How bad would a Novus Ordo Mass have to be to justify not attending?
#41
(05-02-2009, 04:07 PM)tradmaverick Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 03:40 PM)kjvail Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 03:37 PM)tradmaverick Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 01:31 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 01:29 PM)kjvail Wrote: I guess I'm a radical.
Are you free as well? Take some anti-oxidants.

Quote:I won't go to the NO, not even the one at Holy Rosary which is arguably "reverent".
What if it were your only choice and you had an obligation to attend? A few years ago, I'd say I'd never go the NO, but alas, it is all I can reach now.


Thats a tough one alright, I know how it is, it can be almost impossible to get to the old Mass sometimes, - and sometimes for a long long period of time.
I myself only get to go to Mass twice a month - I know that probably brilliant in your position cause you cant reach it anymore. Ill say a few prayers for you if like!

But what myself and my wife do on the remaining sundays is read through our Missal, pray our Rosary and sanctify out Sunday as best we can, theres nothing Id love better than to go to our local parish and go to Mass, but sadly it remains that it is a sin to do so for us (based on the theological reasons the SSPX and others provide,), I know different traditional Catholics have different opinions on this so Im not accusing anybody of anything, were all doing our best at the end of the day and none of us want to go to the New Mass.

Although I have heard some weird things in my time as a traddy - I heard about some group up on the east coast -somewhere near New York I think that went to some independent chapel - the Priest died, they would go the Novus Ordo and they would go to the SSPX, so they put up a big monitor and watched the Priests Masses every Sunday (the Priest who died that is).

I have to say, on this, I think the society is largely correct.
The NO mass is valid AS IT IS WRITTEN. But, I've never seen it celebrated according to the rubics - ad populum, no Latin, communion in the hand... these are components of the most reverent of NOs. I can't do it and there are much deeper theological reasons too.
A good read, if you have the head for advanced theology, is Catherine Pickstock, After Writing: The Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. It'll change the way you look at things.


Really? Sounds interesting can you tell me anymore about it?

I agree with you on your point it really isnt about just the pure rubrics of the new Mass, it can be deceptively traditional looking, if done strictly according to the book and in Latin etc (I was in an order that done this)
The reality is its about more than the language of Latin, or incense or anything like that, more than the  'smells and bells' as they say. Its about doctrine - is the New Mass truly Catholic? Even in its Latin form. If it is then we cant really argue, if its not, then it doesn't fulfill our obligation anyway, so we dont have to go. Of course like you said there are much deeper theological reasons, thats just kind of a common sense reason, you could go on for pages and pages why a Catholic doesnt have to attend the New Mass.

But even as its written there is considerable debate about whether its valid -me personally although I would argue that it is doubtful (because there is probable doubt) (the fact that our Lord did say mysterium fidei (it isnt just a custom, he said it) and for many etc), I would tend to think that it is valid (based on St.Thomas Aquinas' opinon and the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci), but certainly no can say it isnt being debated, that there isnt any arguments that say it isnt invalid.

But I would tend to agree with the good Cardinal as they said in their critique:

" As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it."

I think the issue of validity in the N.O will get worse as time goes on, unless younger Priests who are coming up have better ideas on things. my own parish Priest in my hometown would constantly harp on about the Mass not being obligatory and that 'were all here because we want to be not because we have to be'.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if I can communicate her thesis clearly. Lemme try using a review from Amazon that I think is accurate.
""Her thesis: outside liturgy, as embodied in the traditional Mass, there can be no meaning. The first half of her book examines the crucial role of praise of the divine, or 'doxology,' in the philosophy and culture of the ancient world. She explains how, with the coming of Christendom, the doxological dimension of antique thought was brought to a fuller realization in early liturgical texts, and thereby shaped the culture and politics of civilization of the pre-modern era."

I think that's pretty accurate and better than I could do in as few words. She is talking about things that don't fit into words real well. The "liturgical and doxological" nature of language and a view of reality that is completely alien to the modern, which she draws from Plato Phaedrus and the Tridentine rite.

