Husband says NO is endangering his faith
#31
(08-10-2019, 12:28 AM)LionHippo Wrote: Lots of cuts and pastes of quotes, personal opinions, etc. about the NO Mass...but they're just quotes, not teachings, they do nothing to definitely teach on the legitimacy of the NO Mass.  Until a future official declaration condemns the NO (which will never happen), it is still Mass.



No one has said here that the Novus Ordo is not a Mass. Red herring, there.

As long as the Matter and Form is united by a proper Minister with the Intention of confecting the Blessed Sacrament these is a Mass. That is true of the Extraordinary Form, the Novus Ordo or a Satanic/Black Mass.

That a Mass in which the purpose of confecting the Blessed Sacrament is Its desecration is wrong and evil is obvious, and yet it is still Mass. So you appear to be missing the point, and no it is not that the Novus Ordo and a Black Mass are in any way equivalent.

The point is that one can have a Valid Mass and yet it could be something that a Catholic cannot without sin attend. The logical conclusion is that if a Novus Ordo is an occasion of sins against the Faith (I say there's a fair argument to be made, but yes, it is an opinion based on historical, statistical and factual evidences) then one cannot attend the Novus Ordo any more than he could attend a Black Mass.

Again, that's not to compare them as such, but to express the moral principles behind this. 

Whether the Novus Ordo presents that danger is then what needs to be determined, and I'm happy for someone to suggest why the changes do not do so, but to say "It's still a Mass" simply does not address that argument.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, BC, jovan66102
Reply
#32
(08-10-2019, 01:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Whether the Novus Ordo presents that danger is then what needs to be determined, and I'm happy for someone to suggest why the changes do not do so, but to say "It's still a Mass" simply does not address that argument.

I think LionHippo’s point was more than that in that he or she wasn’t saying simply that it is still mass but that it is a liturgy that is approved by the Church for the faithful to attend. Which in the past was plenty of evidence for me to conclude that it is not a danger.

But the current crises are causing me to question what the Church today is presenting as holy or approved. Changing the Catechism to say that the death penalty is wrong which contradicts Scripture and Tradition is just one example that has lead me to questioning everything because if they are teaching error about that, what else are they wrong about?
[-] The following 2 users Like StellaMatutina's post:
  • antiquarian, LionHippo
Reply
#33
(08-10-2019, 12:28 AM)LionHippo Wrote: Lots of cuts and pastes of quotes, personal opinions, etc. about the NO Mass...but they're just quotes, not teachings, they do nothing to definitely teach on the legitimacy of the NO Mass.  Until a future official declaration condemns the NO (which will never happen), it is still Mass.

You asked if the Novus Ordo was instituted to harm the Faith.

It's evident that it's creators did not like or believe in the Faith presented through the Traditional Latin Mass.  A look at Annibale Bugnini himself is enough to reach such a conclusion.

The orthodox clergy did not fabricate it. They fought against it.

Any intention to alter that Faith, as codified by the Council of Trent, by definition could not be beneficial.

As Magister said, whether it is a valid mass or not is ancillary to the point at hand.

Given that what one sees in most parishes is much more degenerated than the original criticized Novus Ordo of 1969/70, it is not surprising that pious laymen would experience a crisis of conscience.

Paul VI said we would be disturbed.

We`re disturbed.
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#34
(08-10-2019, 01:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: As long as the Matter and Form is united by a proper Minister with the Intention of confecting the Blessed Sacrament these is a Mass. That is true of the Extraordinary Form, the Novus Ordo or a Satanic/Black Mass.

That a Mass in which the purpose of confecting the Blessed Sacrament is Its desecration is wrong and evil is obvious, and yet it is still Mass. So you appear to be missing the point, and no it is not that the Novus Ordo and a Black Mass are in any way equivalent.

