Am I supposed to be going to Mass at my local church?
#21
(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.

Prescinding from the issue of validity for a moment, there is the problem of how could the spotless Bride of Christ impose a liturgy that is defective and even harmful to Her Children. Here is where the SSPX and the Recognize and Resist position is on shakier ground it seems to me:

  • "Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66)

  • "...as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism" (Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)

  • "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, par. 9)

  • "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term 'general discipline of the Church' are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living... The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. 'This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals'; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.' This is a decree of practical judgment." (Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2,Christ's Church, 1957)

  • "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258)

  • CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
I am very anti Novus Ordo and agree with the SSPX in a lot of ways.  However, given the above seems to weaken that particular position of the SSPX in which the Church can give us something like the Novus Ordo.  This is where the Sedevacantist position comes out stronger and more consistent, at least from my perspective.

A traditional Act of Faith prayer goes like this:

O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that your Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths the Holy Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Novus Ordo, if it really is harmful to ones faith, seems to make mincemeat of this Act of Faith if the conciliar Church is the true Catholic Church and Paul VI was a valid pope.

Magister, capable as he is, is free to clear up this dubia on the SSPX, however.
Reply
#22
BC - Although, again, my feelings on this matter are not entirely settled and I'm by no means the expert - the rebuttal to your assertion would be that when you operationalize the Church's infallibility on these matters, you are talking about the Magisterium of the Church.  This opens the door to the SSPX position, namely, that the Vatican II teachings fall under the authentic magisterium and are therefore non-infallible.  This is also in line with what Pope Paul VI explicitly stated; however, I am going off of the information the SSPX provided, so there may be other statements that conflict.
Reply
#23
ICT- I was going to point out that my definition of the Indefectibilty of the Church and yours seemed to be different, but BC has supplied the quotes I would have used. I maintain that, if the Church is what we believe Her to be, and if Paul VI was a valid Pope, it is impossible that an invalid Mass could be promulgated. 

Understand, I'm not saying that the NO is a 'good' Mass, or that indefectibility attaches to translations from the Latin Typical Edition, but simply that the NO, as promulgated, cannot be an invalid Mass.
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 also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#24
Quote: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.

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.

I'd honestly say this is a reduction of the Mass, the text of the Canon itself speaks of the re-calling the entire salvific mission of Christ: "calling to mind the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, together with His Resurrection from the grave, and also His glorious Ascension into heaven." Our salvation is not limited to the Passion of Christ, but it was wrought through all his acts, even through his very incarnation in human flesh.
St. Germanus on his commentary of the Divine Liturgy says of the Liturgy: "The church is an earthly heaven in which the super-celestial God dwells and walks about. It represents the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ."

Yes the Mass is principally a sacrifice, but it seems fitting that it is also a meal in a sense, for Christ does give his flesh and blood to us to eat. But it is a divine and heavenly meal, a very different meaning than a human meal, but analogous to it.
Reply
#25
(11-28-2017, 03:44 PM)Florus Wrote:
Quote: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.

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.

I'd honestly say this is a reduction of the Mass, the text of the Canon itself speaks of the re-calling the entire salvific mission of Christ: "calling to mind the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, together with His Resurrection from the grave, and also His glorious Ascension into heaven." Our salvation is not limited to the Passion of Christ, but it was wrought through all his acts, even through his very incarnation in human flesh.
St. Germanus on his commentary of the Divine Liturgy says of the Liturgy: "The church is an earthly heaven in which the super-celestial God dwells and walks about. It represents the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ."

Yes the Mass is principally a sacrifice, but it seems fitting that it is also a meal in a sense, for Christ does give his flesh and blood to us to eat. But it is a divine and heavenly meal, a very different meaning than a human meal, but analogous to it.

Our salvation was merited only by the merits of Christ. These only occurred during his earthly life and, in particular by his Passion. Christ's merits ceased at his death, and even his death itself was not meritorious strictly speaking (ST III q.50, a.6 ad 2).

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains why commenting on this question (Christ the Savior, p. 657) : 

Quote:Christ's death in becoming (in fieri), or His Passion, was the meritorious cause of our salvation. But Christ's death in fact nowise caused our salvation by way of merit, because Christ who was then dead, was beyond the condition of meriting, for He was no longer a wayfarer.

In short, once He was dead, Christ no longer could merit. When he rose again, he was no longer a wayfarer, so also like the Saints He no longer merits. While events from His death onward are not pointless, they are not strictly speaking part of His Sacrifice, nor the meritorious cause of salvation.

Further, the Incarnation itself was not meritorious (Cf. ST III q.2 a.11, Christ the Savior, p. 188 ff.), because it was the very principle of Christ's merit, and the principle of merit cannot be merited (just as Sanctfying Grace, the principle of merit for us cannot be merited, but is a free gift of God).

