Am I supposed to be going to Mass at my local church?
#11
(11-27-2017, 02:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The problem isn't the theological or moral positions of the priest. The problem is the Novus Ordo Mass itself.

How could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass, particularly one that almost all Catholics have used for almost 50 years?

(11-27-2017, 02:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."

This is false, so false, in fact, that it had to be corrected in the 1970 2nd edition :

Quote:At Mass or the Lord's Supper,is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.

Not false, but incomplete. The Mass is the gathering of the people, although it's much more than that; the "memorial of the Lord" is the re-presentation of Calvary, and Christ is there in their midst.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#12
(11-27-2017, 04:54 PM)Paul Wrote: How could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass, particularly one that almost all Catholics have used for almost 50 years? 

By doing exactly that? There's no reason that the Pope could not promulgate an invalid Mass.  I'll just highlight two points made by SSPX:

>The old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said

>The constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.  A pope engages his infallibility not only when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf. Vatican I [Dz 1839].  But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (November 19, 1969) that: "...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."

That's what they say.  I'll also just mention that I strongly believe in the notion of filial correction.  It doesn't matter that the N.O. has been said for 50 years.  Pope Innocent I literally endorsed the Pelagian heresy and the battle that erupted produced some of the finest writing that the pope's greatest detractor, St. Augustine, ever wrote.  In my mind, that is one of the more dramatic examples of a pope being wrong and needing to be corrected by defenders of the true faith.  
It doesn't mean that the pope isn't authoritative, but surely you would agree that if a pope says something that directly contradicts the faith (including statements by his predecessors), we should use our faculty of reason to sort out the conflict rather than utilize communist-tier cognitive dissonance to ensure a "hermeneutic of continuity"?  If Tradition shouldn't have equal footing with the pope, than at least previous popes should, right?
Reply
#13
I felt kind of bad for just throwing some quotes from SSPX's website into the thread, so here's how I look at the potential for the N.O. to be invalid.  The Tridentine Mass is perfect and valid.  Therefore, there cannot be any additional changes to the Mass that add to the deposit of faith in this regard, and therefore the pope's proclamations on this topic would not fall into the realm of infallibility.  It's simply not possible unless you believe there is something defective or incomplete in the Tridentine Mass.  If that's the case, this does not necessarily mean that the N.O. is invalid, but it means that we are morally obligated to have that conversation and act accordingly.
Reply
#14
(11-27-2017, 05:41 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: There's no reason that the Pope could not promulgate an invalid Mass.  I'll just highlight two points made by SSPX:

I can think of one good one. It's called the Indefectibility of the Church.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#15
(11-26-2017, 11:38 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Have I been wrong to disconnect myself from my diocese though?  

Yes. 

Missing Mass deliberately on Sunday and other days of obligation is a grave sin. You have an obligation to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day you are able. It doesn't matter if your local parish is armed to the teeth with guitars, or if the priest ad-libs and goofs off, or anything else that may be problematic. You have a duty toward God to go.
Reply
#16
(11-27-2017, 06:26 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 05:41 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: There's no reason that the Pope could not promulgate an invalid Mass.  I'll just highlight two points made by SSPX:

I can think of one good one. It's called the Indefectibility of the Church.

But we both agree on the Indefectibility of the Church.  That doesn't necessitate Ultramontanism.  My point wasn't even that the N.O. is invalid, merely that there is no reasonable defense for claiming it is part of the deposit of faith that would mean that the pope, by promulgating it, is infallible.
Reply
#17
(11-27-2017, 04:54 PM)Paul Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 02:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The problem isn't the theological or moral positions of the priest. The problem is the Novus Ordo Mass itself.

How could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass, particularly one that almost all Catholics have used for almost 50 years?

Who said anything about invalidity?

A black Mass is valid (I'm not saying that the Novus Ordo is some equivalent, BTW). The Mass of laicised priest is valid. An schismatic orthodox priest says a valid Mass. Validity is a pretty low bar.

I'm not saying it's invalid, I am saying, like those, it can be harmful to souls. History well shows that the Pope have taught things or allowed things which are harmful to souls.

(11-27-2017, 04:54 PM)Paul Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 02:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
Quote:The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."

This is false, so false, in fact, that it had to be corrected in the 1970 2nd edition :

Quote:At Mass or the Lord's Supper,is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.

Not false, but incomplete. The Mass is the gathering of the people, although it's much more than that; the "memorial of the Lord" is the re-presentation of Calvary, and Christ is there in their midst.

Sorry, it is false by its incompleteness.

The GIRM defines the Mass by something entirely accidental to it and totally unnecessary. And this is the document about the Mass, written by theologians and liturgical scholars, which means it should have the most accurate and complete definition possible.

