Re:Novus Ordo Masses
#1
Hello Everyone!
I have to say this forum has been very "spiritually uplifting" in regards to learning about many things I had no idea about since returning to the Catholic faith.
I was baptized Catholic but never brought up in the faith.  My mom had me go through our Sacraments when the time came, but again, once that was completed, weekly mass wasn't an option for me unfortunately.  My mom didn't drive and my father wasn't interested in going to church period.
My only experiences in attending Mass, was when we visited my grandfather who was devoutly Catholic and we went to Mass to please him.  At that time it was VERY traditional and reverant and I LOVED it.  My experience was one of feeling a sense of Holiness and reverance for our Lord that at the time left quite an impression on me.

Many years later, going to Mass off and on was the norm as I didn't feel it was the same when I attended in my own home town.  I also didn't fully understand what the Mass was all about not having been raised in the faith.  Mass was an option for me.
My husband was a Protestant at the time and he too was never one to go to church. 

The Holy Spirit recently, after 5 years in the Protestant church, lead me back "home" through a friend of mine I met after we moved.  She was the ONLY Catholic in our homeschooling group, things evolved from there, and the rest is history.  My husband is now a Catholic convert, HALLELUJAH!! 
My dilemna is, a young gentleman I came to know in our Parish stopped going to Mass.  I recently found out due to the fact, he said the N.O. is NOT valid.  He is SO disallusioned by it, that he now travels almost 2 hours once a month to attend a TLM in our nearest city.  He tried to explain to me why he left.  After all these years of FINALLY learning about my faith and going back to attending Mass, I hear this? 
We live in a "Baptist belt" and all the other Catholic churches near by celebrate with the same  N.O Missae.   
I would love to hear your thoughts on this, and what you think, your knowledge about this, experiences, etc.?   
Thank-you so much in advance, and may God bless you all!
Deborah
Reply
#2
The Novus Ordo Mass is valid.  It is susceptible to abuses and misinterpretation, but it is valid.  It is reasonable to say that the traditional Mass is better (that is the conclusion that I've come to when I looked into it) but denying the validity of the NO Mass, in effect,  also means rejecting the Magisterium. 

While I prefer the traditional Mass, I also attend a Novus Ordo Mass on a regular basis.  Christ is really present in the Eucharist there and it is an opportunity to praise, thank and worship Him.  It is a source of great blessing for me.
Reply
#3
Thank-you Jayne!  I like to think that the Mass I'm attending every Sunday is valid. 

Below is a site that further explains one of the things the gentleman that left our church was trying to say.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9379144/The-In...-Ordo-Mass

http://www.cmri.org/novusordo.html

Since our Priest uses "for all men" during the Consecration, it concerned me greatly and that is why I am looking for answers.
God bless,
Deborah 

Modified to add other site
Reply
#4
(04-07-2010, 12:33 PM)Deborah Wrote: Below is a site that further explains one of the things the gentleman that left our church was trying to say.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9379144/The-In...-Ordo-Mass

Since our Priest uses "for all men" during the Consecration, it concerned me greatly and that is why I am looking for answers.

That phrase is, without question, a very bad translation.  It is unfortunate that it was ever allowed and I am looking forward to the new translation that is going to fix this problem.  Does a poor translation of the words of consecration make the Mass invalid?  The author of the website suggests that it does because De Defectibus says that a change or omission in the formula would invalidate it.  However, I do not think that he adequately makes the case that using an officially authorized bad translation is the same as changing the formula. 

The other point the site's author makes, concerning the phrase in remissionem peccatorum, is incorrect.  This construction indicates purpose i.e. Jesus shed his blood for the purpose of remission of sins.  The author claims that this is a guarantee that sins are forgiven and this claim is unjustified.


