Does Novus Ordo fulfill Sunday Obligation?

[Noel's angel]

it happens on Phatmass too

[Apotheoun]

While I personally think that some of the changes made to the Roman Rite after the close of the Second Vatican Council were imprudent, nothing was done that effected the validity of the Mass. Certainly the 1970s ICEL "translation"of the Roman Missal was poor, but even that did not invalidate the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI.

It is my hope that the new translation of the Roman Missal will correct some of the poorly phrased texts of the older ICEL paraphrase; but that being said, the new translation of the Mass may not satisfy the SSPX and Sedevacantists, because their schism has move on from simply being a schism based upon the ritual of the Roman Rite, to a schism based upon theological issues of authority in the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 14 2005, 01:42 PM']While I personally think that some of the changes made to the Roman Rite after the close of the Second Vatican Council were imprudent, nothing was done that effected the validity of the Mass.  Certainly the 1970s ICEL "translation"of the Roman Missal was poor, but even that did not invalidate the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI. 

It is my hope that the new translation of the Roman Missal will correct some of the poorly phrased texts of the older ICEL paraphrase; but that being said, the new translation of the Mass may not satisfy the SSPX and Sedevacantists, because their schism has move on from simply being a schism based upon the ritual of the Roman Rite, to a schism based upon theological issues of authority in the Church.
[right][snapback]643357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I read a recent article in The Wanderer, concerning a debate among Traditionalists. A sedevantacist rad-trad leader was predicting that Benedict XVI would "destroy Traditional Catholicism by aceeding to its every demand" - predicting that the Pope would do much to restore a traditional liturgy with the fiendish purpose of luring Traditionalists into the "false" post-Vat II Church. This nut-job deplored that many young Traditionalists were flocking to the Pope.

This nonsense proves these people's agenda has little to do with restoring a reverent, traditional liturgy, and everything to do with rebellion against Rome.

[son_of_angels]

Personally I think that changing the Roman Mass, a priceless heirloom, the fountain of Western culture, AT ALL during a period of such societal change was a foundation of sand approach to pastoral leadership. When the rains came down it tore apart, in the hearts and minds of many Catholics, the basic doctrinal trust which they held in the holy See.

Compare this with the clarifications made at the First Vatican Council and, if I was still a Protestant, would almost think they were written by two different denominations.

Nonetheless, questioning the validity of a Mass composed by the Roman pontiff borders on heresy itself, not to mention rebelliousness.

[dspen2005]

the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation? it has been promulgated by Holy Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:54 AM']the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation?  it has been promulgated by Holy Church.
[right][snapback]643370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As long as the priest prays the prayers as they are found in the approved liturgical books, and with the proper intention, then the Mass of Paul VI is valid.

Of course I'm sure an SSPXer will find some reason to say that it is not, but who am I to believe, the Magisterium of the Church or some SSPXer?

[photosynthesis]

All the Popes during and since Vatican II have said it counts, so it better count.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 01:54 PM']the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation?  it has been promulgated by Holy Church.
[right][snapback]643370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Those people claim the Church in Rome is not the "real Church," but an evil imposter. Essentially (though they scream at the suggestion), they're protestants.

[dspen2005]

i thought that sspx contends that the Missa Normativa is valid, just deficient in most aspects

[Socrates]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:03 PM']i thought that sspx contends that the Missa Normativa is valid, just deficient in most aspects
[right][snapback]643446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't know about the SSPX. I was referring to other (probably more exterme) groups, such as Matatics' and the fellow in the article.

[Cam42]

Ok, here is my take on all of this.....it is a little long and somewhat involved, but neverthless....Hey Nick, if you are still reading this thread.....this is for you.

Vatican II supposedly changed Catholic doctrine, hence that Council is thought to be heterodox and heretical (but of course "traditionalists" never want to say it in that way - it always has to be in equivocal language). This cannot happen in a valid Ecumenical Council, according to the principle of infallibility, indefectibility, papal authority, and previously-assumed Catholic ecclesiology. The novelty here is the refusal of "traditionalists" to accept the expressed Magisterium of the Church. Come to think of it, this is not new: it has plenty of precursors in past heresies and dissenters from Councils, such as the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Protestants, and Old Catholics.

Thus, it can be truly said that Vatican II operated on the same ecclesiological and theological principles as all former Councils; "traditionalists" operate on the analogy of the heretics throughout history: all of whom thought they knew better than the solemnly-expressed will and mind of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and headed by the Holy Father. It's a sad reality that many cannot bring themselves to submit to the spiritual wisdom of Holy Mother Church.

As an avid defender of genuine Catholic development of doctrine, I am fully aware that development and evolution are two entirely and essentially different things. I deny that Vatican II was an instance of the latter. I submit that perhaps many "traditionalists" have a dim understanding of development of doctrine - what it entails and doesn't entail, what its distinguishing characteristics are, etc. The emphasis of Vatican II had to do with fresh approaches, methodologies, evangelistic or pedagogical strategies, and new ways of reaching modern man with unchanging Catholic truths - a laudable and thoroughly biblical outlook.

