Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?
#5
Yeah, I realized that after I made the post, I'm terribly sorry.  If I could revise the topic to say "Help, I think I'm crazy because I believe that the Novus Ordo is not a form of the Roman Rite!" I would.

I believe that the NO and the TLM are two separate rites for the following reasons:

1. The NO was intended by its creators to be a new rite apart from what was handed down by Tradition.  I find John Salza's argument for this convincing, which I I'll link at the bottom[sup]1[/sup] (though I do wish he went into more detail about why the NO is different in substance from the TLM).  The NO as a distinct rite was also the conclusion Cardinal Ottaviani in his report to Pope Paul VI[sup]2[/sup] , although in fairness that was written before the revisions in 2011.

2. It has an un-Catholic spirit to it.  It seems to me, from comparing the words and actions of the priest between the NO and the TLM, that the notion of Christ's sacrifice and the unique role of the priesthood are so muddled it resembles a High Church kind of Protestantism than anything else.  You'd have to know beforehand that the priest offers the Sacrifice of Christ  in order to actually see the Mass for what it is; if you didn't know this, and you only had the English words of the NO to go on, I doubt you'd be lead to that truth.

3. The NO has different prayers, calendars, propers, lectionary, vestments, rubrics, etc.  If they're not separate rites they're trying really hard to give the appearance of being separate.  It would be easier to say the Carmelite or Dominican rite is a different form of the Roman Rite than it would be to say the NO is.

4. If the NO and the TLM were different forms of the same rite, from point 3 you would need to logically conclude that there is inherently disunity in the rite.

If the NO and TLM are two distinct rites, the next question to ask is "Would it be unlawful to offer the NO, even if it's entirely in Latin, with Gregorian Chant, etc.?"  I would argue that it is for the following reasons:

1. The things that the priest does and says in the NO seem to show that the Mass is not about offering the Sacrifice of Christ, but to either a) celebrate a commemorative meal, or b) call down Christ so that His whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are made truly present to us, and you might get either a or b depending on which Eucharistic prayer the priest uses. Even if you could argue on a technicality that this is false, it is true beyond doubt that the NO was intended to not be about the Sacrifice and obscure it's propitiatory nature. From Institutio Generalis, which is referenced in the Ottaviani report above[sup]2[/sup]:
Quote:"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".
That quote above is almost literally condemned by Trent[sup]3[/sup]:
Quote:If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema. (Session 27, Canon 1)
Quote:If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema. (Session 27, Canon 3)

2. The things the priest says and does in the NO seem to show that the priest is something of a mere presider of the liturgy, rather than a consecrated man who offers the Sacrifice on our behalf and prays for us and the Church on our behalf. Evidence for this is the fact that the Judica Me was removed and the Offertory was so unbelievably butchered. Like the point above, it has a flavor of Protestantism.

3. It forbids priests from pronouncing the canon and the words of the consecration in a low tone, and vernacular is allowed. This, again, was condemned by Trent[sup]3[/sup]:
Quote:If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema. (Session 22, Canon 9)

4. The three points above, in addition to being huge problems in principle, has led people to adopt more Protestant views of the Mass and the Catholic Faith, because what is being prayed is more Protestant in nature, and people tend to believe what they pray over time (at least that's been my experience). I'm not going to argue that the NO was the sole reason for the massive amount of people leaving the Church, but it was one of the major ones.

If it is unlawful to offer the NO, it seems to me that it needs to be treated like we treat Protestant services; just as it is forbidden to worship in those services because of the possibility of scandal, the NO ought to be forbidden as well.  This then goes back to my original question: if all of the above are true, and I have full knowledge of it, then am I committing scandal? If it's not scandal, then what is it, and to what degree am I partaking in it? I hope this clears things up; sorry about earlier.

[1] http://scripturecatholic.com/feature-art...%20Law.pdf
[2] http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
[3] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety....rent22.htm
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Is it inherently scandalous to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - by kbipp - 05-15-2017, 09:03 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)