It would be like a biologist defining a horse in a university-level textbook as a brown thing. Totally insufficient, and thereby effectively false by its incompleteness.

A Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary, full stop. That is the dogma taught by the Council of Trent. This sacrifice is very essence of the Mass. The Mass is nothing else in its very essence except this.

It has many accidental qualities, and the "gathering of the people" is one, but is totally accidental and unnecessary.

A monastic priest saying his Mass in a private chapel is performing essentially the same act as a Bishop in full Pontificals at a Solemn Mass at a Eucharistic Congress.

Further it is a false definition because the Mass is not the Last Supper (or Lord's Supper). There is a single connection between the two : the Sacrifice of the Cross. The Last Supper pre-figured the Cross. The Mass re-presents the Cross. They are not the same thing.

The Mass is not a re-presentation of the Last Supper.

Nor is the Mass in any way a meal. The Last Supper was, in which Our Lord did give his body and blood to his Apostles. So again, to define the Mass as "the Lord's Supper" is also certainly woefully inadequate from a theological perspective.

Trent nowhere speaks of the Mass as a supper or meal, only as a Sacrifice, yet this notion was specifically and intentionally excluded from the first edition of the GIRM, in order to undermine the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, and we know that from the very men who authored the GIRM.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Dave01
Reply
#18
(11-27-2017, 06:26 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 05:41 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: There's no reason that the Pope could not promulgate an invalid Mass.  I'll just highlight two points made by SSPX:

I can think of one good one. It's called the Indefectibility of the Church.

Indefectibility does not mean that the Popes cannot promulgate a law, even a litiurgical law, which is harmful to souls.

Indefectibility means that the Church cannot teach something which is directly contrary to the Faith, and also that the Church, at least in some way, will remain until the end of the world.

Now Infallibility could be invoked to protect liturgical rites, such is the teaching of most theologians. 

Still it does not seem the the Church has ever done so. For instance in 1947, in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII defined the matter and form for the diaconate, priesthood and epsicopacy. For the priesthood, Pius XII defined that the matter for the priesthood would be for the future the imposition of hands. The Pontifical had previously said the matter was the touching of the chalice and paten, and the debate among theologians over this point shows that no one considered the Pontifical as infallibly correct. That it was slightly changed again in 1968, showing that even that definition was not infallible.

Also we have in a 13th century Pontifical which asserted that putting a consecrated particle of the host into wine would effect the consecration of the wine (possibly the source of the commixio with the host and unconsecrated wine in the Good Friday liturgy pre-1956), but this is roundly rejected by theologians, so again, the Pontifical was not considered a source of infallibility.

But even here, even the most harsh critics of the New Mass have never said that it directly teaches heresy, so again, the Church does not seem to have defected even if the Pope did give us a defective rite.
Reply
#19
(11-27-2017, 03:53 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Ultimately, because I believe SSPX to be correct, I will follow their guidelines for not attending the NO barring convincing information otherwise.
...
With that said, I'm still willing to be convinced that SSPX isn't actually correct, but I have yet to see that argument.  If anyone is interested in persuading me, I'm happy to hear you out.

Ultimately you will be judged on whether you followed your well-formed certain conscience (which is the proximate rule of morality).

If you are convinced that the SSPX position is correct then you do not violate your conscience or ecclesiastical law (and therefore sin) by doing so. If this position is correct and the Novus Ordo presents a danger to your Faith, then you are obliged to avoid it like every other danger to your Faith.

If you become convinced that this isn't the correct position, and the Novus Ordo is not a danger to your Faith, then you need to change your way of acting and must attend the Novus Ordo if it is all you can attend for your Sunday obligation.

To have a well-formed conscience, you need to inform yourself and hear out the arguments.

And this is why I think it is good to have these discussions. You (and everyone else here) are welcome to disagree with me, all I ask is that it be after prayerfully considering the two sides of the argument. And I do welcome others to attack the position I have presented with logical arguments.

Even if I think it a danger to one's Faith to attend the Novus Ordo, I am well aware that that danger is quite relative, and would never accuse someone of sin for doing so unless the knew it was a harm to the Faith and went anyway.
Reply
#20
This has been interesting for me to read. I'm working on getting a car, and I have a friend who is willing to take me to Divine Liturgy, but occasionally she goes to the NO, and I've gone along with her to fulfill my obligation and also (long story behind this) I seem to backslide very easily if I'm not engaged in some way on Sunday. I went daily for five years and now I'm dependent on others to take me, and I haven't found anyone who will take me to a TLM. I'm grafeful I know someone in the Eastern Rite.

I think we have to know who we are and what we can take. Some people just can't be home-aloners.
“If I saw the gates of hell open and I stood on the brink of the abyss, I would not despair; I would not lose hope of mercy, because I would trust in you, my God.” ~St. Gemma
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)