FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae (/showthread.php?tid=64572)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

Also, no one has answered my question up-thread:

WHY were any of these sacraments tampered with in the first place?  Was there something deficient in the Old Rites? Has the Church ever had a real answer for the necessity of the New (and improved...cough cough) Mass/sacraments? 


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - lumine - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

Also, no one has answered my question up-thread:

WHY were any of these sacraments tampered with in the first place?  Was there something deficient in the Old Rites? Has the Church ever had a real answer for the necessity of the New (and improved...cough cough) Mass/sacraments? 

The Pope has certain authority over the Sacraments.  The Sacraments themselves were not tampered with.  There are certain things that remain the same about them, such as form and matter, but make no mistake....there is no new Sacrament in the Church since Vatican II, they are the same seven Sacraments that Jesus Christ gave the Church.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - SaintSebastian - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 03:47 PM)Basilios Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 03:34 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Why is it so tough to imagine that there are invalid masses that have beem happening since the NO began?

Definitely not hard to imagine. The NO itself though isn't invalid. TLM's can be invalid too and have been before 1962 when the Priest was careless (though I am sure back then it was 1 in every 10000 Masses now it's probably 1 in every 1000).

Depends what you mean by "back then." In 1208, the problem of priests feigning the words of consecration became so problematic and well known that it had to be addressed by Innocent III (in the letter, De homine qui). About 175 years later it is addressed by God in St. Catherine's Dialogue as still a major problem—so much so that He says the faithful should add a condition “If this celerant said what he ought to say…” to the prayer “I truly believe you are Christ, the Son of the Living God…” said at the elevation.   In addition to that, He mentions the following problem:

The Dialogue (unabridged) of St. Catherine of Siena Wrote:So great is their foolishness that like blind men they give the office of the priesthood to idiots who scarcely know how to read and could never pray the Divine Office. Such men, who because of their ignorance do not know the sacramental words well, will often not consecrate.  So in their ignorance, they commit the same sin as those who maliciously do not consecrate, but only pretend to consecrate.  Therefore, superiors ought to choose men who are learned and virtuous, and who know and understand what they are saying. But these wretches do the opposite.  They are not concerned that a man be knowledgeable.  They are not concerned about his age.  In fact, it seems to give them pleasure to choose little boys instead of mature men.  They are not concerned either that they be holy and honorable in their living or that they know to what dignity they are coming or the great mystery that is theirs to celebrate. 
(this kind of stuff tends to be omitted in the abridged versions, probably so people didn’t get scrupulous about the validity of Masses)

One benefit of having a spoken aloud (and even vernacular) consecration is that everyone knows when the Mass is valid or not. 

(As an aside, a lot of people misunderstand the "intent" element of a valid sacrament and assume it means to explicit intend to bring about the actual effect of the sacrament, when it is a much lower bar: merely to intend to do what the Church does (even if one ignorant or wrong about what the Church actually does).  A priest, by using a rite approved by the Church, by definition intends to do what the Church does.  If, on his own authority, he changed the rite in a way not approved by the Church, coupled with the positive intention to exclude doing what the Church does, then this element would fail—he would be known to be intending something else.)



Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - SaintSebastian - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote: Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

I don't get how the "illicit" conclusion follows. The supreme legislator has declared it licit:

Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

2Vermont Wrote:Also, no one has answered my question up-thread:

WHY were any of these sacraments tampered with in the first place?  Was there something deficient in the Old Rites? Has the Church ever had a real answer for the necessity of the New (and improved...cough cough) Mass/sacraments? 

Hindsight is 20/20, but one thing is for certain, almost every bishop in the world thought something needed to be done at the time.  The Constitution on the Liturgy had only four dissenting votes, (and not from Lefebrve or de Castro Mayer).  Archbishop Lefebrve in his Open Letter said why he though reform was needed:

Archbishop Lefebrve Wrote:To begin with, I can say that in 1962 I was not opposed to the holding of a General Council. On the contrary, I welcomed it with great hopes. As present proof here is a letter I sent out in 1963 to the Holy Ghost Fathers and which has been published in one of my previous books.I wrote:“We  may say without hesitation, that certain liturgical reforms have been needed, and it is to be hoped that the Council will continue in this direction.” I recognized that a renewal was indispensable to bring an end to a certain sclerosis due to a gap which had developed between prayer, confined to places of worship, and the world of action-schools, the professions and public life.

Active participation was seen as the answer to this, thus the heavy emphasis on things thought to encourage active participation (simpler rites, vernacular, ad populum, audible canon, more Scripture lessons, etc.).  The main debate was on the degree of change necessary to do this. 


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 05:03 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: I don't get how the "illicit" conclusion follows. The supreme legislator has declared it licit:

Pius XII, Mediator Dei Wrote:58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
 

And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."



Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 04:12 PM)JoniCath Wrote: (4) takes a lot of nerve when you do not understand or accept Church teaching on PRIMACY OF CONSCIENCE.

If I made a mistake on Church teaching on conscience, I am more than happy to discuss it and see where I went wrong. 

Here is a thread where it can be discussed: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3460339.new.html#new


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

I'm not following your reasoning on this.  Others have already responded in basically the same way I was considering, so I will look to your response to their posts. 


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - DustinsDad - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 03:26 PM)lumine Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 02:08 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:58 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:37 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 11:54 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 05:36 PM)2Vermont Wrote: You know, I'm not sure these are the only possibilities.  I haven't considered it long enough.  But I will say that I find it hard to believe that after seeing 50 years of the fruits of this mass that anyone can believe that it is of God. 

So millions of Catholics have been unknowingly worshiping mere bread and wine every time they have gone to Mass or Eucharistic Adoration for the past 50 years?  There is no reason to get upset about EMHC's or treating the Eucharist with disrespect because hey, it isn't Jesus anyway right?   Those pictures of the Eucharist being passed around in a plastic cup at WYD are ultimately meaningless since it wasn't a valid Mass in the first place.   

OK, so now your posts just seem rude with the sarcasm.

I was not being sarcastic at all.  Not even in the slightest.  If you do not believe in the validity of the Mass. then you must believe at least the first point, and you have no legitimate reason to be concerned about the second two. 

Slightly related ... growing up I was at alot of masses where the matter used invalidated the Secret...bread mixed with honey and other things. I learned later that these additives made the matter for the Sacrament invalid...so no consecration and no Real Presence. I was born in 69, and on 70s and 80s, this was rampant in the US. Might still be in N.O. circles.

So what I'm saying is the notion that alot of people are not really worshipping and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist isn't so crazy as ya might think.

So, are we to believe that most NO parishes use such bread and so most NO parishes don't have the Eucharist?

I don't know how you got that from my post. I have no idea what bread most N.O. churches are using these days...just that I saw alot of this stuff growing up in the ol felt banner days of yesteryear. If your parish is using homemade crumbly bread that appears levened and tastes sweet like it has honey or something in it, you might want to ask your priest about it (this may be more frequent in ''teen'' or charismatic circles). If they are using the standard white round hosts, there'd be no reason to suspect invalid matter.





Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 05:48 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

I'm not following your reasoning on this.  Others have already responded in basically the same way I was considering, so I will look to your response to their posts. 

I guess my point was if valid, but illicit, the Eucharist is still confected.  I know that most here don't question either the validity or the licitness, but I was just pointing out that the results would be different if only illicit (ie. people would have been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation).


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Melchior - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 05:12 PM)2Vermont Wrote: And the Council of Trent:

"If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whosoever, let him be anathema."

I'm pretty sure those with legitimate authority can enact changes.  That, along with a nice hat, is a benefit of being to the Successor of Peter