Thus His Incarnation, and also Resurrection, Ascension, etc. are not sources of merit, and thus not a cause, properly speaking, of our salvation; but as regards its effects on men, the Mass is the application of the merits of Christ. (Cf. Council of Trent, Dz 938; Roman Catechism II 4, 68, 74; Roman Missal, Secret prayer 9th Sunday after Pentecost)

Therefore, while we certainly do recall the whole life of Christ, strictly speaking, the Mass is only the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross (which implicitly includes the whole Passion).

St. Germanus, like all the Fathers, has to be read in the light of the Magisterium, Scripture and other Fathers. We have to defer to the more precise formulation of theology on the Mass from Trent and post-Tridentine theologians.

Regarding the Mass as both sacrifice and meal, this was explicitly condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei

Quote:114. They, therefore, err from the path of truth who do not want to have Masses celebrated unless the faithful communicate; and those are still more in error who, in holding that it is altogether necessary for the faithful to receive holy communion as well as the priest, put forward the captious argument that here there is question not of a sacrifice merely, but of a sacrifice and a supper of brotherly union, and consider the general communion of all present as the culminating point of the whole celebration.

115. Now it cannot be over-emphasized that the eucharistic sacrifice of its very nature is the unbloody immolation of the divine Victim, which is made manifest in a mystical manner by the separation of the sacred species and by their oblation to the eternal Father. Holy communion pertains to the integrity of the Mass and to the partaking of the august sacrament; but while it is obligatory for the priest who says the Mass, it is only something earnestly recommended to the faithful.

Communion is a meal, but the Mass is not Communion, and Communion is not the Mass.

The Mass is not even secondarily a meal any more than a funeral is a meal because often there is food served at a reception in conjunction with a funeral.

The sacrifice is the only essential element, and a Sacrifice is properly only offered to God. Christ feeding us with His Body and Blood is not a Sacrifice, and not a necessary or essential element of the Mass.

This is apparent when we understand the system that prevailed before St. Pius X, when it was common that Communion was given after or before Mass, but not at Mass, and in such wise it was uncommon for the faithful to communicate regularly (hence one reason why the First Friday devotion was about making a monthly Communion and not merely about acts of reparation to the Sacred Heart). While it is better than the Communion rite be part of the Mass, this is essentially a separate rite. The benefit of the earlier system shows this necessary distinction.

Another argument is that if the Mass were a meal it would make little sense that we are obliged to attend this meal between 52–60 times per year, but only eat once. You are obliged to hear Mass, not receive Communion.

Also the very proportion makes no sense if the Mass is even secondarily a meal. There is a grand and lengthy ceremony consisting of the use of grand pagentry, costly vestments and items, often ornate and expensive buildings and artistry, lasting perhaps two hours in some cases in which a tiny morsel of food is given.
Reply
#26
(11-28-2017, 02:37 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: ICT- I was going to point out that my definition of the Indefectibilty of the Church and yours seemed to be different, but BC has supplied the quotes I would have used. I maintain that, if the Church is what we believe Her to be, and if Paul VI was a valid Pope, it is impossible that an invalid Mass could be promulgated. 

Understand, I'm not saying that the NO is a 'good' Mass, or that indefectibility attaches to translations from the Latin Typical Edition, but simply that the NO, as promulgated, cannot be an invalid Mass.

Jovan, et al.

I'll again clarify, no one is really asserting in this discussion that the Novus Ordo being per se invalid. 

The OP is wrong to assert that this is the SSPX position. The SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo Mass is per se valid.

Let's be careful not to set up a straw man.

My argument, like that of the SSPX (which was the point of discussion) is precisely that the NO is not a "good" Mass.

The real question then turns not on validity (for a Black Mass is valid), but whether it represents a harm to one's Faith, and thus so should be avoided.

That discussion should have nothing to do with validity. I beg everyone to drop the question of validity, as it prevents a real discussion of the actual matter at issue, confuses people and parodies the various positions.
Reply
#27
(11-28-2017, 09:17 AM)BC Wrote:
(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.

Prescinding from the issue of validity for a moment, there is the problem of how could the spotless Bride of Christ impose a liturgy that is defective and even harmful to Her Children. Here is where the SSPX and the Recognize and Resist position is on shakier ground it seems to me:

  • "Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.” (Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66)

  • "...as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism" (Pope Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei, n. 78; Denz. 1578)

  • "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari Vos, par. 9)

  • "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church... By the term 'general discipline of the Church' are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living... The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. 'This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals'; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.' This is a decree of practical judgment." (Mgr. Gerard van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2,Christ's Church, 1957)

  • "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments.... If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (Jean Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, 1908, p. 258)

  • CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)
I am very anti Novus Ordo and agree with the SSPX in a lot of ways.  However, given the above seems to weaken that particular position of the SSPX in which the Church can give us something like the Novus Ordo.  This is where the Sedevacantist position comes out stronger and more consistent, at least from my perspective.

