The Mass Of All Time?!?

[Dave]

Mark:

If you're entertaining doubts as to whether the Novus Ordo is valid, then you shouldn't be receiving the sacraments because you're not in communion with the Church.

[mark4IHM]

Hi y'all,

I stand by what I wrote.

I find it remarkable that an explanation by a recognized authority about the history of the Roman Rite and the Modern Rite has caused people to investigate my religious practices, question my Communion, fail in charity, and in general wish to discuss anything but the topic of this thread...which I do intend to return to.

[Dave]

If you willfully question the validity of the Novus Ordo, then you're not in communion with the Church. Nothing uncharitable about that; it's just the truth. We're speaking the truth in love.

[mark4IHM]

Dave,

Thanks for your post. My confessor will be surprised to hear I am no longer in Communion with the Church. So will the clergy I discussed this matter with before making my decision. :)

[mark4IHM]

Dust,

Thank you for your prayers. You have mine.

Your misapprehension is in assuming a continuity between the liturgy and worship of the last forty years with the Mass of All Time. I reckon such a statement is incomprehensible to you, and further proof of my lack of Communion. Perhaps in time you will find things out for yourself.

You place more weight on the "validity" of the NO Mass than I do. For me, the validity of an NO Mass is in a supernatural sense more damning of the liturgy than if it was invalid. What do I mean?

Consider the documented tendency of the NO Mass to descend into irreverence and sacrilege. Consider that the majority of Catholics don't go to confession or believe in the Real Presence. Stir it all together and you have a sacramental mockery of our Savior. If that happens even once, it is too much. Realistically, it could be happening daily.

There is much more to this issue than your simple litmus test.

[mark4IHM]

Pedrox,

Thank you for both of your posts. Your charity and balance are welcome.

I was a Protestant too. Like you, I believe John Paul II is a validly elected pope. And I agree this is an important issue, although it was not my idea to talk about it; I got dragged into it because no one wanted to discuss my thread. B)

I disagree with two things you wrote. First, I doubt the Holy Ghost was the impetus for ICEL, or the havoc it wreaked through its English translations of the Novus Ordo Missae. The Holy See recognized this too, and finally reined them in.

Second disagreement: Nobody could be as bad as Luther.

Peace,

Mark

[mark4IHM]

Friday,

Welcome back, mon ami, you arrived just in time for the Inquisition.

All is forgiven, of course. And I congratulate you, for unlike C-Mom, you recognized that for your own sake you needed to withdraw.

Friday, no one has more good will than you. I don't really want to argue with you about the most recent stuff you brought up. Some of it isn't germane to this thread (there's a laugh), other stuff I think is siimply incomprehensible to you now. You have said so, and I believe you.

Persevere in prayer, pray especially for the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost. And try to find out a little bit more about the Church of the last 1,965 years.

May the peace of Christ be yours.

[mark4IHM]

Donna,

Thank you as always for your posts.

Thank you also for dropping the Ottaviani intervention. I'm not really sure what's up with that, other than it is another arena for sterile polemics.

Whatever the truth of the matter is, I'll pass along a quote I found in that notoriously schismatic rag known as Inside The Vatican:

"This ceremony at St. Mary Major did away with the idea that the Tridentine Mass is scarcely legitimate or was radically eliminated from the Church...The negative position taken up at the Council by Siri, Lefebvre, (and) Ottaviani...is tacitly recognized as Catholic."

Question: Is Inside the Vatican still in Communion?

Edited August 20, 2003 by mark4IHM

[littleflower+JMJ]

im' going to pray for you too mark.....

[PedroX]

Mark,

Thank you for your charitable comments. I apologize for comparing you to Luther. My intent was to point out a slippery slope that all sides of a disagreement like this are bound to fall down. Curse the limits of English and double curse the limits of email. :D

I recognize your desire to get back to the original intent of this post, but forgive me for digressing once again. My question is that if JP2 and JP1 and others were valid Popes (The Vicar of Christ on Earth) how could the NO mass be invalid? This has been a major point of contention with me as I read Traditionalist writings. I fail to see how JP2 and others can be anything but valid Popes, and I can't see how they can be valid but the order (discipline) of the Mass they espouse can be invalid.

Thank you in advance for your patience with my dull wits.

peace...

[ryanmeyersmusic]

i'm not familiar enough with much of this to make fair arguments except these:

* the church goes through ebbs and flows like any other person (not human, but person) and some of that means that there will be times where people don't take things seriously enough (lax of respect for the mass today), and times where people take things so seriously that they hurt people (dark ages, anyone?) to use this as an argument against the new mass is not fair. the mass is the prayer of the church, and to say that you're not sure if you're a part of that prayer is kind of a big deal...

