FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - 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: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? (/showthread.php?tid=78566)

Pages: 1 2 3


Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - kbipp - 05-15-2017

I've recently come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is not a "form" of the Roman Rite but is actually a separate, distinct rite from the Traditional Latin Mass. Furthermore, it seems that what is prayed in the Novus Ordo is different than the TLM, such that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is obscured, the priest's unique role in the Mass, etc. It seems to be only barely Catholic.

If all this is true, it then seems to me that for a priest in the Latin Rite to offer the Novus Ordo Mass is unlawful (illicit, but valid) and he would be performing a schismatic act (objectively, at least), since the Novus Ordo rite is schismatic. I know that one who worships with heretics or schismatics sins by committing scandal; does that apply here? What if (like me) a person knows these things about the Novus Ordo and attends anyway for the possibility of establishing a TLM at the parish?


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - Florus - 05-15-2017

Just to be blunt here... your question is only valid if your premises are true, and I suggest that you re-examine them...


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - jovan66102 - 05-15-2017

(05-15-2017, 05:47 PM)Florus Wrote: Just to be blunt here... your question is only valid if your premises are true, and I suggest that you re-examine them...

Agreed.


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - MichaelNZ - 05-15-2017

The Novus Ordo is still a valid Mass. It may not be as full an expression of the Mass as the Tridentine Mass, but it is still a Mass. If it is the only option on Sunday, you are bound to go.

I have started attending daily NO Mass as there is no daily TLM where I live. The priest who offers our Sunday TLM is fine with this.


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - kbipp - 05-15-2017

Yeah, I realized that after I made the post, I'm terribly sorry.  If I could revise the topic to say "Help, I think I'm crazy because I believe that the Novus Ordo is not a form of the Roman Rite!" I would.

I believe that the NO and the TLM are two separate rites for the following reasons:

1. The NO was intended by its creators to be a new rite apart from what was handed down by Tradition.  I find John Salza's argument for this convincing, which I I'll link at the bottom[sup]1[/sup] (though I do wish he went into more detail about why the NO is different in substance from the TLM).  The NO as a distinct rite was also the conclusion Cardinal Ottaviani in his report to Pope Paul VI[sup]2[/sup] , although in fairness that was written before the revisions in 2011.

2. It has an un-Catholic spirit to it.  It seems to me, from comparing the words and actions of the priest between the NO and the TLM, that the notion of Christ's sacrifice and the unique role of the priesthood are so muddled it resembles a High Church kind of Protestantism than anything else.  You'd have to know beforehand that the priest offers the Sacrifice of Christ  in order to actually see the Mass for what it is; if you didn't know this, and you only had the English words of the NO to go on, I doubt you'd be lead to that truth.

3. The NO has different prayers, calendars, propers, lectionary, vestments, rubrics, etc.  If they're not separate rites they're trying really hard to give the appearance of being separate.  It would be easier to say the Carmelite or Dominican rite is a different form of the Roman Rite than it would be to say the NO is.

4. If the NO and the TLM were different forms of the same rite, from point 3 you would need to logically conclude that there is inherently disunity in the rite.

If the NO and TLM are two distinct rites, the next question to ask is "Would it be unlawful to offer the NO, even if it's entirely in Latin, with Gregorian Chant, etc.?"  I would argue that it is for the following reasons:

1. The things that the priest does and says in the NO seem to show that the Mass is not about offering the Sacrifice of Christ, but to either a) celebrate a commemorative meal, or b) call down Christ so that His whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are made truly present to us, and you might get either a or b depending on which Eucharistic prayer the priest uses. Even if you could argue on a technicality that this is false, it is true beyond doubt that the NO was intended to not be about the Sacrifice and obscure it's propitiatory nature. From Institutio Generalis, which is referenced in the Ottaviani report above[sup]2[/sup]:
Quote:"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
That quote above is almost literally condemned by Trent[sup]3[/sup]:
Quote:If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema. (Session 27, Canon 1)
Quote:If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema. (Session 27, Canon 3)

2. The things the priest says and does in the NO seem to show that the priest is something of a mere presider of the liturgy, rather than a consecrated man who offers the Sacrifice on our behalf and prays for us and the Church on our behalf. Evidence for this is the fact that the Judica Me was removed and the Offertory was so unbelievably butchered. Like the point above, it has a flavor of Protestantism.

3. It forbids priests from pronouncing the canon and the words of the consecration in a low tone, and vernacular is allowed. This, again, was condemned by Trent[sup]3[/sup]:
Quote:If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema. (Session 22, Canon 9)

4. The three points above, in addition to being huge problems in principle, has led people to adopt more Protestant views of the Mass and the Catholic Faith, because what is being prayed is more Protestant in nature, and people tend to believe what they pray over time (at least that's been my experience). I'm not going to argue that the NO was the sole reason for the massive amount of people leaving the Church, but it was one of the major ones.

If it is unlawful to offer the NO, it seems to me that it needs to be treated like we treat Protestant services; just as it is forbidden to worship in those services because of the possibility of scandal, the NO ought to be forbidden as well.  This then goes back to my original question: if all of the above are true, and I have full knowledge of it, then am I committing scandal? If it's not scandal, then what is it, and to what degree am I partaking in it? I hope this clears things up; sorry about earlier.

[1] http://scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/CFN%20-%20The%20Novus%20Ordo%20Mass%20and%20Divine%20Law.pdf
[2] http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
[3] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent22.htm


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - St. Camillus - 05-15-2017

(05-15-2017, 04:47 PM)kbipp Wrote: I've recently come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is not a "form" of the Roman Rite but is actually a separate, distinct rite from the Traditional Latin Mass. Furthermore, it seems that what is prayed in the Novus Ordo is different than the TLM, such that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is obscured, the priest's unique role in the Mass, etc. It seems to be only barely Catholic.