I'm not sure the point about consecrating at a Black Mass is correct.  At best, it may be an undecided issue.  AKA Catholic has posted on this a couple times after Mr. Skojek at 1P5 made a claim along the lines of an inebriated priest performing consecration.

https://akacatholic.com/consecration-outside-of-mass/
Reply
#35
Ok, first you asked:

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Is it an absolute certainty that the NO was instituted to purposely harm the Faith?

Your question was then abundantly answered because the historical record is public and resoundingly clear. We have the expressed intentions of the creators of the NO itself. (Although one could legitimately question whether it's fair or necessary to put the bar at establishing "absolute certainty" about this matter. Much less is needed. Read some Catholic news. Listen to people's experiences. I could go on for hours of horror stories from close friends struggling because of having to be subjected to their local NO Mass.)

But after having that question answered, you seemed to act as if people were answering a question about the validity of the NO Mass:

(08-10-2019, 12:28 AM)LionHippo Wrote: ...but they're just quotes, not teachings, they do nothing to definitely teach on the legitimacy of the NO Mass.  Until a future official declaration condemns the NO (which will never happen), it is still Mass.
But no one was talking about whether it is a valid Mass or not. No one was saying that the expressed intentions of these people carried Magisterial weight. No one here is denying the NO's "intrinsic, objective" validity (whatever that means) even though there are abundant theological, historical, and circumstantial reasons to have reasonable doubts about the validity or at least liceity—or at the very least propriety—of certain particular NO Masses in particular places, which is precisely what this thread is about in the case of the husband.

A little bit of moving the goalpost? Maybe throw in some red herring (like nitpicking on whether a Black Mass is valid according to the pre-conciliar theologians)? I don't know. It's irrelevant what you think about the historical record or whether you somehow confusedly could think that the testimony of the people who FABRICATED out of whole cloth the Novus Ordo Mass somehow would translate to Magisterial authority on its validity (what???). What is relevant is the lived experience of struggling families and individuals trying to remain Catholic or at least convince themselves that Catholicism has some sort of relevance in today's world. What is also relevant is that the people who created the Novus Ordo answered your original question themselves, and the only way they could have been clearer is if they added, "Because we hate the Catholic Faith and everything that stands for." But you can't always get what you want.

We aren't talking about apples and oranges here. We're talking about nutritious, healthful, shiny, colorful apples vs. rotting, molding, bruised, worm-ridden apples. The rot and the worms don't suddenly make it not an apple, but which do you pick when you're at the market? I don't need the store manager to tell me that the rotten apple is "still technically a valid apple!!" I can see it with my two eyes, and I have a brain. And which do you eat? I mean, they're both apples, right? 

And if you do that for your body, how much more careful ought you to be for your soul? And your family's souls? That's the issue here.

For three years, I attended a Lutheran church that used the Novus Ordo text in its integrity. Their hymnal quoted from Sacrosanctum Concilium and other post-conciliar documents to explain the theology of the "Lutheran service." In fact, the liturgy was in some ways an improvement on your average Novus Ordo Mass. The music was far better (they liked Bach, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, and the classic German hymns), and there was the incorporation of local devotional customs that were not jarring at all, such as the inclusion of a confiteor-type prayer before "communion." Of course, the pastor was a woman, but you know how these things go...

Try going to NO Mass each Sunday, having the priest explain in his "homily" why our Lord never performed miracles but was actually revealing to the people their inner God-power/identity/cosmic force/etc. and that is the lesson for us today. And also that we should be welcoming immigrants with open arms, since God loves the stranger, the poor, the widow, etc., and other liberal talking points. Or how about a homily about how a gay couple raising a child is beautifully embodying ("incarnating"--the priest is really trying to wow you when he pulls that word out) the model of the Holy Family? Then try explaining to your kids each Sunday why the priest was wrong, why what he was saying isn't Catholic, and how the kids need to make a distinction between what Father Moron says from the pulpit and the fact that he is still a priest, and still hope that your kids have a sense of respect for the authority or importance of priests in general. These experiences are legion for conscientious, conservative-minded parents. 

