Author Topic: How did you come to the conclusion New Mass Invalid? And Why? (Read 4509 times)

2Vermont · « **on:** December 13, 2013, 04:15:38 AM »

It seems as if there are many here who, although they disagree on SV vs Sedeplenism, they do agree that we should avoid the New Mass because it isn't Catholic.

How did you come to that conclusion? Was it a personal experience? A book? A particular sermon (s) by a traditional priest? Some other way? What/Who was it?

Also, what was it about the New Mass that made you sure that it was non-Catholic? Be specific please.

For me, it was a combination of experience and reading Fr Cekada's book Work of Human Hands. But it appears that many here who question Fr Cekada so I wonder whether I was wrong to make this decision based on his research. His book was very compelling but maybe many of us just don't know what the heck we're talking about, you know?

Anyway, considering this is something that I get the feeling most of us agree on, I'd like to hear from you all.

Thank you.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2013, 04:53:57 AM »

I would imagine pretty much everyone here agrees to not attend the NO.

I've never come to the conclusion that the new mass was invalid due to some sort of defect present in itself. The sticking point for me is that the new mass, even if valid, is clearly a carbon copy of Cranmer's mass, and is therefore not Catholic or licit. I was about fifty pages into Michael Davies book, "Cranmer's Godly Order" when I knew I'd never be at the NO again, because it became evident that the Church has already condemned the NO, just by a different name.

That was "the moment" that decided me against the NO.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2013, 06:57:21 AM »

This is an interesting question. I'm honestly not sure I have ever come to the conclusion that the New Mass is invalid, per se.

I first questioned the validity of the English translation because the form of the sacrament, in every single Magisterial docuмent and in Montini's Missale Romanum, is very clearly established to be more than simply, "This is my body, This is my blood." There are numerous theologians who suggest that this is all that is necessary, but there is not one--and I repeat, there is not one magisterial docuмent that says this and, in fact, every docuмent that says what the form of the sacrament is tells us that the form is more than those simple phrases. Thus, when I discovered the form of the sacrament uses the word "many" instead of "all", I immediately began to question its validity. I began to question the validity of the English Mass about 20 years ago, long before I even knew the traditional Mass was still be said anywhere.

Then I read Archbishop Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics in which I learned that there is more than valid matter and form required for the valid celebration of the sacraments. This is where I first learned that the intention of the celebrant must also conform to what the Church intends in order for the sacrament to be valid. From the conversations I had had with priests and by listening to their homilies I had begun to realize that a great many of them did not see the Mass as a sacrificial function but rather as a meal celebrating the fellowship of believers.

Still later the SSPX published an article in defense of the new rite of episcopal consecration and I learned, for the first time, that there has been a debate concerning whether the bishops of the Conciliar church were even valid bishops when consecrated in the new rite and that this debate began almost immediately from the promulgation of the new rite. Thus, when I finally came to the conclusion that the SSPX's defense was too weak and that it was much more probable that the new bishops, and therefore, the priests they ordained, were simply not validly ordained clergy who could even offer the Mass--whether it be the Novus Ordo or the traditional Mass.

It was even later that I came to the conclusion that the sedevacantist thesis is correct and that the New Mass was actually established by heresiarchs and, therefore, were probably intended from the beginning to be a Protestant worship service--and I discover that this is precisely what Montini had envisioned from the outset.

So...This was how it came about that I determined that the New Mass is invalid.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2013, 07:32:18 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I would imagine pretty much everyone here agrees to not attend the NO.

I've never come to the conclusion that the new mass was invalid due to some sort of defect present in itself. The sticking point for me is that the new mass, even if valid, is clearly a carbon copy of Cranmer's mass, and is therefore not Catholic or licit. I was about fifty pages into Michael Davies book, "Cranmer's Godly Order" when I knew I'd never be at the NO again, because it became evident that the Church has already condemned the NO, just by a different name.

That was "the moment" that decided me against the NO.

ETA: the pro multis at the consecration makes the validity doubtful at least, if not certainly invalid. So under that condition I would doubt the validity (and doubtful sacraments ought to be treated as being invalid). I wrote my original post assuming that we were talking about the new mass's latin ("official") text.

