Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
(04-27-2009, 05:33 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: Is there even one reason you can think of why one would drop such a document from the Roman Missal - the one book that requires it????

It changed. That document is an addition to the Council of Trent, not dogmatic definition. The papal decree belongs to the category:

Matt 16:19 And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Whatever a person bins, he or his successor could loose later. So did the Church.  Apparently you want to deny the loosing power from the Church.

Otherwise the words wich represented the form of the Eucharist did not changed in the Mass


hoc est enim Corpus meum
...
hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Reply
And yet they did not replace with any other document regarding the validity of the Mass!

Are you telling me that all the things mentioned in Dei Defectibus(excepting those one which only pertain to the old mass ) no longer are necessary to place at the beginning of the missal???

Things like:

35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium.

36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated.


or


27. If a priest celebrates Mass in a state of mortal sin or under some ecclesiastical penalty, he does celebrate a valid Sacrament, but he sins most grievously.

23. The intention of consecrating is required. Therefore there is no consecration in the following cases: when a priest does not intend to consecrate but only to make a pretense; when some hosts remain on the altar forgotten by the priest, or when some part of the wine or some host is hidden, since the priest intends to consecrate only what is on the corporal; when a priest has eleven hosts before him and intends to consecrate only ten, without determining which ten he means to consecrate. On the other hand, if he thinks there are ten, but intends to consecrate all that he has before him, then all will be consecrated. For that reason every priest should always have such an intention, namely the intention of consecrating all the hosts that have been Placed on the corporal before him for consecration.

24. If the priest thinks that he is holding one host but discovers after the Consecration that there were two hosts stuck together, he is to consume both when the time comes. If after receiving the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, he finds other consecrated pieces, large or small, he is to consume them, because they belong to the same sacrifice.

25. If, however, a whole consecrated host is left, he is to put it into the tabernacle with the others that are there; if this cannot be done, he is to consume it.

26. It may be that the intention is not actual at the time of the Consecration because the priest lets his mind wander, yet is still virtual, since he has come to the altar intending to do what the Church does. In this case the Sacrament is valid. A priest should be careful, however, to make his intention actual also.


or how about this:

Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

      HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried. If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.


"Whatever a person bins, he or his successor could loose later. So did the Church.  Apparently you want to deny the loosing power from the Church."

As i clearly explained in an earlier post  - quo primum was never abrogated so it is still in effect. Missale Romanum does not abrogate Quo Primum, Im not denying any 'loosing power' as you curiously put it, Im saying nothing was 'loosened'.


"Otherwise the words wich represented the form of the Eucharist did not changed in the Mass"

.....you forgot MYSTERIUM FIDEI.......

I quote the great sacrilege by Fr.James Wathen OSJ underlining and bold is mine. (no point in me trying to argue it, when I can do much better by quoting him)

" Have you wondered why this phrase "Mysterium Fidei" was taken from the hitherto inviolable Consecration Form of the wine? In his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Pope Paul says, "The words mysterium fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful." Appendix II, Par. 6). This is saying what had happened to these words, not why!

    If you ask the "play-wrights", they will tell you this phrase in the True Mass is an interruption in the narrative of the consecration of the wine by our Divine Savior. It is a break in the thought, they will say; it is not scriptural. All of a sudden, you see, they feign great scholarliness. After making a veritable shambles of the entire Liturgy of the Roman Rite through the most egregious mistranslations, silly interpolations, and needless omissions and dislocations, they have the temerity to claim that their itchy-fingered meddling is inspired by devotion to the Sacred Scriptures. Their fancied biblicism betrays them here, however, since as Fr. Jungmann points out, liturgical usage pre-dates the Scriptures, and even explains the divergencies among the various accounts of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament.

       
        "In all the known liturgies the core of the eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre-biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that the Eucharist was celebrated long before the evangelists and St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies in the biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this fact. For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the first generation of Christians". 44. The Mass of the Roman Rite. Jungmann. Vol 2. pp. 194-195.

    Though there was during the years gone by no little discussion about both the exact meaning of the words "mysterium fidei" in the context of the Consecration formula, and the date of their introduction into it, that they are an essential part of the Form of Consecration is not in any way open to question. Consider the following Monitum from the Holy Office in 1958:

        "This Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words "mysterium fidei" in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.

          Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books. (cf. Can. 1399, 10).

          Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of 14 February, 1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments". 45. "Omission of the Words 'Mysterium Fidei' in the Consecration of the Chalice." A Monitum of the Holy Office dated July 24, 1958, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Vol. 50, p. 536.