Reply
#5
Deborah,

I found this document about "pro multis"

Quote:[To their Eminences / Excellencies, Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences]

Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. N. 467/05/L

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

    1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

    2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

    3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

        a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (πολλων = pollôn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

        b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

        c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

        d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

        e. The expression "for many", while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the "many" to whom the text refers.

        f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula "for all" or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, "for many", "per molti", etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

I haven't been able to find the text of the 1974 CDF document online yet.  I think that would be really interesting so I'll try a bit longer.
Reply
#6
Quo Primum, anyone?  Promulgated by Pope St. Pius V.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quo_Primum

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/legiti..._today.htm
Reply
#7
What Jank says on this subject must be taken with a grain of salt since she attends NO services despite knowing their problems and has the additional problem of having those close to her attend...and we never want to think those close to us are sinning!.

For a Mass, any Mass to valid three elements must be present

See quote from previous posts below.

Additionally, even if any given NO is valid, that is not the measure that is to be looked for.

As DK points out time and again, the NO is a protestantized bastard Mass.  It is a danger to your Faith, as has been proven by the MILLIONS who no longer waste their time at NO Catholic churches but instead do not go to any church or have turned to some form of protism...such as yourself!


Here was a thread about the whole thing.  The post I link you to has my typical 3 elements argument and some good extras...sorry if you don't like the tone of the post but we were dealing with a major troll (Carnivor) at the time

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33190491

Quote:For a few hours I was wondering if you were a NOtard I know and love who had come here just to give me a hard time...the above comment proves otherwise since that fellow is not so simple, and not quite a NOtard.   The comment about liking and disliking would be dissembling by him...but I really thing you're that foolish.


___________________________________________

Let me see if I can break it down to brass tacks for the guy that thinks I need a logic course, Mickey Mouse.

Scandal and Idolatry are sins...this we agree on.

If there is a service that calls itself Catholic...and there are abuses...especially repeated ones...but not necessarily...then at least the presider is sinning...anyone who understands what the Mass is...is also sinning by attending despite this knowledge by causing scandal...because it appears they are condoning that behavior.  So in this instance we have a sin in attending the NO

Not to mention the sin committed if you don't admonish the presider

Now in general...the NO has caused millions to loss the Faith, therefore it is a ineffective tool, in fact, it is worse than ineffective, it is counter productive, it is this way for one of two possible reasons, 1) it contains error, or 2) it omits truth....possibly both.   But let's just work from the least egregious...number 2....if you know that your "mass" omits truth, and thus does a piss poor job of passing on the Faith...such a piss poor job that it actually drives people out of the Church....then every time you attend...knowing what it is and what it has done...you sin the sin of scandal.

Further, it is possible for attendance to be a mortal sin under certain circumstances, assuming you know the three essential elements AND you know they are lacking, and you know the "priest" knows they are lacking...you not only sin by way of Scandal, if you take the service seriously...you are idol worshiping the "Well Worshiped Wheat Wafer"

In case you are not aware of the three elements and the result of KNOWN abuse...here it is spelled out:

Quote:Once again it comes down to the three essentials -- matter, form, and intention.  Now, some Novus Order folks don’t seem to understand that since we believe as we pray, that in short order there will be services of the NO that are invalid due to belief changes.  The abuse of not using the correct matter is known, of not using the correct form is known, not having the proper intention can only be suspected but is not a bad bet in some cases.  Since this is the case it would be best to avoid those known and suspected invalid services, be they any one of the sacraments.  Let’s see what those are:

1)   Baptism
2)   Confession
3)   Confirmation
4)   Marriage
5)   Holy Orders (any of them)
6)   Extreme Unction
7)   Holy Eucharist

All of these can be called into question because they all require the same three elements.  I’ll let each of you follow the logic of what happens over time with each invalid sacrament, but the conclusion is this, fewer real Masses, priests, bishops, marriages, Christians, etc., not in any particular order but the whole thing snowballs.  And when is that critical mass point reached where it becomes unsafe to attend NO services?  I have described the NO as a mine field and suggested.  I would not step in the field were I to know that there was only one mine (even suspect only one mine).  If you choose to enter such a field you are foolish at best.

So if you take your kids you sin mortally (at the very least if you do not warn them about what they are witnessing) because of the KNOWN effect the NO has had on the Faith of millions and you would be placing your charges...given by God for your protection, in harms way.


