Am I supposed to be going to Mass at my local church?
#31
(11-29-2017, 01:37 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(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.

How do we know the minister intends the Sacrificial aspect or even generally what the Church intends?
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#32
OP, 

Most OF Masses are valid unless you have a good reason to believe they aren't. If, God forbid, the priest uses a cookie for the Host or Kool-Aid for the Chalice, it's obviously not valid because valid matter has not been used. A person's priesthood is likely valid unless a woman or a protestant shows up. Etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to get to the point where you are personally determining that you will stay home unless you can get to your preferred Mass. You say you've missed Mass for 8 months. Let's assume your OF parish nearby is like most parishes worldwide and has a valid Eucharist. That means that you have personally turned down your duty to attend Mass and receive Jesus Himself because you'd rather go to the SSPX chapel. Regardless of your personal feelings about the OF, this isn't right.
Reply
#33
(11-29-2017, 03:03 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: How do we know the minister intends the Sacrificial aspect or even generally what the Church intends?

You can't determine this yourself. It is an internal disposition of the minister.

You can make an educated guess at it from certain external signs.

That was one of the safeguards of the traditional rite. The Offertory in the traditional rite lends itself to nothing but a clear picture of a propitiatory sacrifice. With such words, it required a priest to actively and directly make an intention against this and effectively falsify his words in order to remove the intention of sacrifice.

The New Mass replaces these prayers with a Jewish meal blessing, making the first and primary notion a meal. This now demands just the the opposite from before. Now the priest has to bring the notion of propitiatory sacrifice in.

Whereas "sacrifice" in the older rite clearly had only the meaning of propitiatory sacrifice, the new rite's meal blessing without speaking of an offering for sin, and vicitim, but rather of human gifts offered to God, very much muddies the waters as to what kind of sacrifice, if any is being offered.
Reply
#34
(11-29-2017, 03:11 AM)In His Love Wrote: OP, 

Most OF Masses are valid unless you have a good reason to believe they aren't. If, God forbid, the priest uses a cookie for the Host or Kool-Aid for the Chalice, it's obviously not valid because valid matter has not been used. A person's priesthood is likely valid unless a woman or a protestant shows up. Etc.

I don't think it's a good idea to get to the point where you are personally determining that you will stay home unless you can get to your preferred Mass. You say you've missed Mass for 8 months. Let's assume your OF parish nearby is like most parishes worldwide and has a valid Eucharist. That means that you have personally turned down your duty to attend Mass and receive Jesus Himself because you'd rather go to the SSPX chapel. Regardless of your personal feelings about the OF, this isn't right.

Again, why are we worrying about validity?

A Black Mass is valid. Should I go to one if I don't have any other Mass? 

An Orthodox Divine Liturgy is valid. Should I go there on Sunday if I don't have a nearby Catholic Mass?

The Mass said by an Apostate Priest is valid ...

The Mass for a homosexual couple getting married is probably valid ....

The issue is not about validity

The issue is whether the Novus Ordo Missæ is a grave danger to one's Faith? Or better put, whether it adequately expresses the Catholic doctrine regarding the Mass?

That is the only question that matters, and on it turns the whole matter. Even if valid, if it endangers one's Faith it must be avoided.

The obligation to attend Mass is a positive ecclesiastical precept. Positive precepts do not oblige when there is grave inconvenience or harm : lex positiva not obligat cum grave incommodo. This is why a perfectly healthy mother caring for sick children is dispensed, as is someone who has to drive hours to just get to Mass.

There is no duty to "receive Jesus" except once a year during Easter, and this too is a positive precept, so when there is grave inconvenience or harm.
Reply
#35
MM, you're right. It's only a duty to receive Jesus at Easter. I stand corrected.

The "home alone" position just seems really extreme.
Reply
#36
(11-29-2017, 04:42 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-29-2017, 03:03 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: How do we know the minister intends the Sacrificial aspect or even generally what the Church intends?

You can't determine this yourself. It is an internal disposition of the minister.

You can make an educated guess at it from certain external signs.

That was one of the safeguards of the traditional rite. The Offertory in the traditional rite lends itself to nothing but a clear picture of a propitiatory sacrifice. With such words, it required a priest to actively and directly make an intention against this and effectively falsify his words in order to remove the intention of sacrifice.

The New Mass replaces these prayers with a Jewish meal blessing, making the first and primary notion a meal. This now demands just the the opposite from before. Now the priest has to bring the notion of propitiatory sacrifice in.

Whereas "sacrifice" in the older rite clearly had only the meaning of propitiatory sacrifice, the new rite's meal blessing without speaking of an offering for sin, and vicitim, but rather of human gifts offered to God, very much muddies the waters as to what kind of sacrifice, if any is being offered.

Sorry, but just to be very clear:

So the intention of the heart of a priest saying the traditional rite cannot invalidate the mass and the consecration since the words he says make clear what his intention is?  When attending that rite you have that assurance?

And in the new mass if the priest does not have the right intention it invalidates the mass and consecration because of the missing words? You can never really be sure?

