Author Topic: Correct position on the Novus Ordo Mass (Read 7535 times)

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #15 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:15:56 PM »

Quote from: Charles

To say attending the NO is a mortal sin is absurd.

Let's make the proper distinction. I believe assisting at the Novus Ordo is grave matter. However, the personal culpability of a person who assists at it depends upon his advertence to its gravity and his level of consent.

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #16 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:18:20 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

A logical conclusion would be that the Novus Ordo Missae was not given to us by Holy Mother Church, but rather was given to us by the counterfeit church and that Paul VI, by promulgating a heretical Mass, excommunicated himself in the process. Also, calling the NO the "Ordinary Form" is a lie. The Traditional Latin Mass is the true Ordinary Form of the Church because the Church made it clear that the liturgy can never be dramatically changed.

This is indeed logical. It's so logical it took me seven or eight years to finally admit it out loud.

All deception is bad, but self-deception is definitely the worst!

St Jude Thaddeus · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:23:51 PM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Charles
To say attending the NO is a mortal sin is absurd.

Let's make the proper distinction. I believe assisting at the Novus Ordo is grave matter. However, the personal culpability of a person who assists at it depends upon his advertence to its gravity and his level of consent.

I agree with this also. It just takes some people longer to realize that the Novus Ordo is a false mass and admit it than others. I was quite quilty of this myself. On the other hand, most people never get to that point. Narrow is the path...

TKGS · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:54:18 PM »

What is the position of the SSPX concerning the New Mass?

I have before me the book, Christian Warfare, Deluxe Edition. It is published by the Society of Saint Pius X, Inc., Winnipeg, MB (Canada), and is copyright 2009. It is the book the Society uses in its retreats held in Ridgefield, CT.

The book contains an Examination of Conscience for use in preparing for a General Confession of all mortal sins that one may have committed during his life. This examination is extremely detailed. They thought of many things that would not have even crossed my mind.

On page 289, under the section for examining one's sins against the Third Commandment are these questions (among others):

"Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?

This examination clearly indicates that the questions asked concern objective mortal sins, though the examination also indicates that culpability may be less if one did not have "sufficient knowledge". Thus, it is clear that, if this book reflects the official teaching of the Society of St. Pius X, the Society considers the New Mass objectively evil.

Caminus · « **Reply #19 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:00:22 PM »

It is objectively evil, not instrinsically, but under a certain aspect (secundum quid) insofar as it damages or endangers the faith. This holds for any circuмstance wherein any virtue is placed in danger. There is also a subjective note insofar as one may attend with a strong faith and maintain said faith in spite of the Novus Ordo and therefore no sin is committed from this aspect, though the profane service itself is objectively evil.

TKGS · « **Reply #20 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:11:55 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

It is objectively evil, not instrinsically, but under a certain aspect (secundum quid) insofar as it damages or endangers the faith. This holds for any circuмstance wherein any virtue is placed in danger. There is also a subjective note insofar as one may attend with a strong faith and maintain said faith in spite of the Novus Ordo and therefore no sin is committed from this aspect, though the profane service itself is objectively evil.

Whatever happened to removing oneself from the near occasions of sin? One cannot attend an objectively evil service for the purpose of praising God with absolutely no possibility of sin! What you are saying here is that a man can go to Hooters for dinner (and watch the waitresses) completely without sin because of his strong faith. One is intentionally placing himself in the near occasion of sin just by going to that particular establishment.

N.B., When I first moved to this area, I had never heard about this restaraunt. There was one near my apartment and I was making plans to take my wife and child there for dinner. Based on the signage, I thought it was some sort of "owl-themed" restaraunt. Fortunately, when I asked a co-worker if they required reservations, she explained what the actual theme of that establishment was. Needless to say, I have never entered a Hooters restaraunt.

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #21 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:12:03 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

It is objectively evil, not instrinsically

What do you mean by this? Please distinguish "objectively evil" from "instrinsically evil"?

Gregory I · « **Reply #22 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:39:53 PM »

Quote from: aquinasg

The SSPX's position doesn't make sense, which is why I encourage people to either be true CAtholics or sedevacantists. The Church cannot issue a sinful mass.

And communion in the hand is not sinful. Basil the Great and Clement of Jerusalem both speak of it among early Christians. There is nothing more sacred about the tongue. Hands aren't back; some people don't like sticking their tongues out, and feel close to Jesus in holding Him for a second.

Let me show you WHY your thinking is wrong. It is this kind of thinking that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.

60. "The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See."

61. "The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man."

Nishant · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2011, 01:02:05 AM »

The problem with such arguments, it seems to me, is that they are of the same sort used by the Greek schismatics regarding the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, by citing a canon of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Church does not bind herself, she binds her faithful to obedience. And on matters of discipline, the Church can loose what the Church has bound.

Quote

A logical conclusion would be that the Novus Ordo Missae was not given to us by Holy Mother Church, but rather was given to us by the counterfeit church and that Paul VI, by promulgating a heretical Mass, excommunicated himself in the process

That would indeed be logically consistent, I'll grant you. But there is the rub, isn't it: if and only if Paul VI (and arguably his successors for subsequently approving it) was not Pope, this could be true - and this isn't the official position of the SSPX.