* doubt is not the opposite of faith. fear is the opposite of faith. scripture is pretty consistent in saying being up front with God with doubts will result in the gift of faith. not allowing someone to doubt is a lack of faith on your own part. true faith is being confident, in the words of chris rice, that god "holds an explanation point for every question mark"

* i'm glad that everybody's praying for everybody. i pray for the members of this community regularly and I"m glad that others do as well.

* germans love david haselhoff

[Donna]

"If you wilfully question the validity of the Novus Ordo, then you're not in communion with the Church."

This statement is broad-brushed.

We are responsible for what we know.

#1. The Novus Ordo Missae in Latin's Consecration of the wine is NOT the same as most English spoken Masses. The prime difference being:

Latin: "pro multis" (which will be shed for many)

English: "for all" (which will be shed for all)

a) In the decree "De Defectibus" (On Defects in Celebrating the Mass) of Paul IV he specifically brought up the consecration of the wine. "Now the words of consecration, which are the form of this sacrament..." etc; it is not "for all".

a 2) "Thus, to translate pro multis as "for all men" represents a serious and completely unjustified break with tradition, particularly in view of the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent [an infallible Council] teaches that pro multis refers to the subjective redemption, and that for this reason the words "for all" (pro universis) were not used." (Michael Davies, Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 625)

c) The requirement for a valid sacrament by an ordained Catholic priest is:

***proper form

***proper matter

***proper intent

An invalid baptism would be "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Redeemer, and of the Holy Spirit."

The ICEL is directly responsible for mistranslating this.

There has been raging debate about this issue, it is not clear, the Holy See has NOT cleared it up, and so why is anyone surprised that there be doubts, positive or negative among any faithful, once they have this information?

(Sorry, Mark, for getting into this)

[littleflower+JMJ]

so all who go to the Novus Ordo Missae, the one that most of us catholics go to, is not valid because of the translations?

thats news to me......

but isn't the bible like that, with translations that vary over millions of languages, but it still makes it God's Word regardless? why would God's holy sacrifice of the Mass be limited to such things and thus making it invalid?

i seriously don't understand....

+JMJ

[Donna]

Nathan, Mark is right: you have much good will.

Now, will someone give me a reference ( hopefully from the recent Catechism) that defines the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a "discipline." Every reference I have -including the Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma - says anything but the Holy Mass being a dscipline. Certainly rubrics and ceremonies have changed.

I would like to remind everyone -the faithful and scismatics alike- that the doctrine of papal infallibility applies ONLY to the Soverein Pontiff speaking EXCATHEDRA. This is the only area specifically protected. And it is this: that the infallible definition cannot fail.

This does not mean anything other than what I have written. Nathan, the Pope who excommunicated St. Athanasius certainly did err. And by this act he did "teach" something. I'm ONLY talking about that one example, I insinuate nothing. It is not Catholic to ascribe a general infallibility to everything any pope ever does. In my opinion, that borders on papolatry.

Now, to any Catholic who takes seriously that "the law of prayer is the law of belief", and understands that the Holy Mass forms the faith of an individual, not the other way around; and that the Mass is a catechism so to speak, that person would be no good Catholic to not defend it. Maybe some have set it up as an idol god.

But here is the real heartbreak: that sincere Catholics really think that by upholding the old Mass, such people are ignoring the True Church and the True God. That is unbelievable! It is exactly the opposite.

[Donna]

jmj, I had said that there is a raging debate on this issue, it is not clear, that it hasn't been cleared up. Some think the English "for all" invalidates the Mass; some think it invalidates the consecration of the wine; some think it invalisdates nothing, that "for all" renders a completely valid Mass.

I don't know the answer. I was speaking to people posting, and giving rash judgement that having doubts (positive or negative) about the validity of the New Mass means that one is not in communion with the Church. It depends. If you know that the proper form of the host is wheaten flour and water only; and your parish priest uses sugar and yeast as well [in the Latin Rite], then you're a good Catholic to have doubts and more about the validity of Masses which use these hosts of improper matter.

These are complicated issues. Some priests just pooh-pooh the whole thing; some understand why any soul MAY -repeat- MAY have a doubt.

It matters because the words of any sacrament (like in confession) are the form of it.

When I was in RCIA I asked the priest about this difference. He said ICEL translated it wrong, but merely shrugged as to how this committee could do that.

Edited August 20, 2003 by Donna