Do you believe the Novus Ordo Mass invalid?
#1
I was told that it was from a priest (not THE priest) of a traditional Chapel I visted this weekend.
Agree or disagree?
Thank you.
Reply
#2
If its not valid that probably means Benedict is an anti-pope. 

No, I don't think its invalid.  Not my favorite liturgy, but valid.
Reply
#3
I'd say valid --- but very prone to abuse as I've seen so often over the years.
Reply
#4
(06-13-2011, 08:41 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: I'd say valid --- but very prone to abuse as I've seen so often over the years.

Yes, the Novus Ordo is quite better when its said like this:



as opposed to:
Reply
#5
You have to qualify what you mean by "the Novus Ordo Mass".  Just as an example, there can be a vast difference between the Novus Ordo put out by Pope Paul VI in Latin, vs. what is said in the average Novus Ordo parish these days. 

Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre said about it:

Quote:The New Mass

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

    - that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

    - that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

    - that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

    - that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;

    - that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

    - the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

    - Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

    - the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

    - the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

    - the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

    - the Epistle read by women;

    - Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity.

It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.

from Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume 2, Chapter XL  (emphasis added)
Reply
#6
I believe that there is a very serious reason for questioning its validity in many (if not most) circumstances,* and I share these doubts with Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani (Cf. #18).

Here is a small portion of the famous Ottaviani Intervention:

A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass Wrote:4. The formulae of consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental, not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:

      a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.

      b) The punctuation and typographical lettering: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and often in a different color, clealry detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.

      c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis ten emeu anamnesin" (directed to my memory). This referred to Christ operating and not to the mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did ("haec... in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old--proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages--will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the beginning. The concluding idea of commemoration will certainly once again take place of the idea of sacramental action.[sup]17[/sup]

The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Christ Himself" (no. 556).

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").[sup]18[/sup]

Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("we announce Thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just as the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.

This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of this chalice we announce Thy death, O Lord, until Thou comest," where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity.[sup]19[/sup]



[sup]17[/sup]  The sacramental action of the institution is emphasized as having come about in Our Lord's giving the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under the species of bread and wine, not in the act of consecration and in the mystical separation therein accomplished of the Body from the Blood, essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (Cf. the whole of chapter I, part II--"The cult of the Eucharist"--Mediator Dei)
[sup]18[/sup]  The words of Consecration as inserted in the context of the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus significandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
      Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
[sup]19[/sup]  Let it not be said, according to the well-known Protestant critical procedure, that these phrases belong to the same scriptural context. The Church has always avoided their juxtaposition and superimposition precisely in order to avoid any confusion of the different realities here expressed.

*It would be even more atrocious if it were valid in many, if not most, cases.
Reply
#7
I believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid (given all the usual conditions) and should probably be abrograted in favor of the TLM as soon as practically possible.
Reply
#8
(06-13-2011, 10:07 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: I believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid (given all the usual conditions) and should probably be abrograted in favor of the TLM as soon as practically possible.

Although this sounds great, I don't think such a rupture would be a good thing (despite the fact that the NO was a rupture with the past).  In particular the church in Africa and Asia would react harshly against the sudden imposition of a "new" mass.  I suspect the gradual spread of the TLM is more likely to happen and be beneficial. 

Note: If you haven't seen it, its new to you!
Reply
#9
Someone1776 is correct again. If one holds the view that the New Mass is invalid, it's either a short walk to Sede Land, or you're already there and don't yet realize it.
Reply
#10
(06-13-2011, 10:23 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-13-2011, 10:07 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: I believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid (given all the usual conditions) and should probably be abrograted in favor of the TLM as soon as practically possible.

Although this sounds great, I don't think such a rupture would be a good thing (despite the fact that the NO was a rupture with the past).  In particular the church in Africa and Asia would react harshly against the sudden imposition of a "new" mass.  I suspect the gradual spread of the TLM is more likely to happen and be beneficial. 

Note: If you haven't seen it, its new to you!

That's why I qualified my statement with the word "practically".

I think maybe a certain allowance for a vernacular version of the EF would be reasonable. Once people hear the difference in the Offertory will they regret the change? And then there's always the fact that when matters of right and due worship are at stake, it scarcely matters what people think. If people worship Jesus Christ then they should be open to worshipping Him more reverently. As long as it is explained correctly I would hope that there would be little problem.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)