The assumption of THIS forum...is that the TLM is OBJECTIVELY superior to the NO....so your preference for the bastard prot service is telling.

Even B16 has called it a banal fabrication ----and that's not the English translation but the Latin original...that NOs always try to taut.

So since you know what the Mass is and what it should be like you sin every time you go NO.


the truth hurts when you get slapped with it...best to just soak it up.


You are right about one thing...I did ot shut you down in this thread...I confused this thread with another similar NOtard thread where I had....so consider this your shut down....(by the way...others did it above...)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That was a little sloppy, but I've been up for hours and this was the last day of my sequence....but the point gets made...if it's too confusing for you I can find a way to shorten and streamline it after I get sleep....Hell, I might do that anyway just so I have a cut and paste for Minnie, Donald, Pluto, and Goofy when they arrive.
Reply
#8
Listen to Scipio over JayneK on this subject.

Most of us true Traditionalists will tell you that the N.O. Mass can be valid, and most probably are, but that is not the problem.  The problem is the sacrilege involved.  There are indeed times when they are not valid, though.  It is a crap-shoot because you don't know if the priest has true intentions or if the host has been tampered with.  The changing of the words of Christ, which are "for many" to the ecumenically pleasing "for all" at least throws some doubt on its validity. 

Also, stating that the N.O. Mass is invalid would not be denying the Magesterium, because the N.O. Mass was nevery lawfully promulgated.  When Pope Paul VI introduced the New Mass he put in the new Missal “We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful.” However to impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed.  He did not do so.  What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church’s indefectibility or the Pope’s infallibility.  Paul VI said on November 19, 1969:  “This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.”  Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.

Any Catholic who attends an N.O. Mass while knowing fully the superiority of the Traditional Latin Mass is committing a sin.  One cannot knowingly take a sinful route to obtain one's Sunday Obligation.  Besides, your Sunday Obligation cannot be met at a sacriligious Mass, which ALL N.O. Masses are due to their very substance (or lack thereof).  In essence, the N.O. Mass is not Catholic worship and should be avoided entirely.  It is a Protestantized, bastardized form of the Mass that was wrongly adopted by a great portion of the official structure of the Church.  The N.O. Mass, in almost every way, is parallel to the arch-heretic Protestant Thomas Cranmer's "Lord's Supper" Ceremony, which the Church condemned in the 16th century.  If Cranmer's "Mass" is condemend, then logic dictates that the N.O. is also condemned.  It is an usurper Mass that will be dealt with some day, when the Church fully returns to orthodoxy.  Attend the TLM exclusively, even if you have to travel quite a distance, as do many of us Traditional Catholics.

I also live in a "Baptist belt," and I am formerly a Southern Baptist, only converted 6 years ago.  I also travel over 4.5 hrs round trip to attend the Mass of All-time.  When you see altar girls, women speaking in Church and not wearing veils (both Scripturally condemned), listening to guitars, having priests tell you not to try and convert your Protestant parents, but try to get them to a "good PRotesant church," hearing that, along with Jesus Christ and St. Thomas Aquinas, that Martin Luther was a "great man," seeing people with absolutely no reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ, recieving Him standing and in their filthy hands, watching the Sacred Host stomped underfoot - you will realize that you must make a choice - and that choice is either accept this "New Religion" that has formed within the official confines of the Church, or find the true Church that is still out there, only in the "modern catacombs."  I will pray that you continue to follow your heart and see that the N.O. Mass is not Catholic, and do what is necessary.

-- Also note that if you are real far away from a TLM, as I am, you are not obliged to attend every Sunday.  You fall under the "distance hardship."  The SSPX chapel that I frequent  advices you to try and make it once a month, and the Sunday's that you cannot attend, to stay at home and make a spiritual communion (but to never attend the N.O. Mass).
Reply
#9
(04-07-2010, 04:14 PM)Nic Wrote: Listen to Scipio over JayneK on this subject.

