Author Topic: Correct position on the Novus Ordo Mass (Read 7536 times)

Matthew · « **on:** November 08, 2011, 09:46:02 PM »

Christina
Going to the Novus Ordo is no different than going to a Black Mass, except one is more forthright (i.e. the black mass).
Like · · 7 hours ago ·

Christiaan Meadows just a little over the top Christina........admittedly many NOs are irreverent even NO rubrics......but the above is close to saying that the sovereign pontiff presides at what functionally black masses
4 hours ago · Like

Paul Danon It's not just close to saying it!
3 hours ago · Like
Matthew: I disagree -- if that were true, than attending the Novus Ordo would be mortally sinful in each and every case -- which is not true. What you stated is not even the SSPX position, BTW. Did something happen recently to particularly set you off against the Novus Ordo? If I didn't know better, I'd say you were angry about something.
about an hour ago · Like

Sursum Corda The Novus Ordo Mass is objectively a mortal sin, but subjectively people can be in ignorance. But no matter what it is a grave sacrilege and we ought to avoid it at all costs, unless we have to attend it out of charity because of a wedding or a funeral, in which case, we ought not to participate in it lest we sin mortally.
57 minutes ago · Like

Matthew: I've been a traditionalist all my life, so when I say the Novus Ordo isn't objectively a mortal sin, you can't just dismiss it as "I'm personally invested" or less against it because I was forced to become familiar with it. I feel like I'm at a protestant service when I attend a N.O. Mass, and I'm the type who would advocate staying at home if a Tridentine Mass isn't available. That having been said, I think saying that the Novus Ordo is a mortal sin is an exaggeration, and denies all the Catholics of good will who attend the Novus Ordo today, as well as traditional Catholics who attended it in the past. Just because it tends to destroy the Faith doesn't mean it's the equivalent of devil worship!
22 minutes ago · Like

Sursum Corda It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge. Pax Christi Regis.

LordPhan · « **Reply #1 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:51:03 PM »

It is a mortal sin, it is no different then the first sin of Cain, giving a sacrifice in a way man wants instead of how God wants.

Those in ingorence have reduced culpability however, but they still commit sacrilidge the worst sin by touching the body of christ with an unconsecrated hand.

So I am not on your side.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:51:05 PM »

This Sursum Corda person has SSPX all over his profile. His profile pic is Archbishop Lefebvre. Yet I think he's at variance with the SSPX position on the Novus Ordo.

But I stopped myself before correcting him further, because I need to know -- WHY exactly does the SSPX advise not going to the Novus Ordo Mass, even if a traditional Mass isn't available? And actually I agree -- I would stay home too if no Tridentine Mass were available. Yet I disagree with him about it being a venial/mortal sin.

I think it's more "destructive of the Faith" due to omissions, making it un-sacred, etc.

Also, he and countless other traditional Catholics seem to have been to NovusOrdoWatch a few too many times -- my wife is from a small town in Texas, and the Catholic parish there never had any ecuмenical services, no dances, etc. Just standard Novus Ordo.

I think many trads lose sight of that when their only Novus Ordo exposure comes from the website Traditio.

LordPhan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:59:28 PM »

I think you are becoming indifferent friend, the SSPX position is that the Novus Ordo is valid but Illicit, Illicit = Sinful.

Where did you get a view other then this?

LordPhan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:06:19 PM »

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

Quote

E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. 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).

I should also point out when the SSPX says that it is Valid but illicit it says so ONLY for the mass as SAID IN THE RUBRICS of 1969. In which I might point out most of the Mass is said in Latin and all the abuses are not in it. AND IT IS STILL ILLICIT in that form.

Charles · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:21:11 PM »

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

God the Father would certainly not send the NO laity to the Eternal Fire for such. The average NO parishioner is ignorant of all the fuss. They truly believe the Mass is what Rome says it is.

Avoid it once one knows ? Of course.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:32:01 PM »

+JMJ+

First, let me say that I like Traditio. I know the writing there can be sensationalist at times, but they are some of the most apparently fierce defenders of not only correct DOCTRINE, but of encouraging people IN ACTUAL PRACTICE of Catholic devotion.

Too many 'trad' sites seem to be overrun with people that are simply out to justify themselves by means of memorizing some phrases from encyclicals.

Second, let me mention that I have THREE churches in my town alone (by this, I mean Catholic churches), let alone the ones within a few minutes' drive.

I would say that the VAST majority of them are 'Novus trad', at least to some degree, meaning that they stick to the text and rubrics that are most faithful to the latest NO missal. I cannot personally think of any seriously harmful innovations or scandalous sacrileges (so to speak) against the NO's standards (which are admittedly loose).

The parishes near me simply have the priest, the laypeople handling the species, communion in the hand, etc... all the typical stuff that most old ladies think is reverent and respectful.

