Is it ever OK to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?
#24
(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote: I did not say the SSPX is in schism, I do not get to make such determinations.  As I’ve said previously, I personally believe they are schismatic.

I am glad that you see that none of us here have the ability to judge a canonical crime. We both agree, then. There are two problem with this "personal" approach, as I see it, though.

  1. You personally believe something which the authorities who have the ability to make such a determination have not made, and this against actions by those same authorities which war against the idea of schism (e.g. the granting of an ecclesial mission by granting faculties, the permission to ordain, the jurisdiction to operate and judge in ecclesiastical trials).

    As a result, you make this entirely subjective, and then have no standing to argue with an someone who says that they "personally" believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is a danger to their Faith or a sacrilege, and so refuses to attend it. If you can "personally" believe something contrary to what the authorities in the Church have said, you necessarily concede the very point you are making by the quote from Fr Peter Scott. If you can "personally" believe that the SSPX is in schism (or schismatic, which is the same thing), then why doesn't Fr Scott get to determine that he "personally believes" the Novus Ordo Mass harmful to souls?

  2. While you are correct that neither of us can judge someone or a group guilty of an ecclesiastical crime, by claiming your personal belief that they, nevertheless, acting in a criminal manner, is to say you personally believe they are guilty of moral sin. Are you therefore claiming that all SSPX faithful and members (priests, sisters, seminarians, brothers) are guilty of the moral sin of schism, even if they cannot by you be judged guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of schism?
(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote:  They are definitely canonically irregular.

What does this mean?

Can you please cite the relevant Canon Law or relevant present authority who asserts this (i.e. CDF, or Pope) and not just a past statement from 1988-2009 as many people do (as if nothing has changed since 1988 or 2009)?

(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote: For your reading pleasure, from the SSPX on the NO Mass:
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Source: http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/c...dnovusordo

You post this as if this is a damning condemnation of the SSPX, meaning you think it obviously wrong. That's fine, but if you're going to post something like that, as if it is incorrect, then you need to justify why it is so, not just assume it. Many people obviously agree with Fr Scott, so if you do not, and you think it so obvious that others should see the SSPX in a bad light, then you need to explain why this statement is incorrect.

As far as I see there are three reasons it could be incorrect :

1. Fr Scott is factually incorrect that the "New Mass [is] a sacrilege."

2. Fr Scott is incorrect in his logic, and the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

3. Fr Scott is incorrect in his moral theology, and even if the "New Mass [were] a sacrilege" it would be necessary to attend to fulfil one's Sunday obligation.

I would assume your argument would likely be the first of these, and perhaps you might argue the third. I doubt many people think he is correct with his evaluation of the New Mass, and the moral theology, but incorrect with his conclusions.

First, I would note that again, by claiming the ability to subjectively determine things above, you have effectively gutted the ability to object now when someone take a "personal" opinion here. Leaving that aside, in case you decide a different approach is better, I will point out the flaws in the argument here.

While I won't write a treatise, the SSPX did to show their objections to the Novus Ordo Mass called The Problem of the Liturgical Reform (pdf). One can argue with the official position which derives from this, but their conclusion after 111 pages of theological and liturgical arguments, hundreds of footnote references, and dozens of sources from the Magisterium is :

Quote:The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it. Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the lex credendi of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is “orthodox” in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer “right praise” to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen. And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the faithful “the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,” (St Pius X, Tra le sollicitudini) where the Church “communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei, of the truth of Christ.” (Pius XII, Allocutio on Pastoral Liturgy). In light of these serious deficiencies, “the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.” (Msgr Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 Nov 1974). In such a situation, we are therefore obliged to hold fast to the traditional liturgy, which is certainly worthy of God, which has never been abrogated, and which has produced so many fruits of holiness down the ages. That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment on our part, but rather because we are persuaded that by so doing we cannot render greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to future generations, we follow the adjuration that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X addressed to us on September 23, 1979:

Quote:For the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the love of the Church, for the love of the Pope, for the love of bishops, of priests, of all the faithful, for the salvation of the world, for the salvation of souls, keep this Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass of All Time!

You can argue with that, approach, but then you will need to address the various arguments they make, not simply dismiss such things out of hand or think posting a single quote is sufficient. If you respond by dismissing them (which was your approach with the posting of Fr Scott's answer) and that this is your "personal" belief, then you concede that the SSPX can also hold this belief, and unless there can be an airing of opinions and debate, both must be asserted as tenable.

With regard to the third point of possible objection, I propose a situation that I think will adequately prove the point that this theology is solid. Let us say that Bob is a good orthodox Catholic who lives in a small town on a Pacific island nation. The only Catholic church on the island, St Vincent's has a pastor Fr Joseph, who celebrates a horror of a liturgy. He is fully in support of women priests and eccumenism, and so he and the local Methodist pastorette always team up for a joint Sunday service. Sometimes she leads the liturgy and sometimes he does, but they always use the text of the Novus Ordo Mass. They always "concelebrate" so Fr Joseph is always actually consecrating. Fr Joseph's sermons are even less orthodox that Pastor Jane's, and he openly promotes heresy and immorality. The local bishop who is hundreds of miles away does not care, and won't fix the situation, despite complains. Thus, this ceremony is objectively a sacrilege, Bob has no appeal to an authority to fix it, but this is the only "Catholic Mass" Bob has access to. Others are hundreds of miles away by plane or boat.

Is Bob obliged to go to this "Mass" even though it is a clear and obvious sacrilege, and a objective scandal and danger to his Faith, since he has to meet his Sunday obligation?

Now, I am not saying that every Novus Ordo Mass is this bad, but I want to see if you agree that there could be a situation where the sacrilegious or scandalous character of a Mass was such that it would permit one to stay away even on Sunday.

If one would need to go anyway, then it seems that the Sunday Obligation never admits of exceptions (even though we know that it does, like distance and sickness), or that an obligation in Justice (due to the Church law of obligation) is more important than Faith (which is exposed to danger by this act of Justice).

If one would not need to go, then the argument boils down to the first point of objection : The opinion of Fr Scott is incorrect, but then one needs to deal with the arguments, which means we go back to what is above, and the whole notion of a "personal" belief.

So, I'd be curious which objection you actually make, and then perhaps some rational discussion could ensue. I'd hope you're different, Pandora, than the rest of the crowd, because rarely when this topic comes up does one find people willing to take on the argument. Usually it's just a "bash the SSPX" party on one side, and a "SSPX or nothing" on the other side.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Is it everOK to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? - by MagisterMusicae - 11-27-2020, 06:19 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)