Does Novus Ordo fulfill Sunday Obligation?

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx']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.[/quote]

I couldn't disagree more.

From the [url="http://sspx.org/"]SSPX[/url] website:
[quote]Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in itself and in its official Latin form (juxta typica 1969)*, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:

"...the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent."  (A SHORT CRITICAL STUDY OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE, Sept. 25, 1969)

* A Novus Ordo Missae celebrated according to the 1969 juxta typica edition would look very similar to the Tridentine Rite, with the Celebrant saying most (if not all) the prayers in Latin, facing the Tabernacle and wearing the traditional Mass vestments, with a male altar server, and Gregorian chant, etc.  None of the current abuses, e.g., Communion in the hand or under both kinds, Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dancing, guitar-masses, etc., have part with this official form.  Hence, the aforementioned Cardinals' (as well as the SSPX's) critique of the Novus Ordo Missae is not of its abuses or misapplication, but rather of its essential and official form.

And Archbishop Lefebvre definitely agreed with them when he wrote:

"The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of  Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith"  (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29 [APPENDIX II])

The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.[/quote]

The website goes on to say about the validity:
[quote]THIS BEING SO, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE IS INVALID?

This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper:

matter,

form,

and intention.

However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).

Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.[/quote]

And finally about attendance:
[quote][b]If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation.[/b] Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc). (emphasis mine)[/quote]

Those are statements directly quoted from the [url="http://sspx.org/"]SSPX[/url] website.

So I would patently disagree with you.

Want more? Here is what Rev. Peter R. Scott says:
[quote name='District Superior's Letter to Friends & Benefactors; September 2000']Let it not be denied that the New Mass destroys the Faith. It is based upon a humanist conception of the liturgy, just as much as the traditional Mass is based upon a God-centered theology. We may not be able to resolve the enigma of how it is that the highest authorities in the Church could make such rules that undermine the Faith, the enigma of how much of this mystery of iniquity is deception and how much the deliberate penetration of humanism; but let us not deny the facts. [b]And so, let us take the resolution to never participate in the New Mass, to do all that we can to dissuade others, and when we cannot assist at the traditional Mass to simply say our prayers at home.[/b] (emphasis mine)[/quote]

If the Missa Normativa fulfills the Sunday obligation, why would the Fr. Scott utter such nonsense?

[corban711]

[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]

Cam,

peace be with you! thank you very much for your post! i have been reading this thread still, but to be honest was not planning on posting anymore because i did not want the debate over the Mass to continue. i really only posted it to let others know that such a debate was taking place, and to see their thoughts about it. but i agree with everything you said in the above post and thank you very much for the time you put into it. i will continue to read this thread, and there is just one other post i think i should answer...after that, not too sure i will be answering much so as to help try to stop a debate about traditionalists from coming on. these happen all too much in my opinion with little fruit (normally). but i almost always find great information from your posts, so i do encourage you to continue in these discussions when necessary!

[corban711]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:50 PM']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!


[right][snapback]644128[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


on Karl Keating...in this particular case, i do trust him since his comments on Matatics have been confirmed by Matatics' own website and by others who know him. the positions he has taken are absolutely tragic and he is in much need of prayer. he is seperating himself more and more from the very Body he hopes to defend.

the problem with the debate, in my opinion, is that so many people look up to these two men and will basically just be hoping that one "crushes" the other and shows everyone they are right. when in reality what it will do is convince the two debaters that they are right, the other is wrong (and less faithful or intelligent/blind to the truth or else they would see it), it will create a deeper loyalty to the apologists themselves in those who already support them. i mean that matatics supporters, will be more convinced of his erroneous positions because he said them in the debate and they will be further separated in holding these positions. and sungenis supporters will also be convinced that he "won", become more loyal to him--and my personal opinion is that while he holds the correct opinion in this debate...he holds a few that i would seriously question---so creating deeper loyalty to the positions of either of these two men isn't all that great. further, it will show outsiders a lack of unity within the Church and will create a greater divide between these two men which i pray charity will heal. i hope my opinion about this debate is wrong...i hope that their eyes and the eyes and hearts of those who attend will be opened to the truth and will wholeheartedly embrace Truth. my experience is that debates like these do not bring that about though. they convince both parties that they are right, the other is wrong and just could not see it. that isn't good. i pray i am wrong.