So no, it's not "cry me a river. Look at how our Lord suffered instead. Toughen up. That's just your opinion. Be an example to your parish... like me!" Goodness, I wish I could virtue signal like that. But some of us haven't quite reached the transforming union yet. Those who pretend like these issues are exaggerated really need to realize how inconsiderate they are being. Plenty of people don't have the luxury to pretend. I frankly don't care about my parish because it's not my responsibility. My responsibility is my family. I don't need people telling me that things aren't as difficult, confusing, and rotten as they are. I need people realizing just how bad things are and banding together and making a ruckus about it instead of just carrying on because what our Lord suffered was far worse. 

I also don't need people telling me that those of us who have doubts about the NO are actually "self-scandalized" when multiple, notable theologians, bishops, cardinals, and POPES raised serious qualms about it, had to intervene to correct serious abuses or clarify "contested" theological-liturgical points, and the creators of the NO openly celebrated its ecumenical flexibility!! Talk about patronizing.
 
Do you really think the Church would be better off today if there hadn't been people who ACTED by refusing to accept the abuses of the NO, who demanded and sought after the Traditional Sacraments and supported those priests and organizations that promoted such things? How bad does it have to get before you start wondering what happened to the modern Church? Does the Church have to go from "burning building" status to "sinking ship" status before you are willing to consider that there might be something wrong, and the Novus Ordo might be part of the problem?

Those who are still pretending that the Novus Ordo Mass is Catholic in any meaningful sense beyond its minimal theological core of having the Eucharist confected properly need to wake up and smell the sulfur.
[-] The following 6 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, BC, boredoftheworld, jovan66102, St. Camillus, traveler
Reply
#36
(08-10-2019, 06:08 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(08-10-2019, 01:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: As long as the Matter and Form is united by a proper Minister with the Intention of confecting the Blessed Sacrament these is a Mass. That is true of the Extraordinary Form, the Novus Ordo or a Satanic/Black Mass.

That a Mass in which the purpose of confecting the Blessed Sacrament is Its desecration is wrong and evil is obvious, and yet it is still Mass. So you appear to be missing the point, and no it is not that the Novus Ordo and a Black Mass are in any way equivalent.

I'm not sure the point about consecrating at a Black Mass is correct.  At best, it may be an undecided issue.  AKA Catholic has posted on this a couple times after Mr. Skojek at 1P5 made a claim along the lines of an inebriated priest performing consecration.

https://akacatholic.com/consecration-outside-of-mass/

It is a debated topic as to what constitutes the requisite intention for "Mass" but it is not as to whether the Blessed Sacrament is confected. Generally the distinction is not made, but some Scholastic theologians do make the distinction.

For a "Mass" properly speaking you need an intentional sacrifice, not just merely the presence of both species. That a priest intended to turn a piece of valid matter into the Body of Christ is certainly possible by simply intending this and speaking the words. The issue of drunkenness really is about whether he can form said intention.

The problem with the theory that consecration cannot happen if outside the context of the a Mass is fraught with problems, because once you make the distinction between the presence of the Sacrament, and the sacrifice of the Mass intended, it calls into question every consecration. Did the priest actually or virtually intend to not only say the words but also effect a sacrifice?

That problem then very much concerns the Novus Ordo, because the original GIRM itself originally omitted the concept of the Mass as Sacrifice, and even as amended only puts lipstick on the pig. The rite was not changed, only the introductory definition, so the rite was designed to omit the concept of sacrifice, and priests are certainly not trained in this concept. That was a great fear of Archbishop Lefebvre, that as the years went on this would cause invalid Masses, because the priests would not have the requisite intention.


In any case, I hope you understand that was not the point of the commentary. The point was that just because something is a Mass does not make it inherently good. The better comparison is the Mass of a schismatic priest, like the Orthodox or Old Catholics. Valid, but no Catholic should ever attend.
Reply
#37
I have stated before that I prefer the EF. If I was able to go all the time, I would. I have also said that the NO could be greatly improved, and be performed more reverently, by enforcing standards of dress, noise before Mass, eliminating female altar servers and EMHCs, incorporating ALL teachings into homilies, getting rid of the awful music, etc. So yes, I recognize the problems but know they're not going to be fixed any time soon. Nor is the EF going to be instituted as the only option for Mass in our lifetimes (if ever).

