The Mass Of All Time?!?

[cmotherofpirl]

Mark is always careful with what he posts. He posts just enough to irritate people but never enough to warrent the label schismatic. ...

[mark4IHM]

Dear Dust,

If by 'valid' you mean that transubstantiation occurs during the consecration, my answer is that I believe the original Novus Ordo Missae (circa 1969) is a valid Mass.

The point of my thread is not to contest the Novus Ordo; far better minds than I have already done that, and much more thoroughly than I ever could.

As I stated, I am trying to clarify what I meant by the term "Mass of all Time".

Mark

[cmotherofpirl]

So do you accept as valid the Mass as done in your local parish, assuming they follow the GIRM?

[mark4IHM]

Mark, I have to say that you're wrong here

Dear Friday,

I think what you mean to say is that Msgr. Gamber is wrong, for it is his opinions I am citing, not my own. You are free to disagree with him, but it would be more credible if you used an authority of similar weight to rebut him.

You seem fond of presuming an agenda upon me. It would be more productive to respond to what is actually on the thread, instead of trying to surmise what I am 'trying to pull.'

Last, for someone so abhorred by any sort of questioning of the present pope, I am surprised you so blithely dismiss centuries of papal declarations that the portions of the Mass originated with St. Peter

I pray for you daily.

Mark

[mark4IHM]

Friday wrote:

Do you agree or disagree that a Pope has, at some point prior to the Novus Ordo, changed the Mass?

Of course I agree. Will you PLEASE read the thread opening? You will see there a reference to Pius V making some minor changes to the Roman rite. So did many other popes. What Msgr. Gamber is speaking to is a much more significant change that, according to him, no pope prior to Paul VI had ever done: introduce major changes wholesale to the Roman liturgy.

Friday, I think Hyper might be right.

Mark

[Azriel]

Mark,

Can you answer Cmom's question? Please?

[dUSt]

mark4IHM,

My question was actually about today's Novus Ordo mass, as outlined in the most current revision of the GIRM, here in the United States.

Is it valid?

[mark4IHM]

Dust and Azriel,

I want to talk about the Mass of all Time, but you want me to talk about the Novus Ordo. Very well.

Dust, I'm not up on the GIRM revision, so I cannot speak to that. As for the Novus Ordo Mass as I occasionally assist at it, I am confident that when prayed in Latin the rite is valid. In English, I think it is most likely valid. I pray to God that it is.

My doubt centers on the susbstitution of "pro multis" in the English translation. I am familiar with both sides of this argument, and REALLY don't want to get into that here. My doubt is a personal matter of conscience, and the product, I think, of research and prayer.

The question of validity you are both raising extends beyond the rite itself, of course. Proper matter must be used, and I think we all know that doesn't happen all the time. Also, the priest must have the proper intention, and that doesn't happen all the time either, unfortunately.

But the question of the validity of the consecration for me is almost secondary to whole ambience of the Novus Ordo, and the steady desacralizing of the worship. It outrages my faith, and I can't believe the irreverence and nonchalance - not to mention the outright sacrileges - I have seen at some NO Masses can be pleasing to God.

Since I wish to please God above all things, I feel safest doing that at a Mass that grew out of the Tradition of the Church, that expresses the whole Catholic faith in its entirety, that is focused solely on the Real Presence, and allows silence to adore our Eucharistic Lord. I don't wish to stand in his presence or touch the Sacred Host. I am not worthy to do either. I wish to kneel before my Creator, receive Him on my tongue, and praise God with a happy heart and a clear conscience.

This is the tried and true worship of our beloved Creator, created over centuries by the love and labor of saints as they were led by the Holy Ghost, and I intend to cleave to it with heart and soul, in order to properly honor Our Lord, and to save my miserable soul.

Perhaps this answers your question?

Mark

[cmotherofpirl]

THe Mass as it is today is the Mass of the Church. There never was or never will be a particular Mass for all time. The discipline of the Mass has changed and will change again.

It is so sad you cannot see the beauty in the Mass of whatever particular era or discipline you are in.

[dUSt]

So that was a "no", you don't believe that the Novus Ordo mass that is practiced today is valid?