Edited July 15, 2005 by corban711

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cam42']If the Missa Normativa fulfills the Sunday obligation, why would the Fr. Scott utter such nonsense?[/quote]

Because Fr. Scott is a hot head. Since when do the writings of an individual priest represent the official position of an order? If you would like, I can start digging up all sorts of nonsense written or said by provincials of various orders or even the superiors of orders, or better yet, Vatican officials. Would you be as quick to condemn the larger institution for the idiocy of some of its members?

Edited July 16, 2005 by popestpiusx

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='corban711' date='Jul 15 2005, 02:48 AM']on Karl Keating...in this particular case, i do trust him since his comments on Matatics have been confirmed by Matatics' own website and by others who know him.  the positions he has taken are absolutely tragic and he is in much need of prayer.  he is seperating himself more and more from the very Body he hopes to defend.

the problem with the debate, in my opinion, is that so many people look up to these two men and will basically just be hoping that one "crushes" the other and shows everyone they are right.  when in reality what it will do is convince the two debaters that they are right, the other is wrong (and less faithful or intelligent/blind to the truth or else they would see it), it will create a deeper loyalty to the apologists themselves in those who already support them.  i mean that matatics supporters, will be more convinced of his erroneous positions because he said them in the debate and they will be further separated in holding these positions.  and sungenis supporters will also be convinced that he "won", become more loyal to him--and my personal opinion is that while he holds the correct opinion in this debate...he holds a few that i would seriously question---so creating deeper loyalty to the positions of either of these two men isn't all that great.  further, it will show outsiders a lack of unity within the Church and will create a greater divide between these two men which i pray charity will heal.  i hope my opinion about this debate is wrong...i hope that their eyes and the eyes and hearts of those who attend will be opened to the truth and will wholeheartedly embrace Truth.  my experience is that debates like these do not bring that about though.  they convince both parties that they are right, the other is wrong and just could not see it.  that isn't good.  i pray i am wrong.
[right][snapback]644250[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Knowing the errors of Gerry Matitics has little to do with Keating. Apart from that, there is much truth in what you say here. You may very well be right. In any case, we should pray for all parties involved.

[Cam42]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:57 AM'][quote name='cam42']If the Missa Normativa fulfills the Sunday obligation, why would the Fr. Scott utter such nonsense?[/quote]

Because Fr. Scott is a hot head. Since when do the writings of an individual priest represent the official position of an order? If you would like, I can start digging up all sorts of nonsense written or said by provincials of various orders or even the superiors of orders, or better yet, Vatican officials. Would you be as quick to condemn the larger institution for the idiocy of some of its members?
[right][snapback]645089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When they are posted on the website of the order, and supported in such fashion, by the SSPX, at large. And considering that Fr. Scott is the former District Superior of the order, I would say that he has some credence.

Are you going to repsond to the rest of it? Or do you agree with me, concerning the rest of it? I mean, I am quoting the SSPX webite, word for word.

[Semperviva]

ev'ry time i see the title of this thread it makes me sad... ...sad that some ppl think it doesn't...

[corban711]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:59 PM']ev'ry time i see the title of this thread it makes me sad... ...sad that some ppl think it doesn't...
[right][snapback]646132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

me too!

[Cam42]

This is a great moment for catechesis though....

[Quietfire]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:58 AM']This is a great moment for catechesis though....
[right][snapback]646321[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Pray tell why?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:20 PM']Pray tell why?
[right][snapback]646407[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because schismatics need to be catechized as well as those non-Catholics who need to be evangelized.