Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#1
Hello all,

I have the incredible fortune of being able to attend a TLM every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, and for that I am grateful. However, the TLM is only offered on Sundays; if I want to receive the Eucharist during the week, I have to attend the NO (at a different Church). The problem is, the Masses there are abusive (glass chalices for the Precious Blood, lots of EM's, etc.) and in general hard to sit through- you've all been there.

My question is, given the abuses (especially the glass chalices), is it better to just not go and only attend Mass on weekends, or go for the sake of receiving the Eucharist?

I'd appreciate answers from NO friendly folks primarily; I don't think the NO is inherently wrong (although I of course prefer the TLM).
Reply
#2
Before deciding if you should attend this mass with its abuses, I think you should be sure it is the only option. Are there any other churches around? Look for eastern rites as well, they often are not as obvious.

I am very against those who say to miss mass when obligated because of the NO mass, however, I find it very hard to justify the attendence of a mass with abuses when one doesn't have a reason to go there.

Perhaps you could notify the bishop about these abuses? (Or if the bishop is involved, work your way up the chain).
Reply
#3
Go.

As such things go, those abuses seem rather minor. It would be a shame to withdraw yourself form the daily assembly those reasons. You may wish to bring your concerns to the priest after a few years, once you get to know the man.
Reply
#4
I understand you believe certain things about the New Mass, and I want to say something to you in charity and with the fullest respect for you and youre very commendable desire to receive the Eucharist daily, I think you should do a bit of reading into the New Mass, try googling the Ottaviani Intervention, or read the book the Great sacrilege, or anything by Michael Davies on the New Mass. There is plenty of evidence available to show that not only is the New Mass illicit, but it is immoral, and is indeed is a sin to attend it. It is not so much a matter of the abuses that (do indeed) go on during a new mass, it is the prayers of the New Mass itself (and the lack therof).

Again I dont mean to offend or cause a fight or something heated, but in fraternal charity and with the greatest respect for you I have to point that out.

God bless
Tradmav
Reply
#5
(04-17-2009, 07:30 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Before deciding if you should attend this mass with its abuses, I think you should be sure it is the only option. Are there any other churches around? Look for eastern rites as well, they often are not as obvious.

I am very against those who say to miss mass when obligated because of the NO mass, however, I find it very hard to justify the attendence of a mass with abuses when one doesn't have a reason to go there.

Perhaps you could notify the bishop about these abuses? (Or if the bishop is involved, work your way up the chain).

I'm on the same boat that if it's an obligatory Mass (Sundays and Holy Days), abuses or no, one should attend Mass. But as to this, it seems more complex. After all, I feel like my attendance at these Masses is approval of what is going on, especially as it is not obligatory to be there.

And it pretty much is my only option due to school- most local daily Masses are in the morning. I could attend a 6:15 AM Mass that is marginally better, but I always have to leave that Mass right after communion (or I'd be late to class), and I don't like having to do that.

I would notify the Bishop, but he doesn't mind these sorts of things.

(04-17-2009, 07:30 PM)Credo Wrote: Go.

As such things go, those abuses seem rather minor. It would be a shame to withdraw yourself form the daily assembly those reasons. You may wish to bring your concerns to the priest after a few years, once you get to know the man.

To me the Sacred Species (I forgot to add the Sacred Hosts are kept in glass too) deserve proper vessels. I may not be well versed as many on here about liturgical matters, but to me that seems kind of big.

And I have talked to the priest about it, but he only said "The Bishop does it." Can't really get much more out of him than that.

(04-17-2009, 07:44 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: I understand you believe certain things about the New Mass, and I want to say something to you in charity and with the fullest respect for you and youre very commendable desire to receive the Eucharist daily, I think you should do a bit of reading into the New Mass, try googling the Ottaviani Intervention, or read the book the Great sacrilege, or anything by Michael Davies on the New Mass. There is plenty of evidence available to show that not only is the New Mass illicit, but it is immoral, and is indeed is a sin to attend it. It is not so much a matter of the abuses that (do indeed) go on during a new mass, it is the prayers of the New Mass itself (and the lack therof).

Again I dont mean to offend or cause a fight or something heated, but in fraternal charity and with the greatest respect for you I have to point that out.

God bless
Tradmav

I've read those critiques, but I'm not sold on them. I've been to some NO Masses that were quite edifying- the Roman Canon, all the proper vestments (including maniples and chalice veils), Latin, Communion kneeling and on the tongue, only distributed by priests, etc. It didn't seem much different than an organically developed TLM.  I think the prayers of the TLM are superior (especially the Offertory), but I don't see anything in the New Mass that is inherently bad if celebrated in an orthodox fashion.

Reply
#6
If we're not glorifying God by the Sacrifice of the Mass, we are doing Him a great injustice. Recall the story of the saint who beheld the consecrated Hosts as the Infant Jesus being distributed at communion to soldiers during a period of war. Everytime the priest approached a soldier who was unworthy to receive communion, the Christ Child would struggle to get away from the fingers of the priest and would earnestly try to leap from the mouth of any soldier not clothed in a wedding garment. If God Himself wouldn't want to be there (and if His own presence in the Sacred Species would grieve Him for fear of sacrilege at the hands of His own priest through whom the sacrifice is effected), why are we there?