That makes me sad. I'll pray for you.

God bless.

[PedroX]

Mark,

I truly admire your desire and passion to protect the celebration of our Lord's redemption sacrifice. You are an inspiration to us in your fidelity.

I would ask you to consider what is truly important here, though. I freely admit that the Novus Ordo lacks much of the beauty and reverence of the old form. Also, the liturgical abuses that occur weekly are a scandal and a shame upon us. However, if JP2 is the true Pope ( the Vicar of Christ on Earth) then the Novus Ordo must be valid, in and of itself.

I spent 30 years wandering in the desert of Protestantism. I saw churches split over less important things than this debate ( I do believe the discussion is important and valid). However, if we pull away from each other over things that have been decided by the Holy Spirit, then we are as bad as Luther himself.

My prayers are with you.

peace...

[Donna]

Mark wrote, "In English I think it is most likely valid."

Mark and Nathan, I'm sorry now I brought up the O. Intervention. The reason I did is because reading it did teach me about the old Mass. Honest. And I was thinking of things that made me learn about it, when reading Msgr. Gamber's quotes. I would've suggested some other things, but other things I've posted, besides just reading the Missal itself, seem to bring more suspicions on the author or me than learning about that Roman Rite.

OK, I recommend reading the Missal. dUSt did. To learn about it that way, IF even the learned, gentlemanly book of Msgr. Gamber is on one's index of forbidden books. That is not a criticism.

Mark, your posts on explaining what you meant were informative and civil.

(God grant us all to become good writers!)

Domine... dona nobis pacem.

[Donna]

FYI: "Therefore, we believe the form of words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them.."

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, #415; [From the letter "Cum Marthae circa" to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyons, Nov. 29, 1202]

[dUSt]

"Most likely valid" means that he has doubts on whether it is valid. As a Catholic, he should have no doubt. That's why I'll pray for mark that he may come back into the fullness of Christ's Church some day.

As far as the tridentine misal I read through, I did notice that it had the ten commandmants, as well as 6 rules for being Catholic (or something like that). One of those rules is that a Catholic is not permitted to marry a non-Catholic, so... it's obviously outdated.

[Good Friday]

Donna and Mark, I do apologize for the way in which I said what I said, but I don't apologize for the core of what I said. I will not apologize for believing and stating that the authority of the present Holy Father is greater than the authority of a discipline, Cardinal Ottaviani, Msgr. Gamber, Cardinal Ratzinger, St. Pope Pius V, St. Peter himself, et al. Why? Because the present Holy Father is the only Holy Father. St. Pope Pius V and St. Peter ceased to bear that authority when they went to be with Jesus.

If you are stating that this Pope has broken with the Tradition of the Church -- I don't know if you are, it's impossible to ascertain what exactly y'all are saying because you tend to sidestep the issue a bit -- then you are, in essence, saying that hell has prevailed against the Church. If an ecumenical council and three Popes have been teaching doctrinal error, then the Church has been lost. If that's the case, then Jesus was a liar. Was Jesus a liar?

I put my trust in the Holy Father, because in doing so I put my trust in the Holy Spirit. I will not privately interpret anything -- not the Bible, not Tradition, not the way in which the Roman Rite Mass is to be celebrated. I believe with the gift of faith that the Holy Father cannot teach doctrinal error, and I will not be persuaded to believe otherwise. Again, I'm not saying you do believe this; I don't know what you believe, it's almost impossible to ascertain.

I'm going to be honest with you and tell you how I feel about schismatic traditionalists. If this is not you (and I don't know if it is or not, it's not my place to decide), then this has no bearing on you. But I believe that schismatic traditionalists have set the Tridentine Mass up as their idol god, ignoring the True God and the Church He founded. Again, I'm not saying this is you. But I do believe this is what's at the core of schismatic traditionalism. That's why I get so outraged over this topic, and why I'm probably not going to be participating much more, if any. I can't understand why anyone would prefer one discipline, the Tridentine Mass, over the rest of the many wonderful, God-given things that come with the Church.

Finally, a prayer, not directed at anyone in particular: May God have mercy on the souls of those who would, out of vanity and pride, question the authority of the man who He Himself selected to be His Vicar.