But obviously the non-infallible opinions, statements, writings, etc. of clergy and theologians who disagree with the NO or claim it is inherently wrong, etc. carry no weight. Sure, they provide evidence that some of them disagree and they offer good arguments. But ultimately, those statements have no binding authority on anyone.

And then again the question arises, how this awful Mass persisted for almost 50 years now. Obviously, some NO parishes are very off-the-wall with novelties, presenting gay couples like piscis mentioned, etc. Which tragically, never seem to be corrected by bishops, while the orthodox priests are silenced or disciplined when they speak out against same-sex relations or try to enforce a dress code. But in any case, the answer would have to be that the Church has been wrong for the last 50 years. And we shouldn't play word games by saying stuff like "well, the Church wasn't wrong, just the men of the Church were wrong, etc." Or as I have read elsewhere (I don't think on here) that God gave us the NO as some type of punishment, so Catholics would realize what they missed with the EF and insist on getting it back. Which turns God into some type of riddler or game player with the faithful, setting up obstacles to the faith hoping they'd recognize it and revolt against the changes.

And honestly, the problems in the Church expand beyond what liturgy she uses. WAY beyond it. There's just too much else going on, too much comfort in consumerist society, to distract people from the faith. The Catholic mindset as a whole has crumbled in the last century in the West. Perhaps the change to the NO was a symptom and not the entire cause of this crisis. Which is evident because many Trads have disagreements with V2 documents that have nothing to do with liturgy.

I don't write my posts with the intention to "virtue signal" or defend the NO at all costs. I agree with you folks on here that there are many problems with the way it is carried out in a lot of places. I won't go so far as to say it is "inherently" wrong or whatever choice of words one uses are. But just be honest here - it's not like if we went back to using the EF everywhere and forever, starting today, that Catholics would instantly grasp the faith better. I wish that were the case, but it's not reality.
[-] The following 2 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu
Reply
#38
(08-11-2019, 03:17 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That problem then very much concerns the Novus Ordo, because the original GIRM itself originally omitted the concept of the Mass as Sacrifice, and even as amended only puts lipstick on the pig. The rite was not changed, only the introductory definition, so the rite was designed to omit the concept of sacrifice, and priests are certainly not trained in this concept. That was a great fear of Archbishop Lefebvre, that as the years went on this would cause invalid Masses, because the priests would not have the requisite intention.

To add to this, even though we are not getting in to the issue of validity, the implications of the sacrificial aspect (or lack there of) was not just something reactionary Trads jumped upon.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Head of the Holy Office, wrote in 1969: 

Notes 29.As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. (The Ottaviani Intervention)

In the New Mass, the following prayer replaces the Traditional Offertory chant , Suscipe Sancte Pater:

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

Michael Davies, in his book, Liturgical Revolution (Vol. 3), p.320, explained:

"This prayer is a combination of a prayer taken from the Jewish meal ritual and the concept of man’s work consecrated to the Lord, an idea which the Pope himself wanted to be expressed in some way at this point in the Mass.. . . this prayer is thus acceptable not simply to Protestants, but to Jews and would certainly fit in with the ethos of a Masonic hall."
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#39
(08-11-2019, 08:03 AM)LionHippo Wrote: I have stated before that I prefer the EF.  If I was able to go all the time, I would.  I have also said that the NO could be greatly improved, and be performed more reverently, by enforcing standards of dress, noise before Mass, eliminating female altar servers and EMHCs, incorporating ALL teachings into homilies, getting rid of the awful music, etc.  So yes, I recognize the problems but know they're not going to be fixed any time soon.  Nor is the EF going to be instituted as the only option for Mass in our lifetimes (if ever).

No one is questioning that, Lion.

I'd point out, however, these things are accidentals. Important, yes, but accidental.

