sin and Novus Ordo?
#11
Thank you for the replies everyone! My parish doesn't have liturgical dance / people around the Altar for the Consecration / etc. It's just typical Novus Ordo.. It doesn't destroy my faith just makes me wish for the TLM. The priest says the Consecration with attention and reverence though. The thing that bothers me most is how most receive in the hand and there are EMHCs - basically the insults that became popular everywhere. I don't receive Communion from the lay ministers though. What I got afraid of last night is that I'm somehow in sin just by going there.. But if I missed Mass, that to me seems more serious because its VERY clear about going to Mass, and not very clear about going to NO. Of course I'd happily only go to TLM, and I even moved 5 minutes from the FSSP parish to do that. But when I'm visiting family it's not always that easy to make it work. I'm hoping to go to the TLM as much as I can here though, like probably this Sunday. God bless!
Reply
#12
When I go to NO, I have to pretty much do much my best to ignore everyone... especially at Communion time. You have the people who won't stop talking, the people who look like they haven't been to Mass since Easter, and then everyone going up for communion and the vast majority receiving in the hand. I'm probably the only person to receive kneeling, but I don't care. Just do what you have to do. Spend your time there in prayer and ignore the rest.
Reply
#13
(12-25-2015, 10:22 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Firstly, don't believe what every pious sounding internet trad says--even on this forum. Chances are they don't know what they're talking about.

One out of many examples is the confusion in your post about sinning when at a irreverent Mass. Its a sin for the priest and people who participate in the abuse, if they knowingly depart from the rubrics. It might be a sin if you consent to the abuse, but St. Thomas says that, at least, one deprives oneself from the graces of the sacrament if one knowingly consents to the abuses. Below there's a link explaining this according to St. Thomas.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/201...s.html?m=1

But you should ask your spiritual director, as he might explain things in the details you require. Meanwhile, I believe your first conviction was right and not sinful at all. Many of the home aloners are some sort of crypto-gnostics (I cannot elaborate this at the moment), and I wouldn't say all are in sin, but they are treading on dangerous ground.

Yes I was trying to trust my priest who never told me to stay home.. But there's a lot of fear when you're told you're in sin. I don't consent to any irreverence though, maybe in the past I didn't really care but now that I have been to a very reverent Mass - I try to do reparation if I see something less reverent. Its not liturgical abuse as far as NO goes... Just the popular things that happen everywhere but they bother me because they make the Mass casual and they were never intended to be norms.

What confused me was the statement that even being reverent there is a sin! (Because its like supporting). But what an act of reverence supports is the intinsic merits of the Mass and the objective spiritual reality. No one would look.and say "she's being reverent, she must agree when people talk in the church!". I thought, quite the opposite? I don't know if I'm right... I'll ask my priest.

Anyway if i am less reverent that would be like consent. I always thought Jesus wants us to love Him and if we have to go to a place where He is often ignored, but we love Him there, that would be a consolation to Him. I'd choose TLM first but if you go to NO and receive Jesus to repair for any sacrilige and do your thanksgiving while many are talking - you are clearly.not supporting it all, inwardly or outwardly, and I've always believed this honours Him. One of the most beautiful times I had with Jesus after Communion was in one of those situations. He does give grace if you try to love Him and oppose anything irreverent .. That's why that specific statement was so confusing.

Maybe acting reverently at an invalid clown Mass would be wrong and like supporting it. But any reverence at NO is given towards Jesus being there not towards the actions of people. I'll ask my priest about this too...
Reply
#14
(12-25-2015, 10:39 AM)GangGreen Wrote: When I go to NO, I have to pretty much do much my best to ignore everyone... especially at Communion time. You have the people who won't stop talking, the people who look like they haven't been to Mass since Easter, and then everyone going up for communion and the vast majority receiving in the hand. I'm probably the only person to receive kneeling, but I don't care. Just do what you have to do. Spend your time there in prayer and ignore the rest.

