Author Topic: The Validity of the New "Mass" (Read 1334 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** January 11, 2014, 01:00:19 PM »

http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

PREFACE

This little monograph embodies the presentation of a case against the validity of the new "form" presently being used for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. It was on October 22, 1967, that this new "form" originally came into use in the United States, along with the new English Canon of the Mass.
That the arguments presented herein are beyond question or challenge I do not claim. Assuredly they will not be the "last word" on the subject.
"You must not so cling to what we have said," St. Anselm advised his disciple, "as to abide by it obstinately when others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing ours and establishing opinions against them." When more weighty arguments (either for or against mine) are advanced, I will welcome them. And I will take as my own these words of the same great St. Anselm: "If there is anything that calls for correction I do not refuse the correction."

What I have striven for is clarity. Each paragraph of this monograph is numbered uniquely, so that all who wish to question or rebut any particular point, or many points, may with ease refer to what I have written. Not only will this aid my sincere opponents in citing chapter and verse against me, but it will also point up the insincerity of all blanket criticisms that avoid citing specifics.

Patrick Henry Omlor

Redwood City, California

March 7, 1968

Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six Ways To Violate the Form of A Sacrament:

"NIL FORMAE DEMAS, NIL ADDAS, NIL VARIABIS, TRANSMUTARE CAVE, CORRUMPERE VERBA, MORARI."

"Omit nothing of the form, add nothing, change nothing; Beware of transmuting, corrupting, or interrupting the words."

(Quoted from J. M. Hervé's "Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae")

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) INTRODUCTION

Concerning Father De Pauw's Letter
1. In a 28-page, printed letter, dated December 25, 1967, Father Gommar A. De Pauw raised the question whether the Masses being said using the new all-English Canon are valid. On page 20 of this letter, there appears the following opinion: "IF, therefore, a priest, even though he sinfully and illegally uses the new all-English-Canon, unequivocally assures you - AND YOU SHOULD PUT EVERY PRIEST YOU KNOW TO THIS TEST! - that he positively believes in the SACRIFICIAL nature of the Mass and in the dogma of TRANSUBSTANTIATION AS DEFINED BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, and that he still positively intends to use his uniquely priestly powers to bring the living Jesus Christ present upon our altars, then that priest is still offering VALID Masses . . ." (Emphasis in the original)
2. According to the foregoing opinion, there are two criteria for determining whether any given, particular Mass is valid. And by virtue of Father De Pauw's use of the word: and, it is implied that both criteria must be answered affirmatively. The first criterion pertains to the faith of the priest, while the second concerns his proper intention.

3. Now, firstly, regarding the required faith of the priest, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, "But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 64, Art. 9).

4. Therefore, from the above it would seem that the priest's faith in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is not required for the validity of the Masses he offers.

5. And, secondly, St. Thomas discusses "Whether the Minister's Intention is Required for the Validity of a Sacrament?", in Summa Th., III, Q. 64, Art. 8. As is generally known, the Angelic Doctor's method of exposition consists in first posing a number of "Objections," which he subsequently answers, after he has expounded the question at length. In the aforementioned article, the following "Objection" is posed. "Obj. 2 Further, one man's intention cannot be known to another. Therefore if the minister's intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament."

6. His Reply Obj. 2 contains the following: "On this point there are two opinions. . . " St. Thomas next proceeds to discuss the first of these opinions, and exposes its flaws. Then he takes up the second of these opinions in the following manner: "Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or the recipient of the sacrament." (Emphasis added)

7. Thus it would seem that there is no necessity for a layman explicitly to interrogate the priest concerning the latter's intention.

The Critical Point of Inquiry
8. On page 16 of the aforementioned letter Father De Pauw correctly claims that they are guilty of "unilaterally changing the established form of a sacrament." The sacrament to which he refers, of course, is the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
9. Although Father De Pauw mentions it only casually and in passing, it seems that this point is really the crux of the matter. For if the wording in the proper, established form of a sacrament is so altered that the essential meaning of the words is changed, then the sacrament is automatically rendered invalid, as will be demonstrated. For as St. Thomas teaches, "Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament."(Summa Th., III, Q. 64, Art. 9).

10. As a consequence, both of Father De Pauw's criteria - as well as all other questions - are really beside the point if the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has been automatically rendered invalid by virtue of a defect in the form introduced in the new, all-English Canon of the Mass. And the investigation of this question is the purpose of this present monograph.

Petertherock · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2014, 01:10:01 PM »

Well, even though there have been only a few, there has been Eucharistic miracles in the NO Mass...so I would say that would make the NO Mass valid.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2014, 04:35:12 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

Well, even though there have been only a few, there has been Eucharistic miracles in the NO Mass...so I would say that would make the NO Mass valid.

Examples?

crossbro · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2014, 07:32:27 PM »

If you need a system to worship God, then worship your system.

The above is a quote from a protestant minister.

soulguard · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2014, 05:22:24 AM »

Can we have a better argument against the validity of the NOM than the "for many" changed to "for all" argument - because the "for all" is not used anymore.