It's a book in the school of "Radical Orthodoxy" and is extremely difficult to parse if you don't have an advanced knowledge of post-modern theology, Thomism and modern philosophy. It's an academic work for academics but its worth the effort.
Reply
#42
Thank you it sounds very interesting, you know what I think Im going to get out the credit card....thanks... (interesting that the Mass could have such an effect on the way one thinks isnt it?)
God Bless
Tradmav
Reply
#43
(05-01-2009, 05:02 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(05-01-2009, 04:58 PM)NonSumDignus Wrote: I'd say such a Mass is inappropriate to attend out of devotion (weekday Masses), but on Sunday an obligation is an obligation. If it's pretty bad though (and I know what that's like, I've seen some whoppers), maybe you can just sit in the back and pray a 15 decade Rosary- which usually takes 45 minutes to an hour, just enough to get through the Mass.

You know, that seems like a valid option, but I want to point something out just for the sake of argument.

One of the big points of the Novus Ordo Missae was to be inclusive with the laity.  It calls for people to respond and stuff.  For example, when I find that I have to be at a Novus Ordo, I do the responses.  Why? Because that's the rubrics, that's what we're supposed to do even though I hate it.  I hate TLM dialogue Masses, too.  But I say the black, do the red.

If we go to a Novus Ordo and sit there like lumps, it seems to me in many ways we are not fulfilling our obligation, really, and in some ways are no better than the priest who ignores the rubrics.

Something to think about at least.

That's a point. I never thought about that.

However, given that Baskerville's priest doesn't say Mass properly and fails to give the parts to which the faithful respond, I don't think the Faithful are under the same kind of obligation to dialogue. If the priest says "The Liberator be with you" instead of "The Lord be with you", one doesn't have to respond "And also with you" because the "liberator" ad-lib isn't even part of the Mass. Once the priest moves back onto the rubrical traintracks one could (and should) then respond accordingly, but if that never happens one could "sit there like a lump", waiting for the priets to fulfill his obligation to offer a liturgically correct Mass to God for the congregation.
Reply
#44
(05-02-2009, 11:26 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 10:42 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Ok, thank you. I'll stop asking for it then. I had heard this was true, but I didn't want to believe that they had actually removed all reference to the very Purpose of the Mass.

Here is the side by side comparison of the New Mass and Tridentine Mass (both English)

http://www.the-pope.com/missals.html

It worth to search for the word 'sacrifice' before making judgment.
The comparison is enough to make me gag. From the very beginning you can see the intense systematic butchering of the masonic modernists.



Prayers at the foot of the alter                                                        Priest kisses alter goes to his chair and greets the people.


Psalm 42                                                                                  Greeting

What crud.
Reply
#45
(05-02-2009, 12:45 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-02-2009, 12:36 PM)glgas Wrote: The opposite is defined as legal principle since the Roman Law: Impedimentum dubium, impedimentum nullum. Doubtful obstacle, no obstacle. You must have clear evidence for rejection. This is the same principle that everyone is innocent, until proven guilty.

I want JPM to justify his statements. He claimed that a "doubtful" sacrament is the cause of mortal sin for its participants. This is a very serious statement. Who has to doubt it? The celebrant or the participants or anyone? The claim something is a mortal sin with vague criteria is very dangerous.

gigas's statement is accurate and relevant.  It has always been the teaching of the Church that one cannot approach a doubtful sacrament.  It is the teaching of Catholic moral theology and has been confirmed by Popes Innocent III and Innocent XI.     The quaification is that one cannot refuse on the basis of negative doubt of general suspicion or doubt.  It must be a Positive doubt . That is to say a real supicion of defect in matter or form.  A good reference such as Heribert Jone's Moral Theology is useful for determining how to assess whether and how such doubt exists.
In all matters of the sacraments, the Church requires that one must always choose the safer course. If one does not heed and chooses the more dangerous or uncertain option, that is a sin.
All the faithful do not have a theological background and thus many times have to rely upon thier "Sensus Fidelium" to inform them when something might be a problem. At this point one must choose the safer course until the doubt can be clarified or eliminated.


