FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: sin and Novus Ordo?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(12-25-2015, 01:13 PM)little_flower10 Wrote: [ -> ]Yes I do believe that the NO is valid and it's a Mass.

Then you also must believe that a Black Mass where a validly ordained priest confects the Body and Blood of Christ for the sole purpose of desecrating it is also valid and a Mass.

All the elements of a "valid" Mass are there. No one would deny that the sacrament is not confected.

Now, understand I write that not in order to be polemical.

I merely point out we cannot conflate "valid" and "good". Nor can we equate "valid" with "pleasing to God", and most certainly not "valid" and thus "obligatory".

There are far greater nuances to be had here.

If we want to discuss the essential aspect of the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary, and thus when "valid" it is necessarily metaphysically and morally good, and pleasing to God, then let's do that.

Let us not though get this essential goodness mixed up with the accidental aspects of a Mass, otherwise we would legalistically end saying that if the only Mass on Sunday you could attend was a Black Mass, you would be obliged.

Distinction. Nuance. Important.
Looks like the very possibility of a black mass is doubtful when the ordained apostate tries to consecrate without proper intention. So, not sure who this no one is who wouldn't deny the validity of a Black Mass.
Also the "black Mass" is done for the purpose of sacrilige. The parish priest down the road who says the Novus Ordo wants to worship God and intends to do what the Church does. Maybe other things that are done especially by the congregation are imperfect but its not like where going to a black Mass where the purpose is to commit sacrilige.

The spiritual reality of the Novus Ordo as the Sacrifice is objectively good - we cannot say that the Sacrifice isn't. So we can honour God there.. As for the accidental elements, certainly it has to be significant that the intent is worship, contrary to a black Mass. As for the other things, such as lack of reverence, I think we could distinguish between things like clapping and the priest making up his own prayers. At some point it becomes scandalous to attend, at other times its clear from your behaviour that you don't intend to do what others do (clapping, CITH, etc). I don't know if I'm right, so this is more of a question than an argument.
(12-25-2015, 05:35 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like the very possibility of a black mass is doubtful when the ordained apostate tries to consecrate without proper intention. So, not sure who this no one is who wouldn't deny the validity of a Black Mass.

Except, that's not the Catholic teaching as regards the minister's intention in confecting the Sacraments.

A validly ordained priest who intends to confect the sacrament, validly confects the sacrament. If this is not true we more or less quickly fall into Donatism.

Consult any high-school level textbook on the Sacraments, or one such summary here.

Or trust St. Robert Bellarmine, who in his De sacramentis in genere (Bk. 1 c. 27 no. 13), says that the intention to "do what the Church does" signifies action not the end. That is, the intention regards the performance of a certain action, not the accomplishment of the purpose for which the Church wishes the action done. This interpretation is also adopted by the Holy Office (Dec 18, 1872) in which they affirm that even Protestants that deny that Baptism causes any spiritual effect still validly Baptize.

The priest who intends the consecrate for evil purposes, still validly consecrates, because the evil purposes concern the end, not the action of consecration.
(12-25-2015, 06:19 PM)little_flower10 Wrote: [ -> ]Also the "black Mass" is done for the purpose of sacrilige. The parish priest down the road who says the Novus Ordo wants to worship God and intends to do what the Church does. Maybe other things that are done especially by the congregation are imperfect but its not like where going to a black Mass where the purpose is to commit sacrilige.

You miss the whole point of my post, and thus the argument.

I am not comparing the Novus Ordo Mass with a Black Mass.

Let me say that again, in case it was not abundantly clear : I am not comparing the Novus Ordo Mass with a Black Mass.

What I did write is that "valid" does not mean "good".

Clearly even if a Black Mass would be "valid", no one would argue that I am obliged to attend it on Sunday if I have no other Mass, but some here treat the Sunday obligation as that kind of legalism.

The principle is that we cannot do something which is harmful to our faith, because above all other obligations is the obligation to have Faith, Hope and Charity -- that is, to remain in the State of Grace. Whatever harms this can never be obligatory.

It is clear that a Black Mass would do this. Thus we cannot attend it.