Edit: Typo
Reply
#7
(04-17-2009, 08:18 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: I've read those critiques, but I'm not sold on them. I've been to some NO Masses that were quite edifying- the Roman Canon, all the proper vestments (including maniples and chalice veils), Latin, Communion kneeling and on the tongue, only distributed by priests, etc. It didn't seem much different than an organically developed TLM.  I think the prayers of the TLM are superior (especially the Offertory), but I don't see anything in the New Mass that is inherently bad if celebrated in an orthodox fashion.


I understand what youre saying, believe me I do, I spent a number of months in a religous order in the U.S that say the New Mass in such a fashion. Very reverent, in Latin, facing the altar, very carefully and with the best of intentions.
But if you do not see a problem with the New Mass then you have not read these critiques properly.

"[i][i][i]And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made in the old rite with the prayer "Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation," has been suppressed--and replaced with *nothing.* The change in the formula reveals the change in doctrine[/i][/i][/i]." - the ottaviani intervention

"Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates:

- Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one of the faithful at the moment of the Consecration
- Purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice
- Preserving the priest's fingers from all profane contact after the Consecration
- Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal
- Protecting the contents of the chalice with the pall
- Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels
- Solemn consecration for movable altars
- Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic dinners" in private houses.)
- Three cloths on the altar--reduced to one
- Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving--a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.
- All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently." (*18)
All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.
" - - the ottaviani intervention

"The Novus Ordo's Eucharistic Prayer III addresses the following prayers to the Lord:

    From age to age you gather a people to yourself, *so that* from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

The "so that" in the passage makes it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are the indispensable element in the celebration.
Since it is never made clear, even here, who offers the sacrifice, the people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers. (*35) From this step, it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were permitted to join with the priest if pronouncing the words of Consecration. Indeed, in some places this has already happened.
" - the ottaviani intervention

Look I could quote it all day, but at the end of the day, the point would still be the same,
I came to the conclusion that the problem wasnt just mainly the vestments, the language, the external signs(not speaking about gestures), that were the cause of the crisis, or the reason why it was impermissible to attend the Novus Ordo, it was the doctrine, the doctrinal problems, as a famous apologist said, 'at the heart New Mass there is a lie', referring the change in Our Blessed Lords words, from 'many' to 'all' (Im sure you know the argument I wont insult you by going on about it). The so called 'smells and bells' can be fooling to people, because their very purpose is to elevate the mind and heart to God in prayer, thus fooling the person (who probably cant speak Latin fluently) into ignoring the prayers (or lack thereof) of the New Mass. What matters is the faith.

So I would invite you (I dont necessarily mean here, its up to you), to dissect these critiques, and if you can - through logical means, using theological arguments, refute the points made by these venerable authors, then by all mean attend the New Mass, but to my knowledge there is not one work that can hit point for point any of these critiques.

Im only trying to help friend, so please dont take my comments to be condemnative or putting you down, you put me to shame with your pious aspirations to adore the blessed Lord in the Eucharist. Please pray that I may have even a part of your devotion!

God Bless
Tradmav
Reply
#8
(04-17-2009, 08:18 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: And I have talked to the priest about it, but he only said "The Bishop does it." Can't really get much more out of him than that.

I looked it up and newadvent says:

Quote:According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside. In circumstances of great poverty or in time of persecution a calix stanneus (pewter) may be permitted, but the bowl of this also, like the upper surface of the paten, must be gilt. Before the chalice and paten are used in the Sacrifice of the Mass they require consecration. This rite is carried out according to a form specially provided in the "Pontificale" and involving the use of holy chrism. The consecration must be performed by a bishop (or in the case of chalices intended for monastic use, by an abbot possessing the privilege), and a bishop cannot in an ordinary way delegate any priest to perform this function in his place. Further, if the chalice lose its consecration -- which happens for example if it be broken or the cup perforated, or even if it has had to be sent to have the bowl regilded—it is necessary that it should be reconsecrated by the bishop before it can again be used. Strictly speaking, only priests and deacons are permitted to touch the chalice or paten, but leave is usually granted to sacristans and those officially appointed to take charge of the vestments and sacred vessels.

I do not know where this law is defined, but if you find that and present it to the people involved, they will not be able to claim ignorance. If they continue to knowlingly break the law, I would assume they reject the authority of the Church and as such should be avoided except in emergencies.
Reply
#9
(04-17-2009, 08:52 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: referring the change in Our Blessed Lords words, from 'many' to 'all' (Im sure you know the argument I wont insult you by going on about it).

The Latin text is fine with that translation and the new English translations coming out have fixed that.


Reply
#10
(04-17-2009, 08:57 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(04-17-2009, 08:52 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: referring the change in Our Blessed Lords words, from 'many' to 'all' (Im sure you know the argument I wont insult you by going on about it).

The Latin text is fine with that translation and the new English translations coming out have fixed that.

Like trying to bail out the Titanic with a saucepan!
The reform of the reform is as much a sinking ship as the original. And besides how many are actually going to say the New translations? I cant imagine my Parish Priest doing it! ha -he'll laugh it off - if he even gives it that much thought!

Even if everybody accepted it would that then solve all the problems attached to the News Mass? Would it counter every argument made by its opposition?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)