If a Priest does not follow the rubrics required by his superior authority , do you want to entrust your soul to a patently disobedient Priest?   


God Bless       JMJ


Reply
#46
How bad would it have to be?  Basically it would have to be invalid.  Illicit but valid is something many have had to endure.

It is an extremely difficult thing to judge intent. Now I know a priest who told a friend of mine that anyone could do what he does at Mass.  But he also condoned abortion from the pulpit and I avoided him. When I was at the ugly round church and our pastor told another friend of mine that he does not like the catechism, the rosary, or daily Mass as well as some other things, I did doubt his intent by these sayings and other things he said and never attended his 'mass' again.  The gay priest at the other parish in town would have me so angry I sometimes could not receive Communion.  I took a drastic step and moved from my hometown.  I could hardly endure any more.

When you begin to have panic attacks at the illicit Mass, you know you have come to the end of your endurance.  I hope you can find a kind soul to take you to a Mass where you can actually worship the Lord.  See about having a notice put in the bulletins of the good parishes about a person needing a ride and perhaps one can be found.

I am sorry for this sad state of affairs for you  It is a great cross and suffering.
Reply
#47
Well, the Novus Ordo could be said in Latin, ad orientem, with all the incense, all the bells and traditional vestments, even with Gregorian chant and I still wouldn't go. I simply won't attend a protestantized liturgy that has been the main vehicle for the destruction of the Faith, even if it may be occasionally valid depending on the priest who says it.
Reply
#48
(05-05-2009, 08:10 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Well, the Novus Ordo could be said in Latin, ad orientem, with all the incense, all the bells and traditional vestments, even with Gregorian chant and I still wouldn't go. I simply won't attend a protestantized liturgy that has been the main vehicle for the destruction of the Faith, even if it may be occasionally valid depending on the priest who says it.

This same concession towards Protestantism has been the primary vehicle which has defied the Supreme Law of the Church. The Novus Ordo Missae frustrates the fulfillment of this law.
Reply
#49
(05-05-2009, 09:00 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-05-2009, 08:10 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Well, the Novus Ordo could be said in Latin, ad orientem, with all the incense, all the bells and traditional vestments, even with Gregorian chant and I still wouldn't go. I simply won't attend a protestantized liturgy that has been the main vehicle for the destruction of the Faith, even if it may be occasionally valid depending on the priest who says it.

This same concession towards Protestantism has been the primary vehicle which has defied the Supreme Law of the Church. The Novus Ordo Missae frustrates the fulfillment of this law.

Ergo, catholics should stay away from it. It's about time we all start fighting for the Church.
Reply
#50
(05-05-2009, 09:10 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-05-2009, 09:00 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-05-2009, 08:10 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Well, the Novus Ordo could be said in Latin, ad orientem, with all the incense, all the bells and traditional vestments, even with Gregorian chant and I still wouldn't go. I simply won't attend a protestantized liturgy that has been the main vehicle for the destruction of the Faith, even if it may be occasionally valid depending on the priest who says it.

This same concession towards Protestantism has been the primary vehicle which has defied the Supreme Law of the Church. The Novus Ordo Missae frustrates the fulfillment of this law.

Ergo, catholics should stay away from it. It's about time we all start fighting for the Church.

You mean not for Protestantism? But it makes me feel better about my sins!

Interestingly enough, the Offertory was the first thing Luther eliminated from the Mass as well; the very reference of the Mass as the Sacrifice on Calvary was repulsive to him. The Sacrifice of Calvary is the substance of the Mass. The Mass is the center of the Church. Eliminate all belief in the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass and you weaken the Church's defense against evil.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)