If all this is true, it then seems to me that for a priest in the Latin Rite to offer the Novus Ordo Mass is unlawful (illicit, but valid) and he would be performing a schismatic act (objectively, at least), since the Novus Ordo rite is schismatic. I know that one who worships with heretics or schismatics sins by committing scandal; does that apply here? What if (like me) a person knows these things about the Novus Ordo and attends anyway for the possibility of establishing a TLM at the parish?

Hi kbipp. Thank you for your post. I too believe that the Novus Ordo liturgy is valid, but illicit. This is not a matter of mere opinion. The dogmatic Council of Trent infallibly teaches:
Quote:If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13

The Novus Ordo liturgy is a novelty and not a "received and approved" rite of the Church. As such, it is illicit even if valid.

There are a few traditional Catholic priests and lay persons who have done an exceptional job of explaining why the conclusion you arrived at is true:

- John Salza, "The Implication of the Novus Ordo as a New Rite of Mass" http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20The%20Implications%20of%20the%20Novus%20Ordo%20as%20a%20New%20Rite%20of%20Mass.pdf

- Fr. Gregory Hesse, "Is the New Mass a Catholic Rite? The Church vs Paul VI"





- Fr. Paul Kramer, "Is Quo Primum Merely Disciplinary" http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/quo-primum.htm

Pope Benedict's claim that "the two expressions [the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass] of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite" is nothing but Orwellian 2+2 = 5 speak. Pope Benedict did not have the authority to nullify the divinely revealed dogma which declares that no pastor, whomsoever, can change the received and approved liturgical rites into other new ones.

As regards the question you raised in the original post, the Novus Ordo is a false worship service and as such it is a mortal sin for a priest to offer it and it is a sin for anyone to attend it or to support it in any way. The Novus Ordo is the Great Sacrilege because the primary reason that the devil inspired the Freemason infiltrators to create it was to get Catholic priests to stop offering the true Mass. It is only when one realizes that the primary reason the conspirators created the Novus Ordo was to make it so that less traditional Masses would be offered in the world that one can fully understand how big of a sacrilege the Novus Ordo is. All priests of the Roman Rite should be offering the received and approved liturgical rites exclusively. Imagine how different the world would be if every priest of the Roman Rite was offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively and then one can understand how wicked the Novus Ordo replacement liturgy is.






Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - GangGreen - 05-15-2017

Even if the NO is as you say valid, but illicit I fail to see how it's a mortal sin to attend or offer one if the priest and lay person believe it to be valid and licit. The Church proclaims it so, therefore a priest or lay person have no reason to believe it to be invalid so the conditions for sin cannot hold.


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - St. Camillus - 05-15-2017

(05-15-2017, 09:54 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Even if the NO is as you say valid, but illicit I fail to see how it's a mortal sin to attend or offer one if the priest and lay person believe it to be valid and licit. The Church proclaims it so, therefore a priest or lay person have no reason to believe it to be invalid so the conditions for sin cannot hold.

Your post comes off as very subjectivist. I find fault with the idea that a man won't be held culpable for committing the mortal sin of sacrilege unless he knows that what he is doing is sacrilegious. The reason I I find fault with this is because it is unimaginable to me that the Holy Ghost or a person's Guardian Angel would not try and inspire a Catholic to avoid something so displeasing to God as is, for example, Communion in the hand. To the extent that a Catholic resists such inspirations they are guilty of sin. Traditional Catholics have made a fair amount of noise over the last 50 years. Many Catholics in the Novus Ordo are aware that we are claiming to preserve a liturgy that is more pleasing to God and that better preserves and expresses the Catholic faith. If a person in the Novus Ordo comes across our claims and doesn't prayerfully investigate the matter, then their omission to do so is evidence of a serious contempt of God.

Your claim that the "Church proclaims it so" is false as the Church has dogmatically and infallibly proclaimed that no pastor, whomsoever, can change the received and approved rites into other new ones. 


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - Florus - 05-15-2017

(05-15-2017, 10:39 PM)St. Camillus Wrote:
(05-15-2017, 09:54 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Even if the NO is as you say valid, but illicit I fail to see how it's a mortal sin to attend or offer one if the priest and lay person believe it to be valid and licit. The Church proclaims it so, therefore a priest or lay person have no reason to believe it to be invalid so the conditions for sin cannot hold.

Your post comes off as very subjectivist. I find fault with the idea that a man won't be held culpable for committing the mortal sin of sacrilege unless he knows that what he is doing is sacrilegious. The reason I I find fault with this is because it is unimaginable to me that the Holy Ghost or a person's Guardian Angel would not try and inspire a Catholic to avoid something so displeasing to God as is, for example, Communion in the hand. To the extent that a Catholic resists such inspirations they are guilty of sin.

It's not subjectivist, it's what the Church teaches, one must have full knowledge of the offense for it to constitute a mortal sin, basic stuff. As for these "inspirations," there is no way of knowing if these individuals receive them, or if they comprehend them.


Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - Florus - 05-15-2017

As for the NO being a different rite, I do agree with you there. However that is not the issue. Its defective nature does not make illicit, it is a licit rite promulgated by the Church, it's a sad reality, but it is reality. Every rite is going to defective in some way of signifying the Holy Mysteries of the Eucharist, you can argue whether the Old Latin or Byzantine rite does a better job at that for example. All rites have their defects, the NO is significantly more defective in signifying the inner sacrificial reality present at the Mass, but this does not make it illicit.