Denying the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass

[Dave]

I know someone who doesn't believe the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass if it's not said in Latin, thanks to the old "for many" vs. "for all" argument. Just for the record, he goes to an indult Tridentine Mass; he's not a member of the SSPX or anything like that. I have various arguments for why "for all" doesn't invalidate the Mass, so that's not my question here. My question is, what kind of sin is it, objectively speaking, to deny the Novus Ordo's validity if said in a certain language? In other words, is it venial or mortal, and why? Also, would the sin be considered heresy or another type of sin? Thanks in advance.

[Brother Adam]

All the more I could tell you is that he is denying the validity of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 7 2005, 09:10 AM'] I know someone who doesn't believe the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass if it's not said in Latin, thanks to the old "for many" vs. "for all" argument. Just for the record, he goes to an indult Tridentine Mass; he's not a member of the SSPX or anything like that. I have various arguments for why "for all" doesn't invalidate the Mass, so that's not my question here. My question is, what kind of sin is it, objectively speaking, to deny the Novus Ordo's validity if said in a certain language? In other words, is it venial or mortal, and why? Also, would the sin be considered heresy or another type of sin? Thanks in advance. [/quote]
I would say that more than showing a particular sin (though I would say there is one against authority, much like the sin of eating meat on Fridays is not a sin of eating meat but a sin against authority) show's more the nature of the individuals heart. (i.e. hard). That is the worst problem with regard to sin and the problem that is the underlying root of sin. When we are judged it will in reality be our heart that is judged and whether we have accepted God's grace by which he makes it new and clean.

By the way Patrick Madrid's "More Catholic Than the Pope" is a good primer for these trads you have been running in to. It's not to long and a pretty quick read. Might make a good Christimass or Fourth of July gift (if you don't want to wait that long). Perhaps he has a birthday coming up.

God bless

Edited May 7, 2005 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

I would say it is a lack of trust and the grave sin of presumption.
Of thinking you knew better than the Magisterium of the Church.
Like protestant bible interpretation, its a catholic version of being a magisterium of one.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 7 2005, 09:10 AM'] I know someone who doesn't believe the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass if it's not said in Latin, thanks to the old "for many" vs. "for all" argument. Just for the record, he goes to an indult Tridentine Mass; he's not a member of the SSPX or anything like that. I have various arguments for why "for all" doesn't invalidate the Mass, so that's not my question here. My question is, what kind of sin is it, objectively speaking, to deny the Novus Ordo's validity if said in a certain language? In other words, is it venial or mortal, and why? Also, would the sin be considered heresy or another type of sin? Thanks in advance. [/quote]
He is rebelling against the reform of Vatican II. I agree with him that the exclusive use of the vernacular isn't what the Council intended nor is the turning of the altars, but the various reforms are valid.

Invariably, he will cite Quo Primum, let him.....let him get his whole argumnet out...don't interrupt and then ask him about Cum Sanctissimum and Si Quid Est.

He won't be able to argue and longer and hopefully he will see the error of his position.

Those documents, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314"]Cum Sanctissimum[/url] and [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403"]Si Quid Est[/url] are reforms of the Liturgy, that happened almost immediately after the promulgation of the bull, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/396"]Quo Primum Tempore[/url].

Cam

[Pilgrim]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 7 2005, 09:10 AM'] would the sin be considered heresy or another type of sin? [/quote]
Not to be dramatic, but I'd say your friend is a schismatic. The Mass is the very heart of our faith, of which the Eucharist is the "source and summit." It is the visible sign of our unity and to deny its validity is to deny the Church's unity. Your friend has every right to prefer the Tridentine Mass, but to call the Novus Ordo "invalid" is an act of schism. I don't mean to be melodramatic, but that is certainly a mortal sin.

[popestpiusx]

I think you have all missed the target on this one. If I have time tonight, I will try to get back on here. Being a traditionalist myself, I encounter this from time to time. It usually comes from the very frustrated yet theologically inept version of tradtionalist. More later...

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 8 2005, 08:08 AM'] He is rebelling against the reform of Vatican II. I agree with him that the exclusive use of the vernacular isn't what the Council intended nor is the turning of the altars, but the various reforms are valid.

Invariably, he will cite Quo Primum, let him.....let him get his whole argumnet out...don't interrupt and then ask him about Cum Sanctissimum and Si Quid Est.

He won't be able to argue and longer and hopefully he will see the error of his position.

Those documents, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314"]Cum Sanctissimum[/url] and [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403"]Si Quid Est[/url] are reforms of the Liturgy, that happened almost immediately after the promulgation of the bull, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/396"]Quo Primum Tempore[/url].

Cam [/quote]
Well the Novus Ordo wasn't a Vatican II thing it was imposed by Paul VI after that council.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 8 2005, 08:08 AM'] He is rebelling against the reform of Vatican II. I agree with him that the exclusive use of the vernacular isn't what the Council intended nor is the turning of the altars, but the various reforms are valid.

Invariably, he will cite Quo Primum, let him.....let him get his whole argumnet out...don't interrupt and then ask him about Cum Sanctissimum and Si Quid Est.

He won't be able to argue and longer and hopefully he will see the error of his position.

Those documents, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314"]Cum Sanctissimum[/url] and [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403"]Si Quid Est[/url] are reforms of the Liturgy, that happened almost immediately after the promulgation of the bull, [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/396"]Quo Primum Tempore[/url].

Cam [/quote]
Usually i see Quo Primum used by traditionalists only as an arguement agianst the Need for an Indult not the need for factual editing, this seems like a very weak arguement agianst Quo Primum.