Personal Ordinate of the Chair of St. Peter
#1
Does anyone know the theology of the Mass that this society celebrates and if it is licit or not. I've been attending their daily Mass and see a weird Novus Ordo/Tridentine Mass mixture and it's really bugging me out. I want to worship God the way he wants to be worshiped but sadly I don't have any Latin Masses near me to attend daily Mass and receive the Eucharist. And also if anybody has a clue, is the Byzantine rite of the Church still licit or has that been wrecked by the Vatican too?
Reply
#2
(07-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Patmappas28 Wrote: Does anyone know the theology of the Mass that this society celebrates and if it is licit or not. I've been attending their daily Mass and see a weird Novus Ordo/Tridentine Mass mixture and it's really bugging me out. I want to worship God the way he wants to be worshiped but sadly I don't have any Latin Masses near me to attend daily Mass and receive the Eucharist. And also if anybody has a clue, is the Byzantine rite of the Church still licit or has that been wrecked by the Vatican too?

I'm glad you asked. I wrote an article on this matter showing why the Anglican Ordinariate's Masses are questionable at best. I don't believe it is licit since it was invented hundreds of years after Quo Primum canonised the rites of the Catholic Church. For an illicit Mass, we err on the side of caution in terms of validity, not because we think it is intrinsically invalid, but because the dispositions of the celebrants might be towards "creativeness" in the liturgy.

http://reignofmary.blogspot.com/2018/06/...iates.html

Let me know what you think.
Reply
#3
(07-18-2018, 06:50 PM)Patmappas28 Wrote: Does anyone know the theology of the Mass that this society celebrates and if it is licit or not. I've been attending their daily Mass and see a weird Novus Ordo/Tridentine Mass mixture and it's really bugging me out. I want to worship God the way he wants to be worshiped but sadly I don't have any Latin Masses near me to attend daily Mass and receive the Eucharist. And also if anybody has a clue, is the Byzantine rite of the Church still licit or has that been wrecked by the Vatican too?

The theology of the Mass of the Ordinariates is Catholic, pure and simple. I'd give my right eyetooth, if I still had it, to have an Ordinariate Parish near me. And as to 'liceity' the NO is licit, the Anglican Use is licit, and the Eastern Rite uses are licit. If they are celebrated with proper form, matter, and intention, as the overwhelming majority are, they are valid as well.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Dominicana, Melkite
Reply
#4
(07-18-2018, 06:57 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: I don't believe it is licit since it was invented hundreds of years after Quo Primum canonised the rites of the Catholic Church. 

So you don't believe that the Mass that the vast, vast majority of Catholics attend is licit? It was 'invented hundreds of years after Quo Primum canonised the rites of the Catholic Church,' not that there is, was, or could be a 'canonisation' of the rites in the sense you seem to be implying.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Dominicana, Melkite
Reply
#5
It always just seemed like a Novus Ordo with prettier language to me. A lot like rewriting an edition of the National Enquirer in Shakespearean English.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • Mark Williams
Reply
#6
(07-18-2018, 07:12 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: It always just seemed like a Novus Ordo with prettier language to me. A lot like rewriting an edition of the National Enquirer in Shakespearean English.

That may very well be, but it in no way effects its liceity or validity.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#7
(07-18-2018, 07:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-18-2018, 07:12 PM)Credidi Propter Wrote: It always just seemed like a Novus Ordo with prettier language to me. A lot like rewriting an edition of the National Enquirer in Shakespearean English.

That may very well be, but it in no way effects its liceity or validity.

That's a bit rash.

It would be illicit for the priest to go around changing the Mass of Pius V. So too would it be illicit for the Pope to go around making his own Frankenstein Mass out of the Mass of Pius V, the New Mass and the Anglican prayers.

Validity is determined on the basis of whether the priest celebrant is an actual priest, and whether the words of consecration are pronounced in their most minimally-acceptable form, that is, "This Is My Body", "This Is My Blood". However it is illicit (mortally sinful) to knowingly omit "Mysterium Fidei" in its proper place in the Words of Consecration for the blood, which is one reason why the New Mass is evil.

It is a mortal sin to attend a Mass that we know to be illicit, or to be possibly doubtful.
Reply
#8
(07-18-2018, 08:11 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: That's a bit rash.

It would be illicit for the priest to go around changing the Mass of Pius V. So too would it be illicit for the Pope to go around making his own Frankenstein Mass out of the Mass of Pius V, the New Mass and the Anglican prayers.

Validity is determined on the basis of whether the priest celebrant is an actual priest, and whether the words of consecration are pronounced in their most minimally-acceptable form, that is, "This Is My Body", "This Is My Blood". However it is illicit (mortally sinful) to knowingly omit "Mysterium Fidei" in its proper place in the Words of Consecration for the blood, which is one reason why the New Mass is evil.

It is a mortal sin to attend a Mass that we know to be illicit, or to be possibly doubtful.

So according to you all Catholics who do not attend the TLM are effectively damned unless they repent of their "mortal sin" because two words are out of place despite the fact that 99% are ignorant? Good to know.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply
#9
(07-18-2018, 08:21 PM)Dominicus Wrote:
(07-18-2018, 08:11 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: That's a bit rash.

It would be illicit for the priest to go around changing the Mass of Pius V. So too would it be illicit for the Pope to go around making his own Frankenstein Mass out of the Mass of Pius V, the New Mass and the Anglican prayers.

Validity is determined on the basis of whether the priest celebrant is an actual priest, and whether the words of consecration are pronounced in their most minimally-acceptable form, that is, "This Is My Body", "This Is My Blood". However it is illicit (mortally sinful) to knowingly omit "Mysterium Fidei" in its proper place in the Words of Consecration for the blood, which is one reason why the New Mass is evil.

It is a mortal sin to attend a Mass that we know to be illicit, or to be possibly doubtful.

So according to you all Catholics who do not attend the TLM are effectively damned unless they repent of their "mortal sin" because two words are out of place despite the fact that 99% are ignorant? Good to know.

No.

A mortal sin is only a mortal sin when one knows it is a mortal sin.
Reply
#10
(07-18-2018, 08:51 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: No.

A mortal sin is only a mortal sin when one knows it is a mortal sin.

So it's not a mortal sin to not know what a mortal sin is but it is a mortal sin to to know that a mortal sin is a mortal sin?

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • Mark Williams
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)