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2014, 05:54:51 AM »

A few random snips as regards validity, from The Great Sacrilege:

It should be remembered that the Church presumes invalidity wherever serious irregularities are present. The "Novus Ordo" is an irregularity of colossal proportions from beginning to end.

Despite all that has been said, however, the problem of the validity or invalidity of vernacular "English-Canon Masses"- or any of the new "masses," for that matter - cannot be decided by you or me. Only the Church, in a saner day, will be able to make a definitive judgment. It should be obvious that individuals are in no position to do so, and it does not help the cause for them to attempt to make that decision.

These two groups are to be classified with yet another one, those who have made so much of this question of validity, that they have disregarded the more comprehensive and more basic consideration, that of the morality of the "New Mass." As I said in the beginning, this is because of their too "legalistic" approach to the entire question.
The root of this admittedly honest mistake is that these people have made nothing, or at least too little, of the incontrovertible fact that the "New Mass" is illicit. Its creation was sinful and sacrilegious for no other reason than that it was against the Law of the Church - and therefore contrary to the will of God. And its "celebration" is sinful for the very same reason. Consequently it is also sinful to attend the "New Mass," to participate in it in any way, to receive Communion during it, to receive hosts which may or may not have been validly consecrated during it, or even to attend the True Mass where the "New Mass": customarily takes place.

As essential as is validity of consecration for the consummation of the Holy Sacrifice, of itself validity does not make the Mass worthy.

An act of transubstantiation alone is not sufficient, therefore. It is necessary that the Sacrifice be a worthy act of worship to God the Father. It should be obvious to anyone that a person cannot evaluate the "Novus Ordo" on the basis of validity only. Because of the acceptance of the "New Mass" as legitimate the "Post-Conciliar Church" is too deaf and blind to consider seriously whether it is valid. Whereas, many so-called "conservative" Catholics, the "loyal opposition," would identify validity with legitimacy and therefore with worthiness. For our part, without knowing whether the "New Mass" is "valid," we say this, it is undeniably illicit, and hence most abominable and displeasing in the eyes of God.

Petertherock · « **Reply #6 on:** January 12, 2014, 08:06:12 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Petertherock
Well, even though there have been only a few, there has been Eucharistic miracles in the NO Mass...so I would say that would make the NO Mass valid.

Examples?

http://dsanford.com/miraclehost.html

http://www.marypages.com/NajuKorea.htm

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** January 12, 2014, 08:23:54 AM »

Quote from: Petertherock

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Petertherock
Well, even though there have been only a few, there has been Eucharistic miracles in the NO Mass...so I would say that would make the NO Mass valid.

Examples?

http://dsanford.com/miraclehost.html

http://www.marypages.com/NajuKorea.htm

Are these approved?

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** January 12, 2014, 08:34:37 AM »

Found this which lists all of the approved EM's:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

There is only one instance of a clear post-Vatican II EM. It was in 2001 in India and it also appears that it did not occur in the Latin Rite.

This actually lends credence to the belief that the New Mass in the Latin Rite is not valid.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #9 on:** January 12, 2014, 09:12:20 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Found this which lists all of the approved EM's:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

There is only one instance of a clear post-Vatican II EM. It was in 2001 in India and it also appears that it did not occur in the Latin Rite.

This actually lends credence to the belief that the New Mass in the Latin Rite is not valid.

Impressive detective-work!

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #10 on:** January 12, 2014, 11:26:44 AM »

I think this miracle occured in the Syro-Malankara Rite which dates to the time of St. Thomas, not the NOM.

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** January 12, 2014, 11:53:30 AM »

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

I think this miracle occured in the Syro-Malankara Rite which dates to the time of St. Thomas, not the NOM.

Yes, that's what I think I found out.

The fact that there have been NO Eucharistic miracles since NO is quite fascinating.

Petertherock · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2014, 12:49:40 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

I think this miracle occured in the Syro-Malankara Rite which dates to the time of St. Thomas, not the NOM.

Yes, that's what I think I found out.

The fact that there have been NO Eucharistic miracles since NO is quite fascinating.

There has been Eucharistic miracles since the NO came into being. There was also one in the Boston area that was after VII.

http://www.marys-touch.com/messages/1995/0922.htm

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2014, 12:49:45 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: holysoulsacademy

I think this miracle occured in the Syro-Malankara Rite which dates to the time of St. Thomas, not the NOM.

Yes, that's what I think I found out.

The fact that there have been NO Eucharistic miracles since NO is quite fascinating.

I think its interesting to note that their rift with came from the Portugese trying to bring them in line with the Latin Rite and they were brought back in communion with Rome in 1930 when they were allowed to continue with their Malankara Rite, which traced the roots of their church to St. Thomas.

2Vermont · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2014, 12:55:30 PM »

Quote from: Petertherock

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: holysoulsacademy

I think this miracle occured in the Syro-Malankara Rite which dates to the time of St. Thomas, not the NOM.

Yes, that's what I think I found out.

The fact that there have been NO Eucharistic miracles since NO is quite fascinating.

There has been Eucharistic miracles since the NO came into being. There was also one in the Boston area that was after VII.

The link I gave is up-to-date. These are not there. It's what they do...keep track of approved EM's. I suspect the ones you are talking about were never approved.