TKGS · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2013, 09:23:05 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

ETA: the pro multis at the consecration makes the validity doubtful at least, if not certainly invalid. So under that condition I would doubt the validity (and doubtful sacraments ought to be treated as being invalid). I wrote my original post assuming that we were talking about the new mass's latin ("official") text.

It should be pointed out that, according to news reports, the ICEL translation of the consecration form for the Novus Ordo has been changed to "for many" within the last year or so. Can someone who regularly attends the New worship service confirm that priests are actually using that new translation?

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2013, 09:45:50 AM »

The men who are responsible in compiling and translating the NO would
not be caught dead saying the Rosary. They had an agenda, and for
them that's what counts. They wanted a worship service that would
be accepted by Catholic's and non Catholics that is free of all doctrine,
and teachings of the Catholic Church.
The proof today, is there are so many Catholics in name only that are
completely ignorant of the Faith, and it was planned that way by the
very authors of the NO.

soulguard · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2013, 09:56:53 AM »

Basically I learned that the new "mass" was bad from reading Most Holy Family Monastery website. The more I learned about tradition the more I was disassociated with the novus ordo.
But having said that, I eventually began to go to the novus ordo for the first time after I got into a habit of going to the Indult. Why? Just because the two masses were part of the same "Catholic" church.
When left without access to latin mass, I have gone to novus ordo, but I hated it every single time because it was the opposite of holy, and my instinct told me it was wrong, so that is another reason why I decided not to go anymore. Not a bad reflection on the Indult, because when I went to the SSPX the mass was (almost) identical, but because the Indult is part of the conciliar church it linked me to the novus ordo. I was none the wiser of the reason why Benedict permitted the latin mass in the first place.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2013, 09:59:05 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Mithrandylan
ETA: the pro multis at the consecration makes the validity doubtful at least, if not certainly invalid. So under that condition I would doubt the validity (and doubtful sacraments ought to be treated as being invalid). I wrote my original post assuming that we were talking about the new mass's latin ("official") text.

It should be pointed out that, according to news reports, the ICEL translation of the consecration form for the Novus Ordo has been changed to "for many" within the last year or so. Can someone who regularly attends the New worship service confirm that priests are actually using that new translation?

From last week's service - he says "many" at 20:20.

soulguard · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2013, 10:23:06 AM »

Every time I went to the novus ordo, the words "For Many" were used, except one time where there was an ultra liberal priest who contradicted absolutely everything imaginable about the Catholic faith. Most recent time I went was earlier this year, different place, still the same sacrilege.

I think the main reason people go to the novus ordo is because they were raised with the latin mass. They cant seriously see anything in the new service without some pre-existing loyalty to the concept of going to mass regularly.

Mabel · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2013, 11:23:24 AM »

What I've read from the popes and theologians on the core form of the Consecration convinced me, coupled with the issues surrounding the new rite of ordination and episcopal consecration.

With that in mind, I also asked myself, "Is this mass sanctifying people?" Out of our parish, one person had more than three children and we had two families with three children, everyone else had two. People I knew were going with the other parent and receiving communion at non-Catholic churches on Sundays and going to the Novus Ordo in the evening on Saturday. Our pastor had a retirement mass for the female minister of the local Lutheran church, with which my parish often had joint prayer services. I knew many people throughout the local deanery and the diocese, very few had any faith. It was a struggle to see the truth but in the end I came to see that the NO mass was not sanctifying families or individuals at all, and the ones who were good or conservative all had one thing in common: They prayed the rosary.

I concluded that there must be some kind of defect for these things to happen, that the new rites and mass could not have come from the Church and they were certainly not sanctifying people.

LoverOfTradition · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2013, 03:27:55 PM »

In addition to what everyone has said here, there is NOTHING Catholic in or about the Novus Ordo Mass, either. Most of the people who go there don't look or act like they're Catholic. From my experience, I feel like I'm at some club, with the exception of a few places that are a bit reverent. And we're made to believe that is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Mass? No, thanks. The true Church is in the catacombs as it was foretold. What passes off as the Church and the Mass are not really that. They are a false and counterfeit Church and Mass.

The Council of Trent canonized the Holy Sacrifice for all time and it is the only Mass that should exist in the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

The fact that the Novus Ordo was put together by a bunch of Protestants and a Freemason should be enough alone to tell someone there's something wrong with it. The fact that "For All" was used in the Consecration for 40 years should tell someone there's something wrong with that Mass. Think about it. How much more obvious can you get?