    Clearly the removal of this phrase is a very serious violation of the law of the Church - this, aside from the question of whether its removal in the present instance may contribute to rendering the "New Mass" invalid. Regardless, in this writing we are more concerned with the morality of the "New Mass," which, as we have said before, is a more basic issue. Now the reader should keep in mind that fulfilling the law of the Church is a moral obligation so that a serious violation of the law is mortally sinful and render the Mass sacrilegious. This sinfulness derives from the illegality, and the illegality derives from the intrinsic wrongfulness of the act itself (a violation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist), the Church having made the law to point out the sin. To violate the law, therefore, is to violate the Sacrament.

        " If anyone adds or takes away anything (from the form of Consecration of the Body and the Blood,) even if he does not change the meaning of the form, he does confect (the Sacrament), but he sins grievously". 46. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus, Ch. V.

    If this not edifying then? The highest authorities of the Church are found appealing to the Divine Scriptures, while committing a desecration against the Form of the most Holy Sacrament, and attempting to oblige priests to participate in the sin-and in most cases, succeeding. This is another choice example of the phariseism of the "reform."

    The Critique of the Roman Theologians on the "Novus Ordo" considers that there may well be a case of invalidity here. The removal of the words "mysterium fidei" may not have been as harmless as it appeared. And the argument hinges upon the fact that the forms of Consecration have been made part of the Last Supper narrative. To quote the Critique:

          "The narrative mode is now underlined by the formula: "Narratio institutionis" (No. 55d), and backed up by the definition of the commeration, where it is said that "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit."" (No. 55c). (The Church acts in memory of Christ Himself.)

          "In short, the theory proposed for the epiclesis, (i.e., the prayer, Qui Pridie) the modification of the words of the Consecration and of the commemoration have the effect of changing the true import of the words of Consecration. The consecration formulae are now pronounced by the priest as part of a historic narration, and no longer expresses a categorical affirmation on the part of Him in Whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (This is my Body") (and not: "Hoc est Corpus Christi" (This is the Body of Christ.") "47. Critique. p. 13.

    In reference to these words, footnote number 15 of the Critique says:

          "The words of the Consecration, as they appear in the context of the "Novus Ordo", may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum (by the force of the words used) or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (way of signifying) which they have had till now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the "Novus Ordo" in order to [i][i]"do what the Church does"[/i]
make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it." 48. Ibid.

    The Critique has been proved correct beyond all doubt. There are hundreds of priests who Certainly do not validly consecrate, due to their complete incapacity of forming the correct intention; and their number increases daily. Steeped as many are in the rationalistic faithlessness of Revolutionism, they have only the most distorted, confused, and even cynical view of traditional Catholic doctrine. Faith in the dogma of the Eucharist and even in the divinity of Christ is quite beyond many of them.

    Nor should that other body of erst-while celebrants be forgotten. I refer to those whose dull-witted indifference to such supernal matters as the absolute necessity of proper forms and intentions for the confection of the Sacraments (such as is manifested by their robot-like readiness to do anything, say anything, or preach anything which bears the signature of their hierarchical custodians), bespeaks a very questionable faith; or rather, suggests that they have so completely surrendered their minds and wills to their Masonic masters, that they are quite incapable of having any intention different from, or contrary to, what is programmed into them.

    In the "Novus Ordo" the intention of re-enacting the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner is not in clear evidence. It is deliberately not in evidence because it needs to be acceptable to the innumerable priests who do not share Holy Mother Church's intentions with respect to the Mass, who do not believe in their own power of transubstantiation, nor in the need for such a power. Also, the "New Mass" had to be made acceptable to Protestant ministers, which of course it is. Many of them participate in it with joyful gusto, under the impression that finally the Roman Catholic Church has been converted to true Christianity, or at least is showing remarkable promise.  [/i]"


God Bless
Tradmav
Reply
I grown up in a Church which was built in the early 18th Century. In the sacristy there was a little sink, which led to nowhere deep below the Church. This was the definite suitable place to pour the possible remainders of the Eucharist. In the new Churches there were no such to pour, so the professors of the liturgy were in trouble how to define the suitable place. I personally believe, if a practical faith related question cannot be answered in generic terms better to leave it without legislation.

As for the celebrating mass in state of mortal sin, was laxer then taking (it is not receiving) the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin by a layperson. The priest should try the act of contrition and making confession as soon as possible, the layperson should stay away from the communion. I do not know how and when it changed. When I left Hungary in 1981 people did not lined up for communion, except for Easter time and after the Advent mission only a few went to receive the Eucharist. Over here I was stunned that everyone is saint, and found documents that this process started immediately after 1970, may be earlier.

The probable reason is the redefinition of the mortal sin. There was a seriuos movement in the first half of the 20th Century to turn the moraltheology from the prohibition, to the assertions of the positive values.

