What is happening with this?
The newchurch said it was all a misunderstanding mistake in translation.
 :rolleyes:

My question is, if this happens will the N.O. Mass be valid or closer to valid?
If such a thing is possible.

That is right and so that leads me to my next question.

What about a priest who is older and is validly ordained? (I can't believe that they are all locked away and shuffling about on haldol.)
Would It then be a valid Mass? Even if a priest is demented, if he is validly ordained, it is my understanding that he could say a valid Mass.

When the Conciliar church created a new rite for their worship services, the traditional Mass was supressed.  The only priests who continued to say the traditional Mass were a few elderly priests given special dispensation to say the Mass privately with one else present and priests who disregarded the commands given them who were punished in violation of the law as established under Quo Primum.

Demonstrating how the Socity of St. Pius X has changed over the years, the first editor of The Angelus Magazine, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, used to say, "Once there are no more valid priests they'll permit the Latin Mass."  A priest publicly saying this today would likely be suspended.

In addition to the question of orders of the Conciliar priests, there is also the matter of intention.  Archbishoip Lefebvre, in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics noted, "It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church--which cannot change her intention--has always done.  The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses.  They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life."

Another problem is still with translation.  The Novus Ordo, though correcting the most glaring and obvious mistranslation of pro multus is not correcting the rest of the consecration formula that immediately follows (in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo), "effundetur in remissionem peccatorum", which literally translates as, "poured out for the remission of sins".  While the Novus Ordo translation is (I believe), "so that sins may be forgiven", is similar, it is clearly not the same meaning:  Remitting sins and forgiving sins are two completely different actions.

So even an elderly and indisputably valid priest saying the Novus Ordo with the proper intention using the New and Improved English translation would be using words of Consecration that change the meaning of the true form of the Sacrament thus invalidating the entire sacrament.

The English version of the Novus Ordo will still not be a Mass even after they start using the "better choice" of translation for pro multis.  After all, even the Conciliar church adamantly declares that this new translation changes nothing in the Novus Ordo's essentials!

When the Conciliar church created a new rite for their worship services, the traditional Mass was supressed.  The only priests who continued to say the traditional Mass were a few elderly priests given special dispensation to say the Mass privately with one else present and priests who disregarded the commands given them who were punished in violation of the law as established under Quo Primum.

Demonstrating how the Socity of St. Pius X has changed over the years, the first editor of The Angelus Magazine, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, used to say, "Once there are no more valid priests they'll permit the Latin Mass."  A priest publicly saying this today would likely be suspended.

In addition to the question of orders of the Conciliar priests, there is also the matter of intention.  Archbishoip Lefebvre, in his Open Letter to Confused Catholics noted, "It is obvious that there are fewer and fewer valid Masses as the faith of priests becomes corrupted and they no longer have the intention to do what the Church--which cannot change her intention--has always done.  The present-day training of those who are called seminarians does not prepare them to accomplish valid Masses.  They are no longer taught to consider the Holy Sacrifice as the essential action of their priestly life."

Another problem is still with translation.  The Novus Ordo, though correcting the most glaring and obvious mistranslation of pro multus is not correcting the rest of the consecration formula that immediately follows (in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo), "effundetur in remissionem peccatorum", which literally translates as, "poured out for the remission of sins".  While the Novus Ordo translation is (I believe), "so that sins may be forgiven", is similar, it is clearly not the same meaning:  Remitting sins and forgiving sins are two completely different actions.

So even an elderly and indisputably valid priest saying the Novus Ordo with the proper intention using the New and Improved English translation would be using words of Consecration that change the meaning of the true form of the Sacrament thus invalidating the entire sacrament.

The English version of the Novus Ordo will still not be a Mass even after they start using the "better choice" of translation for pro multis.  After all, even the Conciliar church adamantly declares that this new translation changes nothing in the Novus Ordo's essentials!

No -- the New Rite of Consecration is invalid...

Care to demonstrate this?  You make this with assertion with magnificent confidence as if it is a theological conclusion (do you know what that is?).  As far as postulating regarding the intention of the priest, it is not ad rem, (especially with respect to the context of the quote from ABL) that is another matter altogether.  We're speaking of the form of the Consecration, or by extension, as you assert, the form of the Ordination rites as well.

TKGS, aside from your speculations regarding the "progression" of the SSPX, you should read up a little more on sacramental theology.
 

Please edit your post accordingly.

Thanks.  

He is not implying that he likes the Novus Ordo, he is stating that the NO sacraments are valid but illicit. He is also arguing that the Ordinations are also Valid.

Seeing as the SSPX investigations into those matters come to that conclusion aswell I don't see how it could be percieved as 'liking' the Novus Ordo.

The Novus Ordo can be Valid but Illicit at the sametime.

Quote from: TKGS

When the Conciliar church created a new rite for their worship services...

Quote

No -- the New Rite of Consecration is invalid...

Care to demonstrate this?  You make this with assertion with magnificent confidence as if it is a theological conclusion (do you know what that is?).  As far as postulating regarding the intention of the priest, it is not ad rem, (especially with respect to the context of the quote from ABL) that is another matter altogether.  We're speaking of the form of the Consecration, or by extension, as you assert, the form of the Ordination rites as well.

TKGS, aside from your speculations regarding the "progression" of the SSPX, you should read up a little more on sacramental theology.

First, I would like to point out that the second quote is not mine.  

As for your second statement, would you please elaborate as to what elements of sacramental theology I should "read up on"?  Your first comment comment appears to support what I wrote.  The first part of your second comment simply disputes my view of the SSPX, but the second part of your second comment seems to want to refute everything I said--including your first comment.

Your post is very confusing.