Of course, it's another matter that the indefectiblity of the Church, although not exercised personally in any way, is still necessarily present in her even during an interregnum. So any consequence of indefectibility would hold even during one.

Sigismund · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:18:35 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?

Michael Davies, author of "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre" said as much, in his book on the Christian priesthood, "Order of Melchizedek"

Quote
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief. In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Amen and amen and amen!

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #25 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:28:13 PM »

Sorry Sigismund, but I've already refuted that post from Nishant.

Quote from: Nishant2011

That would indeed be logically consistent, I'll grant you. But there is the rub, isn't it: if and only if Paul VI (and arguably his successors for subsequently approving it) was not Pope, this could be true - and this isn't the official position of the SSPX.

He wasn't a Pope, he was a heretic and Freemason.

Caminus · « **Reply #26 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:35:43 PM »

Quote

The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief. In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.

This is Mr. Davies interpretation of the "doctrine of indefectibility" as it applies to the scope of "disciplinary infallibility" a doctrine that is ill-defined and much disputed by theologians. His interpretation turns permission into command and doesn't account for imprudence or negligence on the part of the Episcopate, not to mention doctrinal aberrations. He unwittingly inflates the true status of the N.O. (a non-authoritative experimental liturgy) and thus is forced to admit it is doctrinally sound or not in any way harmful. The assertion that the Roman Rite is to be considered as "equivalent to universal" is a gratuitous claim. Though he is correct in his last assertion taken in its most narrow sense, that is, a proposition that is contradictory to the Catholic faith cannot be found within the texts examined. But a thing can be injurious to the faith indirectly and considering other circuмstances.

Nishant · « **Reply #27 on:** November 12, 2011, 02:52:14 PM »

Sigismund, :-)

Spiritus, well, I guess my question is to those who personally share the official views of the SSPX as such, namely that all the Popes past Vatican II are valid Popes.

Caminus,

Quote

This is Mr. Davies interpretation of the "doctrine of indefectibility" as it applies to the scope of "disciplinary infallibility" a doctrine that is ill-defined and much disputed by theologians.

Well, I know that some specifics are still open to theological discussion, but I think the Magisterial teaching of Mystici Corporis I cited above from Pope Pius XII closes the question on whether any of the sacramental rites of the Church can be objectively evil. Would you disagree?

In my understanding, that is all that Catholic faith obliges me to hold. I completely concur with you and Michael Davies that there has been pastoral negligence and grave imprudence in its implementation and I see no contradiction in doing so. If it were up to me, for one, I would restore by mandate the high Altars, versus Deum orientation, communion rails, chapel veils, Latin in the liturgy, at least partially, and make receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue not only the norm but also the practice.

The extent of abuses alone necessitates such a measure. As a historical parallel, we saw how the Church responded when the grants of Indulgences, itself a sacred dogma of the Faith, was abused in practice to be an occasion for scandal.

As it is, however, it is not up to me, so I pray for this in as much hope and patience as I can muster. I do not see how I or any other Catholic to whom this Mass is the only option can be expected to do differently. Do you?

Caminus · « **Reply #28 on:** November 12, 2011, 05:57:56 PM »

You're equating the N.O. with the Church's liturgy. If you appreciate its true status I think it would be easier to agree with the SSPX analysis of the matter. The appearance of universal usage for a temporary period of time certainly gives the impression that it is properly a rite of the Church, but when you analyze both its inception, promulgation and the stated principles of the reformers you will see it more correctly as, not a liturgy of the Catholic Church, but a blood-sucking parasite that needs to be surgically removed. This liturgy is nothing more than a transient, never ending experiment that has no foundation in law, tradition or authority. How can a deformation and debasing of the liturgy be considered a liturgy properly speaking? Just as an evil law is no law at all and is rather an act of violence, so too is a defective liturgy, built upon false principles of a small committee, no liturgy at all, vouchesafed neither by antiquity nor authority.

Nishant · « **Reply #29 on:** November 13, 2011, 10:23:10 AM »

Ok, great. If I understand you correctly, Caminus, the SSPX position is that the New Mass, owing to some reasons during its promulgation, is not therefore protected by the indefectibility of the Church.

Before we come to the liturgy itself, concerning the place of the rite itself in the Church, let me ask you, even if it was as you say, doesn't the subsequent approval of all Popes including Benedict XVI, most especially and manifestly in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм seem to settle the issue once and for all? I ask this only because it seems to me that, whatever my private judgment of the liturgical text may be, Catholic faith obliges me to hold this.

If we are to go into the text itself, well, I think there is no doubt that what Pope Benedict XVI calls "The Extraordinary Form" is a richer, more beautiful and more expressive manifestation of lex orandi, lex credendi. That said, I do not think "The Ordinary Form" fails to manifest with sufficient clarity the twin and inseparable character of the Mass as at once a sacrament and a sacrifice. I have read the famous "short, critical study on the New Mass" but I also heard that Cardinal Ottaviani himself was satisfied after one of Pope Paul VI's address regarding its doctrinal precision but called for an extensive catechesis to make sure the faithful understand the prayer and belief of the Church.