For very different reasons, I, and many others, argue that the Novus Ordo, even in its most pristine form (let alone the form most frequently seen in practice), no longer an explicitly Catholic rite. It's creators deliberately removed explicitly Catholic elements in order to remove from it the explicit expression of the Catholic Doctrine on the Mass. They also intentionally removed what would explicitly suggest the Real Presence, the unique and essential role of the priest alone, and what would express expiatory Sacrifice. They deliberately changed the rite to unduly emphasize the role of the faithful, even suggesting that a Protestant notion of the faithful together calling down the consubstantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist by their profession of faith in it.

Thus, for those who understand this, and know it to be harmful to their Catholic Faith, they must practically behave as if the Novus Ordo Mass were a Protestant service or Orthodox service. They could not attend it in good faith, outside of exceptional circumstances, because it poses a serious danger of weakening their Faith. Were they to do so, knowing it could harm their faith, they would sin against the Faith. Obviously that would be a subjective consideration. One could never be said to commit a sin merely by attending the Novus Ordo, only if one did so unnecessarily and knew it was a serious danger to his Faith, yet went anyway without a serious reason.

(12-25-2015, 06:19 PM)little_flower10 Wrote: [ -> ]The spiritual reality of the Novus Ordo as the Sacrifice is objectively good - we cannot say that the Sacrifice isn't. So we can honour God there.

You can just as well honor God in the Blessed Sacrament outside of the Mass. And one could just as well adore hosts consecrated by a priest who said Mass in the state of Mortal Sin. The reality of the Sacrament is objectively and innately Good -- it is Christ Himself, sacramentally present. If sacrilege was committed in the process, that has no effect on the reality of the Sacrament itself.

Thus, this element is not particular to the Novus Ordo, nor to any Mass at all. It is, in short, a red herring.

It is equivalent to saying that we must honor the element of Sacrifice in any Mass, be it the traditional Mass or a Black Mass. Or we must honor the Host placed in the monstrance for adoration or even when tossed in the trash for sacrilege.

Of course we must. But that's a bit of a tautology.

(12-25-2015, 06:19 PM)little_flower10 Wrote: [ -> ]As for the accidental elements, certainly it has to be significant that the intent is worship, contrary to a black Mass. As for the other things, such as lack of reverence, I think we could distinguish between things like clapping and the priest making up his own prayers. At some point it becomes scandalous to attend, at other times its clear from your behaviour that you don't intend to do what others do (clapping, CITH, etc). I don't know if I'm right, so this is more of a question than an argument.

The essential problems with the Novus Ordo Mass are not in these accidental elements, but in the very rite itself. I would object to the most reverent ad orientem Latin Novus Ordo Mass on the same grounds -- Protestantized theology behind the new rite. Clearly, though, this is not what the vast majority experience. That makes the situation even worse. It desacrilizes the whole rite as well, adding yet more emphasis to the elements the reformers Protestantized, and thus even more directly harms the Catholic faith of those who attend.
I would choose TLM over NO any time and its difficult for me to attend the NO. But the issue is, I don't see how I would be an obedient Catholic in refusing to attend a valid and recognised Mass for my Sunday obligation. It's not like Protestant services that are not even a Mass, or like Orthodox that are valid yet schismatic. The NO, despite any problems, is valid and accepted - so if I'm to be obedient, it seems like attending it for my Sunday obligation is a serious enough reason. I'll ask my priest... I could be wrong about something, but I just don't have the intent to miss my Sunday obligation unless I physically can't get to a valid Catholic Mass. Refusing to attend the NO when I need to go to Mass, seems to me like taking a huge risk with no certainty
Going to Mass is simply obeying the Church. Of course if I could go to TLM I would always choose that. And if I'm wrong on any point I hope I'll understand, but I.really don't feel comfortable questioning the Church rule on my obligation as a Catholic. Again if a Mass is valid and in union with Rome, I have trouble seeing myself as obedient if I don't go... It seems like a serious enough reason to me ? I'll pray about it all and ask my priest
Michael Voris, ironically enough made the SSPX's case back in 2010, before his funding source changed ...

Excellent posts MagisterMusicae.  I have over quite some time, finally  came to the same conclusion due to a mountain of evidence both from Scripture and  the Traditional teachings handed down to us from our forefathers.  We really have no excuse to go along with the current status quo in the Church these days.  We have been admonished repeatedly both in Scripture and Tradition that we need to put the love of God in first place and to love our neighbors as ourselves next.  If we do this we would never accept what has been done to us since V2, and i refuse to drink the kool-aid.
:P

Pages: 1 2 3