Between the early 18th Century and the middle of the 20th Century the sexual sins (masturbation, premarital sex) where overemphasized, and became the only mortal sins for the majority. During the sixties in the West they became re-emphasized without emphasizing other areas, which are equally important for the Christian life: God in the public life, dignity of life, the integrity of the family, social justice, global awarness. The Novus Ordo Mass put in the Confiteor the sins of omission, but this remained mere words, without any doctrinal teaching behind it, and in most Churches the Confiteor itself was abolished too.

I am not sure that this partial redefinition of the mortal sin was from the Church and it is almost certainly bad direction, which is shown by the catastrophic lack of priestly vocations.

laszlo


(04-28-2009, 08:05 AM)tradmaverick Wrote: And yet they did not replace with any other document regarding the validity of the Mass!

Are you telling me that all the things mentioned in Dei Defectibus(excepting those one which only pertain to the old mass ) no longer are necessary to place at the beginning of the missal???

Things like:

35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium.

36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated.


or


27. If a priest celebrates Mass in a state of mortal sin or under some ecclesiastical penalty, he does celebrate a valid Sacrament, but he sins most grievously.
v
Reply
(04-28-2009, 09:58 AM)glgas Wrote: I grown up in a Church which was built in the early 18th Century. In the sacristy there was a little sink, which led to nowhere deep below the Church. This was the definite suitable place to pour the possible remainders of the Eucharist. In the new Churches there were no such to pour, so the professors of the liturgy were in trouble how to define the suitable place. I personally believe, if a practical faith related question cannot be answered in generic terms better to leave it without legislation.

As for the celebrating mass in state of mortal sin, was laxer then taking (it is not receiving) the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin by a layperson. The priest should try the act of contrition and making confession as soon as possible, the layperson should stay away from the communion. I do not know how and when it changed. When I left Hungary in 1981 people did not lined up for communion, except for Easter time and after the Advent mission only a few went to receive the Eucharist. Over here I was stunned that everyone is saint, and found documents that this process started immediately after 1970, may be earlier.

The probable reason is the redefinition of the mortal sin. There was a seriuos movement in the first half of the 20th Century to turn the moraltheology from the prohibition, to the assertions of the positive values.

Between the early 18th Century and the middle of the 20th Century the sexual sins (masturbation, premarital sex) where overemphasized, and became the only mortal sins for the majority. During the sixties in the West they became re-emphasized without emphasizing other areas, which are equally important for the Christian life: God in the public life, dignity of life, the integrity of the family, social justice, global awarness. The Novus Ordo Mass put in the Confiteor the sins of omission, but this remained mere words, without any doctrinal teaching behind it, and in most Churches the Confiteor itself was abolished too.

I am not sure that this partial redefinition of the mortal sin was from the Church and it is almost certainly bad direction, which is shown by the catastrophic lack of priestly vocations.

laszlo

I wouldnt agree there about the first point, the Church clearly sets out what to do in every eventuallity - the solution for your problem there with the New Churches - is to build the Church properly not to leave out legislation because the Church doesnt take the Blessed Sacrament into account. This is why Dei Defectibus was published - because of abuses which were obviously going on at the time.


I totally agree with you about the redefintion of mortal sin, its not even mentioned anymore - i cant count the amount of times that a Priest told me 'thats not a mortal sin' or 'we dont think of things like that anymore'.


Reply
I grown up in Hungary in the communist years, when in the whole country only one Church was built in 40 years, planned and financed by an Englishman, who during the war bombed down the Church of that village and later built a new one on the place. For me the new Churches were built during the papacy of Pius XI, who hardly can be considered as modernist.  The reverence toward the blessed Sacrament diminished slowly. The point was the Emmanuel concept, Christ is One of us, and as we are not sacred = set aside, neither He in the Eucharist is entirely different from the earthly life.

Now we are on the other side of the balanced truth, with the total lack of reverence, but this does not mean that to attend a valid but irreverent Mass is worse then omit the obligation to attend valid mass.. The Church approving the New Mass and omitting to excommunicate for the lack of reverence is still the One Saint Catholic and Apostolic Church, and we shall want this unity, until it is a unity.  I don't know how long, and we shall be prepared for the time when the Pope will be outside of this One Saint Catholic and Apostolic Church, but Benedict XVI is inside as the earthly head of it, and his efforts are going to positive direction.

laszlo


(04-28-2009, 11:26 AM)tradmaverick Wrote: I wouldnt agree there about the first point, the Church clearly sets out what to do in every eventuallity - the solution for your problem there with the New Churches - is to build the Church properly not to leave out legislation because the Church doesnt take the Blessed Sacrament into account. This is why Dei Defectibus was published - because of abuses which were obviously going on at the time.