Most of us true Traditionalists will tell you that the N.O. Mass can be valid, and most probably are, but that is not the problem.  The problem is the sacrilege involved.  There are indeed times when they are not valid, though.  It is a crap-shoot because you don't know if the priest has true intentions or if the host has been tampered with.  The changing of the words of Christ, which are "for many" to the ecumenically pleasing "for all" at least throws some doubt on its validity. 

Also, stating that the N.O. Mass is invalid would not be denying the Magesterium, because the N.O. Mass was nevery lawfully promulgated.  When Pope Paul VI introduced the New Mass he put in the new Missal “We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful.” However to impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed.  He did not do so.  What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the Church’s indefectibility or the Pope’s infallibility.  Paul VI said on November 19, 1969:  “This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.”  Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.

Any Catholic who attends an N.O. Mass while knowing fully the superiority of the Traditional Latin Mass is committing a sin.  One cannot knowingly take a sinful route to obtain one's Sunday Obligation.  Besides, your Sunday Obligation cannot be met at a sacriligious Mass, which ALL N.O. Masses are due to their very substance (or lack thereof).  In essence, the N.O. Mass is not Catholic worship and should be avoided entirely.  It is a Protestantized, bastardized form of the Mass that was wrongly adopted by a great portion of the official structure of the Church.  The N.O. Mass, in almost every way, is parallel to the arch-heretic Protestant Thomas Cranmer's "Lord's Supper" Ceremony, which the Church condemned in the 16th century.  If Cranmer's "Mass" is condemend, then logic dictates that the N.O. is also condemned.  It is an usurper Mass that will be dealt with some day, when the Church fully returns to orthodoxy.  Attend the TLM exclusively, even if you have to travel quite a distance, as do many of us Traditional Catholics.

I also live in a "Baptist belt," and I am formerly a Southern Baptist, only converted 6 years ago.  I also travel over 4.5 hrs round trip to attend the Mass of All-time.  When you see altar girls, women speaking in Church and not wearing veils (both Scripturally condemned), listening to guitars, having priests tell you not to try and convert your Protestant parents, but try to get them to a "good PRotesant church," hearing that, along with Jesus Christ and St. Thomas Aquinas, that Martin Luther was a "great man," seeing people with absolutely no reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ, recieving Him standing and in their filthy hands, watching the Sacred Host stomped underfoot - you will realize that you must make a choice - and that choice is either accept this "New Religion" that has formed within the official confines of the Church, or find the true Church that is still out there, only in the "modern catacombs."  I will pray that you continue to follow your heart and see that the N.O. Mass is not Catholic, and do what is necessary.

-- Also note that if you are real far away from a TLM, as I am, you are not obliged to attend every Sunday.  You fall under the "distance hardship."  The SSPX chapel that I frequent  advices you to try and make it once a month, and the Sunday's that you cannot attend, to stay at home and make a spiritual communion (but to never attend the N.O. Mass).

:amen:

Thank you Nic.  Yours is one of the best explanations I've heard on FE.  I agree with you 100%.

Deo Gratias!
Reply
#10
(04-07-2010, 04:01 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: What Jank says on this subject must be taken with a grain of salt since she attends NO services despite knowing their problems and has the additional problem of having those close to her attend...and we never want to think those close to us are sinning!.

This is an ad hominem argument, a long recognized logical fallacy.

For the record, I have good reasons to attend the NO Mass.  And I demonstrably do not base my beliefs on wishful thinking about those to whom I am close.  My family is Jewish.  If I behaved as scipio suggests then I would accept the liberal universalist nonsense that one often encounters claiming to be Catholicism.  Instead, I believe that salvation is through Jesus Christ.

I consider the CDF to be a competent authority to make declarations on whether or not a bad translation has affected the validity of the Mass.  I do not consider random websites or scipio to have any authority whatsoever.  There are official pronouncements from the Vatican on the question of "pro multis",  They say that it is poorly translated into English  (and that it needs to be changed) but this does not count as a defect of form that would invalidate the Sacrament.  Therefore that is what I believe. People who believe something else are putting their own opinions over official teaching.



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)