(I have further reason for wanting to clarify this which I will get to later.)
Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist. 
The demons of the air together with the Antichrist will perform great wonders  
The Church will be in eclipse

-Our Lady of La Salette


Like Christ, His Bride the Church will undergo its own passion, burial, and resurrection.
-unknown traditional priest

Father Ripperger said that if we are detached from all things, aren't afraid to suffer, and we accept all suffering as the will of God for our sanctity, we have nothing to fear!
Reply
#37
(11-28-2017, 10:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 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.

As you probably know, I  have noted very damning contextual statements that surrounded the development of the Novus Ordo on a lot of the liturgy threads , so you and I are in agreement of how problematic it is.

Cardinal Ottaviani was totally correct of course.  But, I think the question of how this could come from the Church he left unanswered.  

Yes, those quotes do not pertain directly to the Novus Ordo.  However, it seemed that it was pretty well established that something like the Novus Ordo could never have happened.
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#38
(11-29-2017, 11:19 AM)BC Wrote: As you probably know, I  have noted very damning contextual statements that surrounded the development of the Novus Ordo on a lot of the liturgy threads , so you and I are in agreement of how problematic it is.

Cardinal Ottaviani was totally correct of course.  But, I think the question of how this could come from the Church he left unanswered.  

Yes, those quotes do not pertain directly to the Novus Ordo.  However, it seemed that it was pretty well established that something like the Novus Ordo could never have happened.

That's why some will try to argue that the Novus Ordo was not properly promulgated. Even if they were right, I don't think it's a very useful argument, and then prompts its own questions on indefectibility.

Generally the "how" is probably best left unanswered.

There is an inherent problem, I see, in trying to evaluate the present situation since Vatican II with the exact same paradigm we would something that Pius XII would have said. Amoris Lætitiæ, I think does a good job of showing that problem, and I'd be willing to bet the "how" of both this and the Novus Ordo probably turn on a very similar point.

Sedevacantism is one cheap and easy solution, but comes with a freighter-load of baggage.

A liberal "ultramontanism" (ironic as that is to say), with the Neo-Modernist touting the "he's the Pope, you must obey" line is also a cheap and easy solution, but fraught with issues.

It's clearly today not just as simple as it was in 1950, when the Pope said it, or promulgated it you could trust it.

Precisely how much that can be said without undermining indefectibility, I'll leave to smarter folks than myself.
Reply
#39
(11-29-2017, 06:17 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(11-29-2017, 04:42 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-29-2017, 03:03 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: How do we know the minister intends the Sacrificial aspect or even generally what the Church intends?

You can't determine this yourself. It is an internal disposition of the minister.

You can make an educated guess at it from certain external signs.

That was one of the safeguards of the traditional rite. The Offertory in the traditional rite lends itself to nothing but a clear picture of a propitiatory sacrifice. With such words, it required a priest to actively and directly make an intention against this and effectively falsify his words in order to remove the intention of sacrifice.

The New Mass replaces these prayers with a Jewish meal blessing, making the first and primary notion a meal. This now demands just the the opposite from before. Now the priest has to bring the notion of propitiatory sacrifice in.

Whereas "sacrifice" in the older rite clearly had only the meaning of propitiatory sacrifice, the new rite's meal blessing without speaking of an offering for sin, and vicitim, but rather of human gifts offered to God, very much muddies the waters as to what kind of sacrifice, if any is being offered.

Sorry, but just to be very clear:

So the intention of the heart of a priest saying the traditional rite cannot invalidate the mass and the consecration since the words he says make clear what his intention is?  When attending that rite you have that assurance?

And in the new mass if the priest does not have the right intention it invalidates the mass and consecration because of the missing words? You can never really be sure?

(I have further reason for wanting to clarify this which I will get to later.)

No.

A priest saying a traditional Mass can certainly intend something different, and thus invalidate a Mass. When training priests to say the old Mass, this is precisely what is done (they are told during the practice Masses to specifically intend for that practice not to consecrate).

Still the rite itself is so chock-full of the clear intention of the Church that a priest would have to make a seriously clear contrary intention to be effective.

In the New Mass, that Sacrificial intention is so much reduced that a Protestant scholar who helped design it (Max Thurian) could say a Protestant should have no theological qualms with the New Mass. The only theological qualm a Protestant could take, however, is with the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, meaning in Thurian's mind, that had been removed.

In short, The New Mass could be read in a Protestant or Catholic light. Thus the intention becomes paramount. The rite isn't sufficient to guarantee it, so there is a real question. It seems necessary that the priest supply an intention to be sure it is in line with the Church's intention.

In many cases a priest probably does supply a sufficient intention, but there is no guarantee, and given the questionable theology studied by many priests (I've talked with dozens and even given some philosophy and theology lessons to those that asked) as time passes the likelihood of a sufficient intention decreases.
Reply
#40
I don't mean to revive this thread per se, but just to add to what MM was saying about how the Novus Ordo can be said by Protestants--I was an organist at a Lutheran church for about 2 years (and these were liberal Lutherans, not conservative ones), and they used the Novus Ordo word for word (with a few local customs added that actually made it "nicer" than the original in my opinion) and even had quotations from Sacrosanctum Concilium in the preface to their hymnal/missal to explain some aspects of their liturgy. The words of consecration were unchanged and said every Sunday by the female pastor, versus populum.

At that point, I *really* realized something was wrong.
[-] The following 1 user Likes richgr's post:
  • GRA
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)