Does Novus Ordo fulfill Sunday Obligation?

[Guest Eremite]

There are some radical "Traditionalists" who even refuse to use missals after 1955, when Pius XII reformed the order of Holy Week.

[Dave]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 12 2005, 05:58 PM']ok, i don't know alot about this topic, so bear w/ me.......

i thought, as long as the priest said, "this is my body" and "this is my blood" then it was valid. why does the "for  many / all" thing matter?
[right][snapback]641214[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're correct. However, Matatics and others like him think that's just a theological opinion, and they faultily interpret what the Council of Trent claims is necessary for a valid consecration.

[Brother Adam]

The Novus Ordo is invalid only if every pope from John XXIII and beyond are anti-popes, the Magisterium of the Church isn't *really* the magisterium, and if the Second Vatican Council and the Code of Canon law are wrong.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 12 2005, 09:32 PM']The Novus Ordo is invalid only if every pope from John XXIII and beyond are anti-popes, the Magisterium of the Church isn't *really* the magisterium, and if the Second Vatican Council and the Code of Canon law are wrong.
[right][snapback]641467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Such is the sedevacantist claim.

[corban711]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 12 2005, 09:32 PM']The Novus Ordo is invalid only if every pope from John XXIII and beyond are anti-popes, the Magisterium of the Church isn't *really* the magisterium, and if the Second Vatican Council and the Code of Canon law are wrong.
[right][snapback]641467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


that is exactly what karl keating said in his e-letter...that is the conclusion matatics would have to hold in order to stick to the logic of his position, which apparently he does since all his speaking engagements for the year were cancelled (except for one, i think). a lot of different groups don't want to be associated with him any more because of his positions on these topics.

[Donna]

Phat, specifically (I hope I'm putting this forth correctly) the argument hinges on the difference between Christ's redemption ("for all") vs who shall be saved ("for many"). His sacrifice *has* redeemed all. But not all will be saved.

So further this regards the Mass...In the Latin language consecration of the wine the translation is: For this is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: **the mystery of faith** which will be shed for you and for many..." etc;

This "mystery of faith" part (mysterium fidei) may therefore be part of the argument, because that phrase specifically puts forth the theology/reality of the Mass - the wine - being sacrfice, the Precious Blood. I hope that helps some about the specifics.

But, is this even an issue now? Isn't the new English (vernacular) translation "for many"? Have they not brought back the original offetory language (making clear the sacrificial act that the Mass is)?

And it's way too mind boggling to even consider that any post 1960-whenever are not ordained. I have enough problems. But this has been proferred before, especially in The Remnant, which is NOT an SSPX paper (so to speak), but an Indult one (so to speak). Solange Strong Hertz (a briliant intellect) was long one of its writers and Mr. Matatics thinks very much of her (as he has said in talks), selling her wares and books along with his own, don't know if he still does this. This ordination thing freaked me way more out than the arguments about the consecration.

But you really have to be careful, esp. if reading Solange, which I don't, and I hate to say it because I once met her (long ago) and she was very kind and sweet. But some of the stuff sounds like Jansenism, it's terrible, and downright poison for the scrupulous. And one must note when she is quoting others and when she is giving her own opinion. Interesting theories on some things, but she won't make it clear that it is her opinion of history at all! It took awhile to realize (because she is a very good writer) to see "oh, there is no documentation here...this is pure opinion."

I have said here before that I've seen many bold and outrageous things, in fact some of *the* most extreme things, from certain Indulters, and the Remnant is pretty big.

I don't look at sede stuff at all, what is the point I ask you? And I don't believe Mel is one by any means, btw.

And I don't read any of the newspapers anymore, it's basically a re-hash and I think I know the points by now and don't need to go over them again.

[Donna]

Well, it double posted and y'all sure don't need to see it again.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Donna

[Donna]

Holy cow. Triple posted. Don't mean to muck up yer house, dUSt.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Donna

[son_of_angels]

Personally, as someone who attends the Tridentine Mass, I find the antics of such sedevacantists and radicals (like the SSPX) to be shocking. Such people don't really care about the future of the Traditional Mass, but their own egos. They claim to be truly Catholic, yet they are behaving like Protestants, disrespecting the God-given authority of the Magisterium and Papacy as though THEY have the the right to define authority. It is Protestantism at its worst, a Protestantism that doesn't even have new doctrines to show for itself, being left only with Protestantism's inherent pride and selfishness. After all, what is the Traditional Roman Mass without Rome? It is nothing more than a stagnant whisper of nostalgics.

The Tridentine Mass is wonderful, but its appreciation grows when those who support don't get so full of themselves and condemning of other Catholics who attend a different rite.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:59 AM']Personally, as someone who attends the Tridentine Mass, I find the antics of such sedevacantists and radicals (like the SSPX) to be shocking.  Such people don't really care about the future of the Traditional Mass, but their own egos.  They claim to be truly Catholic, yet they are behaving like Protestants, disrespecting the God-given authority of the Magisterium and Papacy as though THEY have the the right to define authority.  It is Protestantism at its worst, a Protestantism that doesn't even have new doctrines to show for itself, being left only with Protestantism's inherent pride and selfishness.  After all, what is the Traditional Roman Mass without Rome?  It is nothing more than a stagnant whisper of nostalgics.

The Tridentine Mass is wonderful, but its appreciation grows when those who support don't get so full of themselves and condemning of other Catholics who attend a different rite.
[right][snapback]641912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Very nicely put.

[homeschoolmom]

But just to clarify... The "Novus Ordo" and the "Tridentine" are not different rites.

[son_of_angels]

Well, not different "rites" in the "Church sui juris" since of the word, but different rites in the sense of being different liturgies (not that I think a clear hierarchy, like a personal prelature, to control the use of the Missal of 1962 and promote its unique benefits would be entirely unhelpful).

[phatcatholic]

how does the "for many / for all" thing invalidate the mass? what else do they think invalidates it?

[Dave]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:31 PM']how does the "for many / for all" thing invalidate the mass? what else do they think invalidates it?
[right][snapback]642458[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The original Latin says "pro multis" (for many) rather than "pro omnibus" (for all). Thus, according to radical traditionalists, using "for all" rather than "for many" changes the words of the consecration and thus invalidates it. The other reason why these people claim that "for all" invalidates the Mass is because they insist it means the heresy of universal salvation. However, they fail to see that in using "for all," the Church isn't buying into a heresy (although "for many" is indeed a much better translation of the original Latin) -- that Jesus shed His Blood for all people without exception. Of course, that doesn't mean that all people will take advantage of His gift of redemption that He wrought by His Blood, but these radical traditionalists either can't or won't see that.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Dave

[IcePrincessKRS]

I agree with you Dave, I was going to say something about how I thought Jesus DID shed his blood for all and why would is be problematic to use the term in Mass, but in light of Donna's post it makes sense why "for many" is a much better translation. I don't think it makes Mass invalid, or that its a horrid tragedy to use "for all" but I do think "for many" is the proper term to use.