These parishes haven't celebrated a 1969 Paul VI service since probably the 80s. I remember, vaguely, a mass ad orientem at our town's largest church from when I was VERY small (all I remember is seeing the priest in the chasuble kneeling at the altar with no table in front; it had been moved as far as I remember, because there are photos from before I was born that show the table). I don't even know of a church in my area or anywhere near me that still uses the original Paul VI service. Does ANYONE, anymore?

This, in a nutshell, is why I believe the NO to be so wicked and deadly. It's NOT because there are violations of Canon Law and of solemnly promulgated Papal decrees... it's because all of those violations are being FLAUNTED as the day-to-day TYPICAL Novus Ordo service and parochial atmosphere.

Put simply, there's not a single shred of evidence in these parishes that anything even WAS different TEN years ago, let alone 50 or 200 years ago.

I hate, more than any liturgical innovation, more than any so-called 'progress', the fact that the poor souls in these parishes are being starved not only of the chance to participate in the true worship of Christ, but starved of any sense of their place in history.

If they only knew what has been denied them for so long, I believe they would revolt and major changes would come about.

Hmmm... time to print some fliers.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

LordPhan · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:36:31 PM »

Attending a Non-Catholic Mass is a mortal sin, the SSPX Position is that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic, Culpability is diminished based on knowledge as it is for all Mortal Sins, but that does not mean that attending the Novus Ordo is not a mortal sin, quite the contrary, the opposite opinion that it is not sinful is absurd, you are practically stating that it is not a sin to attend a schismatic mass as long as you don't believe they are schismatic, or to attend a heretical mass as long as you don't believe they are heretics?

Anyone who prays to God to not be decieved will be led by God to the truth.

The Novus Ordo as said in pracitise is not only a Mortal Sin, it is sacrilidge. I still have not seen either of you refute me, because you can't I can post all day long from SSPX.ORG on why one may not attend the Novus Ordo.

Quote

Does the
New Mass fulfill the notion of Catholic liturgy?

6-7-2011

Liturgy in general is ritualized prayer, i.e., the official prayer of a society approved by the authority of that society. In the case of Catholic liturgy, there is the additional fact that it is in some way the prayer of Jesus Christ Himself, the Head of the human race, carried out in union with His mystical members.

As regards the New Mass, the element of approval by authority is certainly present [at least de facto, if not de jure—Ed.] so any doubts regarding its legitimacy must concern something deeper—either some antagonism against the very notion of prayer or some incongruity with its status as the prayer of Christ.

All prayer has a double aspect—a primary, ascending aspect by which the adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and expiation of man is offered to God and a secondary, descending aspect by which the gifts and blessings of God are poured out upon man. Having acknowledged God for Who He is and giving Him the recognition which is unique to Him, Man humbly but confidently expects to receive from God those things which He alone can give.

When one considers the ascending aspect of prayer, one immediately realizes how much it depends upon and corresponds to man's knowledge of God.

In adoring God, man acknowledges the perfections which are known to him through reason and especially by faith—God's mercy, power, justice, wisdom, etc.

In praising God for His perfections as better known to man through faith, man also acknowledges the veracity of God.

In thanking God, man thanks Him for His goodness and mercy insofar as he knows of it through reason and especially through faith.

In petitioning God for blessings, man's confidence is rooted in his knowledge of God's power and mercy.

In seeking God's pardon, man is motivated by his knowledge of the malice of sin, the goodness and majesty of God, and man's own insignificance in comparison with His Creator.

Here lies the first reason for the illegitimacy of the rite of the New Mass—that it does not correspond to man's knowledge of God, i.e., to the truth of God's revelation considered either in its natural mode (via creation) or its supernatural mode (via revelation). The new rite in a certain sense worships a God of its own making—a God not offended by sin, Who is not interested in ritual sacrifice, Who has little respect for His own physical Presence at Mass, and Who places religious truth and religious error on similar footing.

God's real perfections and His real, historical dealings with men which reveal and express those perfections are ignored or re-interpreted according to the preferences of a modern man obsessed with his own dignity rather than the dignity of God. Objectively, such a rite of Mass is an insult to God.

As regards the descending aspect of prayer by which God's blessings are called down upon men, a rite of prayer will be legitimate insofar as it disposes man to receive these blessings. At the level of natural religion, this will require that the rite be so designed as to arouse sentiments of humility, confidence, and contrition. At the level of supernatural religion, the rite should dispose man to acts of faith, hope, and ultimately charity. At this level, the Novus Ordo rite again proves defective because it obscures the truths of the faith—hiding those elements of doctrine which offensive to ecuмenism or the modern notion of human dignity. Praying with such a distorted expression of the faith certainly does not facilitate acts of faith but rather impedes them. This undermines the whole structure of supernatural sanctification since faith is the foundation of hope and charity. Even considering natural religion, a rite which places man at the center of religious focus and a man eminent for his intrinsic dignity which no sinful act can compromise can hardly be said to dispose men to acts of humility and contrition. In fact, in practice, it is obvious that the new rite of Mass has undermined the natural religious reverence of the faithful.

