I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae
(08-19-2013, 06:31 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 05:48 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 04:44 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation. 

Not true if you consider it valid, but illicit.  I know that is not what I originally suggested, but I think I see the NO more like I see the Orthodox Church's liturgy. The OC liturgy may be valid, but it is illegitimate.  I think this would better express my latest feelings about it.

I'm not following your reasoning on this.  Others have already responded in basically the same way I was considering, so I will look to your response to their posts. 

I guess my point was if valid, but illicit, the Eucharist is still confected.  I know that most here don't question either the validity or the licitness, but I was just pointing out that the results would be different if only illicit (ie. people would have been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation).

Whether something in the Church is licit or illicit is a function of Canon Law.  While the claim that no pope can bind another in terms of doctrine would certainly be false, in terms of Canon Law I believe it to be quite true.  To my understanding, the Pope can interpret, alter, or suspend Canon Law how and when he chooses.  I do not see how your argument vis-a-vie the Mass of Paul VI being illicit can be squared with Popes saying it is not illicit.  This is of course unless we go back to the idea of all of the post-conciliar popes being liars or not really pope to begin with, in which case we are back to square one.  The only other option I can see is if Popes cannot in fact alter or suspend Canon Law as they choose.  However, we know Canon Law has been revised and re-written multiple times in the history of the Church, so that doesn't make sense either, 

Your arguments have implications far beyond the Eucharist and its validity or legality.  It also impacts the truth of whether or not every priest, bishop, and deacon ordained under the NO Mass is valid and/or licit, as well as potentially religious consecrations.  This of course impacts the sacrament of confession, confirmation, anointing of the sick, and so on. 

Messages In This Thread
Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - by Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013, 06:48 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)