"Traditionalists" apparently think that it is a small thing for laymen to routinely and "authoritatively" accuse the pope of material and (by implication) even formal heresy. I think it is scandalous and abominable, for what it is worth. Apart from the unseemly and impious nature of such a charge, made wrongheadedly and slanderously (as it is objectively false to begin with), it is yet another instance where "traditionalists" want to have their cake and eat it, too. They don't want to say "without horns" that the pope is a formal heretic (as most Catholic theologians and historians have believed that no pope was ever a formal heretic - many also hold that it couldn't even possibly happen, as a function of the indefectibility of the Church). They want to have it both ways: create the implication, qualify it, yet proceed in the argument as if it were likely true, etc. In other words, ambiguous language and argumentation is hypocritically used, rather in the fashion that they claim to detest as typical of Vatican II documents.

"Traditionalists" think that in order to be faithful and consistent with pre-Vatican II Church teaching, it is necessary to "carefully nuance" loyalty to post-conciliar popes and Church teaching.

In other words, they play the game of equivocation and rationalizing(ironically, precisely the things they accuse both "conservatives" and "modernists" of). Again, needless to say, I deny that there exists this dramatic contradiction between the popes before 1958 and those after. Even so, "traditionalists" apparently think little of disobeying papal injunctions they dislike. So I think their difficulties extend a bit beyond merely Vatican II and its historical aftermath. Internal submission to (even sub-infallible) papal and conciliar teaching is certainly a pre-conciliar requirement for an obedient Catholic, but I don't see "traditionalists" suffering terrible pangs of conscience over their disobedience to that quite traditional and formerly assumed Catholic distinctive.

"Traditionalists" think that the Novus Ordo (New) Mass is technically valid, but nevertheless "objectively offensive to God."

This is an absolutely classic example of the exact sort of ambiguity which "traditionalists" so decry in Vatican II. The New Mass is valid, but then they immediately proceed to tear it down. Likewise with popes and Vatican II. The Church can't defect, but it can get "very, very sick," we are told (and there is indeed a sense in which this is true). Most creatures, however, which are "very, very sick" die, don't they? The Church, to the contrary, cannot die, by its very nature, as it is divinely-ordained and supernaturally-sustained. It can't die any more than Our Lord Jesus can die (i.e., post-Calvary), since it is His Body: an extension of the Incarnation.

"Traditionalists" think that one cannot have an informed opinion on the validity of the New Mass unless he is well-versed in liturgical history and canon law. This is ridiculous. We are entitled to believe - as a function of indefectibility - that God wouldn't allow the Mass of the vast majority of Catholics today to be invalid or even "objectively offensive to God," etc. We don't fully understand the Trinity or transubstantiation, either, but we believe in them, because they are doctrines of the Church, Bible, and Tradition. We are not the experts; the Church is the "expert" - and She tells me that the Sacrifice of the Mass today is legitimate, not blasphemous or idolatrous or a mockery, as the anti-Catholic brand of our Protestant brethren would have it.

Now, I use the term "traditionalist" to mean those who are not orthodox, those who hold an opposing view to that of Holy Mother Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 14 2005, 06:50 PM']Ok, here is my take on all of this.....it is a little long and somewhat involved, but neverthless....Hey Nick, if you are still reading this thread.....this is for you.

Vatican II supposedly changed Catholic doctrine, hence that Council is thought to be heterodox and heretical (but of course "traditionalists" never want to say it in that way - it always has to be in equivocal language). This cannot happen in a valid Ecumenical Council, according to the principle of infallibility, indefectibility, papal authority, and previously-assumed Catholic ecclesiology. The novelty here is the refusal of "traditionalists" to accept the expressed Magisterium of the Church. Come to think of it, this is not new: it has plenty of precursors in past heresies and dissenters from Councils, such as the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Protestants, and Old Catholics.

Thus, it can be truly said that Vatican II operated on the same ecclesiological and theological principles as all former Councils; "traditionalists" operate on the analogy of the heretics throughout history: all of whom thought they knew better than the solemnly-expressed will and mind of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and headed by the Holy Father. It's a sad reality that many cannot bring themselves to submit to the spiritual wisdom of Holy Mother Church.

As an avid defender of genuine Catholic development of doctrine, I am fully aware that development and evolution are two entirely and essentially different things. I deny that Vatican II was an instance of the latter. I submit that perhaps many "traditionalists" have a dim understanding of development of doctrine - what it entails and doesn't entail, what its distinguishing characteristics are, etc. The emphasis of Vatican II had to do with fresh approaches, methodologies, evangelistic or pedagogical strategies, and new ways of reaching modern man with unchanging Catholic truths - a laudable and thoroughly biblical outlook.