That's what my priest before said to do - just close your eyes and pray the whole time.
Reply
#15
What do you all think of the idea that its a sin to be reverent at a NO because then its like saying that its very pleasing to God? That comes from an article. But my first thought was... If its invalid Mass, then probably. (So if they dance around a statue of Buddha, just leave). But if its valid, - wouldn't the reverence support what IS pleasing to God in the Mass, like - the Sacrifice of His Son? Would it give the impression that the irreverent parts are pleasing to Him too? But I don't get that because reverence is a statement against the irreverence. I don't know if I'm right. The people who have this view would maybe emphasise the seriousness of the irreverence, but what people do around me doesn't invalidate the Mass..
Reply
#16
(12-25-2015, 10:59 AM)little_flower10 Wrote: What do you all think of the idea that its a sin to be reverent at a NO because then its like saying that its very pleasing to God? That comes from an article. But my first thought was... If its invalid Mass, then probably. (So if they dance around a statue of Buddha, just leave). But if its valid, - wouldn't the reverence support what IS pleasing to God in the Mass, like - the Sacrifice of His Son? Would it give the impression that the irreverent parts are pleasing to Him too? But I don't get that because reverence is a statement against the irreverence. I don't know if I'm right. The people who have this view would maybe emphasise the seriousness of the irreverence, but what people do around me doesn't invalidate the Mass..

The bottom line is that if you are not a Sedevacantist than you must accept that if the rubrics are followed the Mass of Paul VI  is a valid Liturgy that is pleasing to God. It is certainly not unambiguously and solidly Catholic in the same way the old rite is, but it is a valid Mass.

If someone were to place a Buddha statue on the altar and prance around it I would suggest you leave, as whoever allows such nonsense to occur is not serious about their Faith. Gross and blatant abuses such as a Buddha statue at Mass, con celebration with protestants or laymen, deliberate ad libbing etc. are reasons to walk out, at least in my own opinion.

There very diverse opinions amongst Catholics about all this stuff though, so I am not an expert. What works for me is to step out of all the abstractions and academic exercises about all of it and just go to the most reverent place I can for my holy days and Sunday's and spend the rest of the time praying the hours and the Jesus Prayer.

Know what the Church teaches, listen to your conscience and than make an informed decision. God is NOT a God of excessive legalisms and abstractions who wants us wallowing in the misery of scrupulosity. Do the best you can and leave it up to God.

One thing I notice about trads is that so many are laboring under the poison of Scrupulosity. That will destroy your faith faster than being a devout home aloner will I can promise that much.

Seriously, just do the best you can. If there's a Buddha statue walk out. God will not reproach you for walking out of a Liturgy that is so blatantly abusive. But...if you believe that the New Rite is in itself abusive than you're better off a home aloner or a sedvacantist.

Reply
#17
(12-25-2015, 10:59 AM)little_flower10 Wrote: What do you all think of the idea that its a sin to be reverent at a NO because then its like saying that its very pleasing to God? That comes from an article. But my first thought was... If its invalid Mass, then probably. (So if they dance around a statue of Buddha, just leave). But if its valid, - wouldn't the reverence support what IS pleasing to God in the Mass, like - the Sacrifice of His Son? Would it give the impression that the irreverent parts are pleasing to Him too? But I don't get that because reverence is a statement against the irreverence. I don't know if I'm right. The people who have this view would maybe emphasise the seriousness of the irreverence, but what people do around me doesn't invalidate the Mass..

That's quite literally BS. I've never heard such a thing. And if you apply this reasoning in broader contexts you can reduce it to an absurd.
I myself tried to be reverent when I went to the NOM, and you hear plenty of cases of good women wearing veil and skirt causing a chain reaction among other women. The NOM is valid and thus its not intrinsically evil, so its all the better if you introduce reverency into it.
Reply
#18
Thanks for the replies! Yes I do believe that the NO is valid and it's a Mass. Maybe some parishes are so liberal that they no longer even intend to consecrate the Host but I don't think most are like that. I'm not a sedevacantist either. So I went to Christmas Mass today (Novus Ordo). The priest said the Mass according to the rubrics, the music was traditional... The only things I didn't like were from the congregation. Like clapping, Communion in the hand. But nothing suggests it wasnt valid and it was according to the rubrics :)
Reply
#19
Also we said the full Confiteor and knelt during the Creed! So that was good :)
Reply
#20
I think that, if you're having questions about these things, you should talk to a priest. Some people who do not attend the Novus Ordo are following the advice of a priest-confessor. I asked a priest about this, and I follow his advice. You might be surprised what advice you get from a priest who understands your particular situation as it will not necessarily be the "party line" of their particular group (SSPX or FSSP). Ask them in private, divulge your concerns in detail, and be prepared to follow their advice out of obedience.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)