Finally, all Catholic liturgy is unique in the striking sense that it is the prayer of Jesus Christ, Head of the Mystical Body. On the side of Christ, this flows from the fact that Our Lord is the only real mediator of salvation, the only Priest Who ever offered a worship worthy of God. On the side of His members, this flows from the reality of our incorporation into Christ and our participation in His Priesthood (either active or passive) achieved through the reception of indelible sacramental characters. What then can be said of a rite of Mass which, through its ecuмenical orientation, implicitly denies the unique mediation of Christ? Or which obscures the essentially sacrificial aspect of that mediation?

Or which implicitly denies the hierarchy among the sacramental characters by which the members of Christ participate in and benefit from this mediation? Such a liturgy is untrue to itself. It denies its own nature and lies about its own identity. Objectively, it is an insult to the Son considered as Incarnate God.

Charles · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2011, 11:05:16 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

The Novus Ordo as said in pracitise is not only a Mortal Sin, it is sacrilidge. I still have not seen either of you refute me, because you can't I can post all day long from SSPX.ORG on why one may not attend the Novus Ordo.

Sacrilege can and certainly does occur at most NO's. To me, the NO lacks so much compared to the TLM. The TLM builds the Faith always. With the NO, a reverent one probably can as well IF the person in the pew is orthodox and informed. IOW, they would know error or heresy if they heard it from the pulpit.

But I admit, that's a perfect world situation.

Now the question I must ask is, if we are to accept the SSPX stance, then how can we reconcile that with the fact the SSPX is entertaining the thought of reconciliation with Rome, who is in fact the enabler of sacrilege in the NO to continue ?

What/who is orthodox at that point ? A trad that tolerates modernists, or a liberal that tolerates trads ?

VII has torn the Church to pieces no doubt. And it seems the only ones getting along are the blindly obedient in the NO pews that are ignorant to it all.

LordPhan · « **Reply #9 on:** November 09, 2011, 02:13:54 AM »

Can someone please ban this person for Protestant Heresy, that is doctrine not dicipline.

The Novus Ordo rubrics state it is in Latin, why? Because of this very Canon.

What the heretic just posted was the statements and explanations before the Canons.

This is the Canon:

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

He has also violated these in Regards to the Infallible Tridentine Mass:

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

Nishant · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2011, 03:19:20 AM »

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.

Diego · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2011, 07:50:21 AM »

The Church is not defined by buildings. As in St. Athanasius' times of widespread apostasy, Catholics may be relegated to celebrate Mass in the desert while the apostates hold the CHurch buildings and offices hostage, but those who hold to Tradition (capital "T") are the Church.

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2011, 08:42:49 AM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite

That, right there, is part of the heresy and apostasy of Newrome, in a nutshell.

The Novus Ordo IS NOT THE ORDINARY FORM TO ANYONE EXCEPT NEWCHURCH!

Quo Primum[/b] made it VERY clear that no one was to issue ANY NEW MISSAL, let alone REPLACE the Mass that was already honored by the Church with pride of place and was for that reason codified at Trent.

Aquinasg and his kind are always going on about how we cannot be disobedient to Papal decrees, yet he wants to insist that 'in perpetuity' and 'forever have the force of law' DON'T mean exactly what the WORDS say!!

It would all be so tragic if it wasn't so infuriating.

Nishant · « **Reply #13 on:** November 09, 2011, 09:53:18 AM »

Diego said:

Quote

The Church is not defined by buildings. As in St. Athanasius' times of widespread apostasy, Catholics may be relegated to celebrate Mass in the desert while the apostates hold the CHurch buildings and offices hostage, but those who hold to Tradition (capital "T") are the Church.

Nobody's denying the possibility, indeed the current reality, of widespread apostasy among clerics and prelates. The indefectibility of the Church has never been taught to extend to such. But it does appear that Popes have said that it does apply to her sacraments.

Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66 (1943):

Quote

“Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Stephen Francis, I understand where you're coming from, but my question was not about that. It was regarding whether the SSPX would officially agree with you or not.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #14 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:10:05 PM »

It is in fact sinful to attend the Novus Ordo if you know it's wrong. I agree with the SSPX. If you know it was created by Freemasons to please the Protestants, why would you even want to attend it?

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?

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.

Quote

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

This is an important thing to note, thumbs-up to LP for quoting these Canons. If the Church stated that anyone who dared try to change the liturgy was anathema, then Paul VI, Cardinal Bugnini, and everyone else who was directly involved in the second Vatican council excommunicated themselves, and therefore the Novus Ordo may be regarded as "the Mass of the excommunicated". In other words, it cannot be considered a true Mass of the Catholic Church.