"Traditionalists" apparently think that it is a small thing for laymen to routinely and "authoritatively" accuse the pope of material and (by implication) even formal heresy. I think it is scandalous and abominable, for what it is worth. Apart from the unseemly and impious nature of such a charge, made wrongheadedly and slanderously (as it is objectively false to begin with), it is yet another instance where "traditionalists" want to have their cake and eat it, too. They don't want to say "without horns" that the pope is a formal heretic (as most Catholic theologians and historians have believed that no pope was ever a formal heretic - many also hold that it couldn't even possibly happen, as a function of the indefectibility of the Church). They want to have it both ways: create the implication, qualify it, yet proceed in the argument as if it were likely true, etc. In other words, ambiguous language and argumentation is hypocritically used, rather in the fashion that they claim to detest as typical of Vatican II documents.

"Traditionalists" think that in order to be faithful and consistent with pre-Vatican II Church teaching, it is necessary to "carefully nuance" loyalty to post-conciliar popes and Church teaching.

In other words, they play the game of equivocation and rationalizing(ironically, precisely the things they accuse both "conservatives" and "modernists" of). Again, needless to say, I deny that there exists this dramatic contradiction between the popes before 1958 and those after. Even so, "traditionalists" apparently think little of disobeying papal injunctions they dislike. So I think their difficulties extend a bit beyond merely Vatican II and its historical aftermath. Internal submission to (even sub-infallible) papal and conciliar teaching is certainly a pre-conciliar requirement for an obedient Catholic, but I don't see "traditionalists" suffering terrible pangs of conscience over their disobedience to that quite traditional and formerly assumed Catholic distinctive.

"Traditionalists" think that the Novus Ordo (New) Mass is technically valid, but nevertheless "objectively offensive to God."

This is an absolutely classic example of the exact sort of ambiguity which "traditionalists" so decry in Vatican II. The New Mass is valid, but then they immediately proceed to tear it down. Likewise with popes and Vatican II. The Church can't defect, but it can get "very, very sick," we are told (and there is indeed a sense in which this is true). Most creatures, however, which are "very, very sick" die, don't they? The Church, to the contrary, cannot die, by its very nature, as it is divinely-ordained and supernaturally-sustained. It can't die any more than Our Lord Jesus can die (i.e., post-Calvary), since it is His Body: an extension of the Incarnation.

"Traditionalists" think that one cannot have an informed opinion on the validity of the New Mass unless he is well-versed in liturgical history and canon law.  This is ridiculous.  We are entitled to believe - as a function of indefectibility - that God wouldn't allow the Mass of the vast majority of Catholics today to be invalid or even "objectively offensive to God," etc. We don't fully understand the Trinity or transubstantiation, either, but we believe in them, because they are doctrines of the Church, Bible, and Tradition. We are not the experts; the Church is the "expert" - and She tells me that the Sacrifice of the Mass today is legitimate, not blasphemous or idolatrous or a mockery, as the anti-Catholic brand of our Protestant brethren would have it.

Now, I use the term "traditionalist" to mean those who are not orthodox, those who hold an opposing view to that of Holy Mother Church.
[right][snapback]643739[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Matatics and the other people referred to are sedevacantists who believe that none of the Popes since 1958 or whenever are really Popes, and that the Novus Ordo is invalid, and that priests ordained according to the "new rite" are not really priests.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 14 2005, 08:46 PM']Matatics and the other people referred to are sedevacantists who believe that none of the Popes since 1958 or whenever are really Popes, and that the Novus Ordo is invalid, and that priests ordained according to the "new rite" are not really priests.
[right][snapback]643845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know.....I was talking about SSPX and the like.....the others are another matter altogether.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 14 2005, 07:54 PM']I know.....I was talking about SSPX and the like.....the others are another matter altogether.
[right][snapback]643851[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I guess sometimes it's a slippery slope though. When Matatics concerted to Catholicism, he was orthodox. Then he became a Traditionalist and his views became increasingly radical and wierd, and now he's a full-fledged sedevacantist schismatic.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 04:03 PM']i thought that sspx contends that the Missa Normativa is valid, just deficient in most aspects
[right][snapback]643446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are correct. These threads always crack me up. Everyone jumps on the 'lets bash trads" bandwagon and in so doing make it painfully clear that they do not understand the various positions held by the various groups who claim the title of 'tradiionalist'. Everyone gets grouped into one nice easy to deal with bundle.

I am a traditionalist in the the fullest sense. I am a religious, social, and political traditionalist.

There are so many posts that need addressed here, yet so little time. A few quick points must suffice:

1a) The SSPX, as Mr. dspen pointed out, do not hold that the N.O. is invalid, nor do they hold an official position its fullfillment of one's Sunday obligation. However, certain priests of the society as well as some members of their congregations hold any number of varient opions on these topics.

1b)The SSPX is not sedevecantist.

2)I don't trust Karl Keating (though he has put out a few good books).

3)I know Matitics. The position he has recently taken is dead wrong, tragic, and greatly disturbing to me.

4)There is absolutely nothing wrong with these two men debating. Let the good times roll. May the truth be victorious!

5)Of course the N.O. satisfies one's obligation.

Thats all for now.