A traditional Act of Faith prayer goes like this:

O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that your Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths the Holy Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

The Novus Ordo, if it really is harmful to ones faith, seems to make mincemeat of this Act of Faith if the conciliar Church is the true Catholic Church and Paul VI was a valid pope.

Magister, capable as he is, is free to clear up this dubia on the SSPX, however.

BC,

A fundamental principle of logic is contra factum non fit argumentum.

Any quotes cited has to be directly related to the matter they were intended to address and not separated from them. If we fail to do this we quote grab and are not making a systematic argument.

For instance, you quote Session 22 of Trent regarding the Mass, then try to apply it to the Novus Ordo. Yet the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote explicitly that the Novus Ordo Missæ, "represents both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

Clearly Cardinal Ottaviani was troubled by the incongruity of the Novus Ordo with Trent, so to defend it with Trent makes no sense. In the abstract, we can certainly speculate, but we have to relate these things to the facts at hand.

And this canon of Trent was written in the context of a Mass which was completely orthodox, and had had no substantial changes for a very long time.

Your citation of Herrmann also has to be understood in a similar vein and clearly is an overstatement in light of the facts. Earlier, I described that the Roman Pontifical, defined the matter for the Priesthood differently than Pope Pius XII, and this was until 1947 an open question, so clearly it was not infallibly defined. Further an earlier Pontifical asserted that the intinction of a consecrated host would effected the consecration of wine into the Precious Blood. This is false. Yet if we hold rigidly to Hermann's interpretation of liturgical law as "infallible general discipline" we must otherwise assert defection here.

Again, we have to see that Hermann is speaking in the context of a liturgical law that had not substantially changed, and even wrote what you quote before the Breviary reform in 1911 by St. Pius X. That alone also means we probably have to distinguish what Hermann means here, lest it be taken as false.

Pius XII can't be used against himself, and yet as mentioned above the GIRM's very definition of the Mass is condemned by no. 114 of Mystici Corporis.

To get around these points some people assert that the Novus Ordo Missæ was not validly promulgated, but I think this is too legalistic an argument.

The openly stated intentions of the authors of the Novus Ordo Missæ to undermine the Catholic Faith and remove anything explicitly Catholic from the Mass makes it harmful by such omission, and that's a fact that can be easily established. Also easily established is that Fr Bugnini lied and manipulated both Pope Paul VI and the Consilium into producing the Novus Ordo Missæ. And thus it becomes even more difficulty to suggest that something founded on lies and manipulation is an object of infallibility.

Fr Louis Bouyer's memoirs establish this (and Fr Bouyer was a proponent of a great deal of the liturgical revolution), in relating the conversation he had with Pope Paul VI over his resignation from the Consilium and objection to many of the liturgical changes.

We also know that speaking of the Good Friday liturgy in a 1965 L'Osservatore Romano article, Bugnini insisted the terms "heretics" and "schismatics" and everything which could be a stumbling block to Protestants and the orthodox had to be eliminated, even if it was a break with tradition.

We have Buginin's own memoirs which are quite damning.

We have the words of Jean Guitton, a personal confidant of Paul VI, from a 1993 Apropos article saying, "the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass”

You have noted post-consiliar liturgist Henri Denis saying in Des Sacraments et des Hommes (1977) : "To claim that everything has changed is quite simply to be honest about what has happened. In some of the debates with traditionalists it has sometimes become the accepted practice to say that nothing has been changed. It would be better far to have the courage to admit that the Church has made important modifications and that she had good reason to do so. Why not acknowledge that religion has changed?"

Max Thurian (one of the six Protestant consultors to the Concilium), said in La Croix in late May 1969 that, "non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Last Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible."

And even before the Novus Ordo was publicly published, speaking about the changes already to the traditional liturgy in the 1960s, Cardinal Ottaviani warned that, "The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment of the faithful, who already show an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to our notice daily."

And that is without even delving into the actual changes in the Mass themselves, like the "Memorial Acclamation", removal of genuflections, removal of the Offertory, etc.

Edited to add:
-------------------
Regarding the Act of Faith, liturgical law does not fall under an the virtue of Faith. It falls under either Justice or Religion.