(08-11-2019, 08:03 AM)LionHippo Wrote: But obviously the non-infallible opinions, statements, writings, etc. of clergy and theologians who disagree with the NO or claim it is inherently wrong, etc. carry no weight.  Sure, they provide evidence that some of them disagree and they offer good arguments.  But ultimately, those statements have no binding authority on anyone.  

I am curious what you mean by "carry no weight" and "have no binding authority".

Of course private opinion (even of Popes) cannot "bind" us to believe something, but you seem to be opposing this evidence for the problems of the Novus Ordo Missæ and the conclusions from these against some magisterial authority, as if Rome has spoken and declared the Novus Ordo good, and therefore such arguments cannot overtake such an authority. As if we're bound to believe that the Novus Ordo is okay.

If so, that's a gross mischaracterization of the situation, and why someone might have the impression of "defend the NO at any cost" is your mantra. I understand you say it isn't, but if that's your implicit argument, it doesn't work.

At the very best, given Summorum Pontificum having settled the issue of whether Quo Primum and the 1962 Missal was forbidden, we know that the Novus Ordo was permitted. Some will say it was illicit, etc. That's not really important here, however, and a side track that won't help us.

If permitted, but not obliged, then there is zero magisterial weight behind this. Even if it were imposed, that would be a disciplinary matter, not a magisterial matter. So when you suggest that arguments against the NO have no "binding authority"

By such arguments I am not trying to bind you to accept my conclusions. I am explaining why people come to said conclusions, and why they therefore would be morally obliged to omit attending the Novus Ordo.

I think we are arguing past each other here. I am saying there are reason for people to think there is a problem that has moral consequences. You admit problems, but then suggest that they won't get better unless people do not stay in the mainstream.

A comparison could be if I were to say that my brother were getting married outside of the Church after having been divorced. I said, I cannot go because I cannot appear to approve of a wedding of a Catholic outside of the Church and also an adulterous union. It would be a sin for me to cause such scandal. You would then respond, yes, but how will your brother ever improve or come back if you do not keep contact with him.

It's not that you're not making a fair point—you are—but they are two distinct considerations. I should not go, but I should also try to keep contact. To conflate one as the response to the other is a kind of non sequitur.

That is why earlier, I suggested the proper way to point out to myself and others why we are wrong is to address the concerns about the Novus Ordo as a danger to Faith, in itself (not in individual incidents). There maybe good arguments against the position I and BC and others advocate, but then the flaws in the argument ought to be addressed.

I sympathize with your practical position, but our position is one that affects morals, so it goes beyond practicals and particulars.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, boredoftheworld, jovan66102
Reply
#40
(08-11-2019, 08:03 AM)LionHippo Wrote: I have stated before that I prefer the EF.  If I was able to go all the time, I would.  I have also said that the NO could be greatly improved, and be performed more reverently

I'll try another approach. Now that you're put it that way, based on absolutely everything that has been revealed about God by God; do you want to be within brimstone range of something that purported to be proper worship that was less that sufficiently reverent? There are many indications throughout both Testaments that, even to His chosen people, God's expectations make no sense. At random, Cain and Abel; there was certainly an internal issue that God addressed but the worship Cain offered to God was unacceptable regardless of his internal disposition and we see that echoed in the journey of the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem and the destruction of the man who by any human understanding had the best of all possible motives in steadying the Ark. That the servants given the talents weren't rewarded "equitably" based on the return, beyond that, the price for not turning a profit was loss of everything. Wedding guests invited at the last second in the wrong clothes bound up and cast in darkness?


There are lots of both/and situations where you could walk through parables and OT accounts where multiple points are being made and the Judgment of God does not conform to what we think is fair or even "right". God plays favorites according to His own way, and He does play favorites. 

When you put it the way you've put it, I'd be excessively careful in participating in any liturgical action where one the areas open to great improvement is reverence.
[-] The following 2 users Like boredoftheworld's post:
  • antiquarian, St. Camillus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)