If only those in the Counciliar Church would wake up and smell the smoke. But, they don't even know the first thing about the religion they claim to hold much less that there's something wrong with it.

Only the direct intervention of God will put an end to this mess, I can tell you that. I don't see it happening any other way.

Hold fast, faithful Catholics. We have a bumpy ride ahead of us, but Our Lord and Our Lady are with us.

icterus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2013, 03:42:59 PM »

LoT wrote:

Quote

In addition to what everyone has said here, there is NOTHING Catholic in or about the Novus Ordo Mass, either.

I'm a fan of sound argumentation. I'm also a fan of bringing new people into Tradition and, in my personal experience, this is the sort of thing that drives people away. I myself was the typical NO person for a long time. During that time, I was incessantly berated for all of the 'Catholic' aspects of the NO Mass. Prayers to saints, Dulia to the Virgin, adoration of what my Protestant family called "A piece of bread"...etc. So, when one says 'NOTHING Catholic', that's just confusing to a lot of people who might could really use the help.

When did y'all forget that this is a public message board read by a lot of people, and not just a private discussion group?

Quote

Most of the people who go there don't look or act like they're Catholic. From my experience, I feel like I'm at some club, with the exception of a few places that are a bit reverent. And we're made to believe that is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Mass? No, thanks. The true Church is in the catacombs as it was foretold. What passes off as the Church and the Mass are not really that. They are a false and counterfeit Church and Mass.

Well, I have a different experience. I know I'm at the Holy Traditional Latin Mass...but it feels rushed and the parents don't do a good job of controlling their children, and the servers (sometimes me) are utterly graceless, and the people are often distracted. I don't find the comportment of the people assisting at Mass really much or any better than I used to....and the obvious piety of NO Catholics and TLM Catholics is DWARFED by the properness and bearing of the fundamentalist protestants!

Be careful how you judge. You have not seen reverence until you've been around some of those clans of fundies! They rival the traditional Monks I've vistied.

Quote

The Council of Trent canonized the Holy Sacrifice for all time and it is the only Mass that should exist in the Roman Catholic Church. Period.

Yep. True dat.

Quote

The fact that the Novus Ordo was put together by a bunch of Protestants and a Freemason should be enough alone to tell someone there's something wrong with it. The fact that "For All" was used in the Consecration for 40 years should tell someone there's something wrong with that Mass. Think about it. How much more obvious can you get?

Well...that only concerns English. That would be a good excuse for someone to claim the NO in Spanish didn't have those problems. I was attached to that idea for a while, myself.

Quote

If only those in the Counciliar Church would wake up and smell the smoke. But, they don't even know the first thing about the religion they claim to hold much less that there's something wrong with it.

How will they know, if no one tells them? And, how will anyone tell them, if they are so, so busy preaching so strongly to the choir?

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2013, 04:34:03 PM »

Quote from: icterus

I'm a fan of sound argumentation. I'm also a fan of bringing new people into Tradition and, in my personal experience, this is the sort of thing that drives people away. I myself was the typical NO person for a long time. During that time, I was incessantly berated for all of the 'Catholic' aspects of the NO Mass. Prayers to saints, Dulia to the Virgin, adoration of what my Protestant family called "A piece of bread"...etc. So, when one says 'NOTHING Catholic', that's just confusing to a lot of people who might could really use the help.

What the caused the current lack of belief in the real presence? The fact some Protestants still understand that the Catholic Church taught this as dogma isn't a very good argument for the NO having "Catholic aspects."

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2013, 04:39:16 PM »

I attended the 30th Class reunion back in 1996. Many of this class I
was with since the first grade in a Catholic Parochial School through
Catholic High School.
Not one attending practiced their Catholic Religion, few that were
practicing any religion were Protestant converts and came from
Families that were Catholic for generations.
I would like to say more about that reunion, However, it is the best that
it is ended here.
This is what the aftermath of Vatican 2 and the NO did to my
generation.

Matto · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2013, 04:58:49 PM »

After having attended the Novus Ordo since I was a child and having attended the traditional Mass for the past few years, I find it hard to understand why anyone would choose to go to the Novus Ordo, except for a few women who want to act big and commit sacrilege (if the Mass is actually valid) by being Eucharistic ministers. There is nothing appealing to me when compared to the traditional liturgy.