It does touch on Faith, but not directly, as we see from what Pius XII teaches against the liturgical reformers in Mediator Dei, 48 :

Quote:The sacred liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the supreme teaching authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly, of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine. But if one desires to differentiate and describe the relationship between faith and the sacred liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say, "Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi" - let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer. 

It is because the liturgy is subject to the Magisterium that truths can be drawn from the law of prayer. Thus it still requires the Magisterium to draw out from the liturgy in specific terms what is contained therein, and thus the liturgy is only is an indirect source of Catholic teaching.

Because the liturgy is subject to the Magisterium, however, it could be protected by infallibility if this was intended, but again as we showed before, the Church does not seem to have every invoked infallibility with regard to the liturgy as is shown by the issues over the Pontifical and the freedom with which the majority of theologians discussed or even asserted contrary opinions to the Pontifical.
Reply
#28
(11-27-2017, 12:56 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Don't forget that, if you live in the US, Friday, 8 December is of Obligation. I assume you made your Easter Duty , receiving Holy Communion between the First Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday (if you live in the US). If you didn't, I believe you're technically excommunicated, and you should mention that in your confession.

Failing to receive communion during Easter time without moral or physical impossibility (mortal sin does not excuse you, you are bound to confess first, and receive), is a grave sin against this precept of the Church.

It is not an automatic excommunication, and it is not even a sin for which excommunication was typically the penalty.

There are seven things which merit automatic excommunication :
  1. Formal Apostasy, Heresy or Schism
  2. Physical injury to the person of the Soverign Pontiff
  3. Taking/Keeping the Blessed Sacrament for a sacrilegious purpose
  4. Consecration of a bishop without Papal Mandate
  5. Attempted absolution of an accomplice in re turpi
  6. Direct violation by a priest of the seal of confession
  7. Obtaining an abortion effectu secuto
  8. Attempted Ordination of a Woman
Also excommunicated automatically are those without whose cooperation the sin could not happen (e.g. the abortion doctor).

Ignorance of the penalty prevents it from being automatically applied.
Reply
#29
(11-29-2017, 01:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 12:56 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Don't forget that, if you live in the US, Friday, 8 December is of Obligation. I assume you made your Easter Duty , receiving Holy Communion between the First Sunday of Lent and Trinity Sunday (if you live in the US). If you didn't, I believe you're technically excommunicated, and you should mention that in your confession.

Failing to receive communion during Easter time without moral or physical impossibility (mortal sin does not excuse you, you are bound to confess first, and receive), is a grave sin against this precept of the Church.

It is not an automatic excommunication, and it is not even a sin for which excommunication was typically the penalty.

There are seven things which merit automatic excommunication :
  1. Formal Apostasy, Heresy or Schism
  2. Physical injury to the person of the Soverign Pontiff
  3. Taking/Keeping the Blessed Sacrament for a sacrilegious purpose
  4. Consecration of a bishop without Papal Mandate
  5. Attempted absolution of an accomplice in re turpi
  6. Direct violation by a priest of the seal of confession
  7. Obtaining an abortion effectu secuto
  8. Attempted Ordination of a Woman
Also excommunicated automatically are those without whose cooperation the sin could not happen (e.g. the abortion doctor).

Ignorance of the penalty prevents it from being automatically applied.
The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass but only because of Vatican II and the fact that it is approved by the Church.

It does have problems with the lax rubrics for it and the Traditional Latin Mass is far superior than the Novus Ordo Mass spiritually and doctrinally.

The Church should have just stayed with the TLM
Reply
#30
(11-29-2017, 01:23 AM)Trad Catholic27 Wrote: The Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass but only because of Vatican II and the fact that it is approved by the Church.

It does have problems with the lax rubrics for it and the Traditional Latin Mass is far superior than the Novus Ordo Mass spiritually and doctrinally.

The Church should have just stayed with the TLM

That doesn't logically follow.

The Novus Ordo Mass is valid because when celebrated by a Catholic priest who understand and intends what the Church does it has valid matter, form, minister and intention.

Wheaten bread is used, Grape wine is used, the essential words are used, the minister intends the Sacrifice of the Mass (which is what the Church intends), and the minister is a priest.

Therefore, valid.

Now, eliminate any of those elements in particular cases, and we have an issue. Since one does not have to bring the intention to re-present the Sacrifice of the Cross, it can be excluded, and this was also one of the worries ... as theology got worse, fewer priests would bring the requisite intention.

Vatican II has nothing to do with it, nor does any "approval" of the Church.

It's not just a matter of superior spirituality or doctrinality. That has nothing to do with validity.

Again, to repeat the point : A Black Mass is valid ... and no one would say such is in any way say this has something to do with its spirituality or doctrinality. It is because the 4 elements (matter, form, intention and minister) are present.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)