I want to worship with people who hate me for attending the OF when no EF was available?"

When there is no EF Mass available in their area, Catholics have to choose whether to attend the OF or be "home-aloners."  Since I have yet to see an OF Mass that was not said properly and reverently, I think attending Mass is the better choice. 

When you find yourself in my position, then you can choose for yourself.

I think your perception of "hate" may have as much to do with you as it has to do with the words of others.  You may be surprised to discover who attends the NO when a TLM is not available.

You mean that certain people who purport to hate the OF actually attend it when an EF is not available?  I know that. 

I'm just very tired of trads' sense of superiority over non-trad Catholics and tired of it being expressed so frequently here.

You may not have read it, but Vox has written in the Announcements about the e-mails she gets from people who have been turned off to tradition, or to Catholicism as a whole, by the mean-spirited posts in the forums.  I'm not the only one who thinks it's a problem.

But you're never going to please everyone.  The list of the number of people that this site has converted and tradverted is probably just as long.
Pages: 1 2