I totally agree with you about the redefintion of mortal sin, its not even mentioned anymore - i cant count the amount of times that a Priest told me 'thats not a mortal sin' or 'we dont think of things like that anymore'.
Reply
I went to a NO mass this morning and was appalled at the numerous abuses and heresy taught there. The homily was about how priests have had it all wrong for millennia. He went on to say that the kingdom of God is within each of us and he basically said that sin is irrelevant, that we are all good, holy and perfect to begin with and that we should convince ourselves of that. He also sang the NO version of the Ave and I thought they were going to break out into Kumbaya near the end. Hand holding during the Pater Noster was also wide spread there. Due to the invalid consecration (the priest changed the form and made clear his intention was not that of the Church), I left as the congregation started forward. I don't understand why these things happen, but it saddens and frustrates me to see and hear them for myself.
Reply
(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.

spoken like a true mohamedin


how amazing that the mullah wrote this before he became an apostate...

So yeah by all means go where there are abuses.......go go go....
Reply
(12-12-2010, 10:57 PM)paxvobiscum23 Wrote: I went to a NO mass this morning and was appalled at the numerous abuses and heresy taught there. The homily was about how priests have had it all wrong for millennia. He went on to say that the kingdom of God is within each of us and he basically said that sin is irrelevant, that we are all good, holy and perfect to begin with and that we should convince ourselves of that. He also sang the NO version of the Ave and I thought they were going to break out into Kumbaya near the end. Hand holding during the Pater Noster was also wide spread there. Due to the invalid consecration (the priest changed the form and made clear his intention was not that of the Church), I left as the congregation started forward. I don't understand why these things happen, but it saddens and frustrates me to see and hear them for myself.

Shoot, you can't call that abuses, looks like you merely attended a NO that has been almost fully implemented and understood.

These things will continue to happen so long as folks keep going........but you should not consider these things abuses.

The NOs that have not gotten to out of hand yet are just draggin their feet - give 'em time.


Reply
I sort of read through this entire thread, and it is the same thing as always.  They try to justify their going to the N.O. Mass by stating that it is a licit, valid Mass.  They say that receiving Communion is all that matters, even if the priest preaches modernism and outright heresy, old women pass out the Host like cookies, little girls serve at the "altar" (really a table) and women read and speak openly in Mass.  These atrocities are regular at almost ANY Novus Ordo Mass, but there are much more than just those that go on quite regularly. Once they finally realize that the validity of the N.O. Mass is NOT the issue, then they may finally start to get somewhere.  Most trads who completely shun the N.O. are quite aware that it is a valid Mass - we refuse to attend because the N.O. is an usurper rite, and the SACRILEGE is the issue, not the validity.  The N.O. Mass was designed to allow these kinds of abuses, these kinds of sacrileges.  Therefore, logic simply dictates that the N.O. Mass, by its very essence, is a sacrilege in itself because it is a stripped down, defaced version of the True Mass.  If the laws and definition of sacrilege apply to the defacing of, for example, a crucifx, a holy thing - then how much more does the definition of sacrilege apply to the most holy thing we know, the Mass?  The architects of the New Mass (among them being Protestants and a very suspected Freemason bishop) began with what they knew, which was the TLM.  They intentionally defaced the TLM to produce the New Mass by way of mutilation and fabrication.  This has been admitted when they said they would strip away Catholicism from the Mass!  How is this not the quintessential definition of sacrilege?  Therefore, the N.O. Mass is by the strictest terms of the definition a sacrilege.
Reply
(12-17-2010, 08:02 PM)Nic Wrote: I sort of read through this entire thread, and it is the same thing as always.  They try to justify their going to the N.O. Mass by stating that it is a licit, valid Mass.  They say that receiving Communion is all that matters, even if the priest preaches modernism and outright heresy, old women pass out the Host like cookies, little girls serve at the "altar" (really a table) and women read and speak openly in Mass.  These atrocities are regular at almost ANY Novus Ordo Mass, but there are much more than just those that go on quite regularly. Once they finally realize that the validity of the N.O. Mass is NOT the issue, then they may finally start to get somewhere.  Most trads who completely shun the N.O. are quite aware that it is a valid Mass - we refuse to attend because the N.O. is an usurper rite, and the SACRILEGE is the issue, not the validity.  The N.O. Mass was designed to allow these kinds of abuses, these kinds of sacrileges.  Therefore, logic simply dictates that the N.O. Mass, by its very essence, is a sacrilege in itself because it is a stripped down, defaced version of the True Mass.  If the laws and definition of sacrilege apply to the defacing of, for example, a crucifx, a holy thing - then how much more does the definition of sacrilege apply to the most holy thing we know, the Mass?  The architects of the New Mass (among them being Protestants and a very suspected Freemason bishop) began with what they knew, which was the TLM.  They intentionally defaced the TLM to produce the New Mass by way of mutilation and fabrication.  This has been admitted when they said they would strip away Catholicism from the Mass!  How is this not the quintessential definition of sacrilege.  Therefore, the N.O. Mass is by the strictest terms of the definition a sacrilege.

Ditto!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)