Author Topic: Validity of NO "Masses" (Read 2399 times)

Pelly · « **on:** January 08, 2013, 01:12:19 PM »

I've read on this site that the consecration on NO "Masses" may be valid. But I have a question: is it true? Or I should seek a Traditional Church?
Since I hear so many Traditionalists calling the hosts consecrated on these "Masses" "Novus Ordo cookies", it's very likely that these "Masses" are invalid. And this is a problem, since there is no traditonal Church in my town. I think that the town when I was baptized was entirely NO, so is my baptism valid?

Vladimir · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2013, 07:26:24 PM »

The fact that 90% of Protestant baptisms are valid (excluding those that do not use a Trinitarian formula or do not believe in the Triune God), the fact that you even call into doubt the validity of your Catholic baptism is alarming. Do you have any evidence that would suggest the invalidity of your baptism? Bishop Williamson was raised Anglican, and to my knowledge was never conditionally baptized after his conversion.

"should I seek a traditional church" - Yes. But in my opinion, do not get entangled in issues of the validity of the New Mass, etc if you can avoid it -which is possible in most cases. Especially, I would not recommend that you study this issue without the guidance of a priest since fishing for advice on internet forums often does more harm than good, depending on your personality and ability to sift through misinformation, heavily opinionated views, etc.

The fact that you hear anonymous online posters using the term "Novus Ordo cookies" is probably more attributable to the crass lack of manners and basic civility that seems to afflict anonymous posters in general and traditional Catholics in particular.

In my opinion, the Novus Ordo mass, etc are valid in many, if not most, circuмstances. The same is true for the Latin Mass. It is definitely true and not my private opinion that under the proper circuмstances BOTH can be invalid.

Look at the fruits of the Novus Ordo. To use Bishop Williamson's analogy it bears poisoned fruit, but nevertheless the poison only infects a portion of the fruit and not all of it.

This is just my opinion. I'm just an unlearned layperson.

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2013, 07:40:06 PM »

Please do not listen to the former advice given by the above poster. The duplicity in his response made me have to respond to this thread, otherwise I may have simply passed it.

Search for answers on the rest of this forum and you will find the truth of the matter. The Novus Ordo mass is doubtful , at best, and totally invalid, at the worst case. We are called to avoid doubtful sacraments as Catholics.

May God guide you on this spiritual learning you are embarking on and illuminate you with full truth, not half-truths but full truth.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2013, 07:53:41 PM »

Before our merciful God bestowed upon this sinner the grace of discovering tradition, I had many troubling questions at the novus ordo church I attended, and there was a time when I doubted the validity of the host itself.
There were a few parishioners at this particular parish who rotated "making" the hosts. I found out (directly from them) that they were leavened and sweetened with honey, even darker in color and looked like a chunk of bread when distributed. These women were so proud of their tasty concoction and shared the recipe with each other. The consistency and sweetener were ridiculously obvious when receiving "eucharist", so I searched for another parish.

I don't know how common this is, but be wary of the actual confection of the host, not just the consecration.

Vladimir · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:17:37 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Please do not listen to the former advice given by the above poster. The duplicity in his response made me have to respond to this thread, otherwise I may have simply passed it.

Search for answers on the rest of this forum and you will find the truth of the matter. The Novus Ordo mass is doubtful , at best, and totally invalid, at the worst case. We are called to avoid doubtful sacraments as Catholics.

May God guide you on this spiritual learning you are embarking on and illuminate you with full truth, not half-truths but full truth.

Perhaps you will have to illuminate the rest of the forum on what exactly about my post was duplicitous. Superficially, it does seem duplicitous to offer advice on an Internet forum about how one should not seek advice on an Internet forum, but I intentionally prefaced my input with the clear statement that what I write is simply the opinion of an uneducated layperson. Any intelligent person would then proceed to read my post in that light, taking it with a grain of salt.

The Novus Ordo can be valid, doubtful, invalid, etc depending on a number of circuмstances. The exact same can be said of any single sacrament offered by any single priest.

The extreme examples of "kookiness" (for lack of a better term) in the Novus Ordo that seems to be the norm on this forum is almost entirely alien to my experience. In terms of my experience with the Novus Ordo, I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to the exact opposite.

You see, no group is as monolithic as its critics would like to believe. As Bishop Williamson recently wrote in his column, there are good Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Not every single Catholic priest in the Novus Ordo is a conspiring Crypto-Jєω-Freemason-Illuminati-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-Feminist, etc. Not every single Catholic layperson in the Novus Ordo is a total stranger to his faith. The unwillingness to make this admission leads to all sorts of despicable behavior. For example, talking about Catholic bishops and priests with an appalling lack of respect and charity that we would feel obliged to show to the waiter at a restaurant or any number of common strangers passing by in the monotony of our daily lives. The cloak of anonymity emboldens many and they feel free to shoot their mouths off online.

What we have on CathInfo is a mix of many opinions that bear no authority other than that of laypersons - some young, others old, some informed, others misinformed. The idea that you can find some sort of "truth" out of this Gordian knot of contradicting ideas, opinions, etc is rather hard to fathom. Certainly some truths may be discerned, provided that one has the combination of mental capacity, emotional maturity, and street-wisdom to sift through this massive resource of information, but one cannot assume that all people reading this forum have the ability and the vast amount of time that would be required for such a monumental task as discovering the "full truth" on such a humble venue as CathInfo.

To get back to the point, search the forum for answers on subjects like these if you want. However, in my opinion - which is based solely on my personal experience - it is more fruitful to find a traditional mass, go there, and don't look back. Why entangle yourself in theological arguments with a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals that endless peddle their private pontifications as the Catholic Faith. Worry for yourself and let God take care of the Novus Ordo.

Marlelar · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:32:51 PM »

Quote from: Pelly

I've read on this site that the consecration on NO "Masses" may be valid. But I have a question: is it true? Or I should seek a Traditional Church?
Since I hear so many Traditionalists calling the hosts consecrated on these "Masses" "Novus Ordo cookies", it's very likely that these "Masses" are invalid. And this is a problem, since there is no traditonal Church in my town. I think that the town when I was baptized was entirely NO, so is my baptism valid?

Because of the confusion in the NO it would be safest to find a traditional church. Even a layman can baptize under certain circuмstances, so as long as the proper form and matter were observed your baptism is valid, even the NO do carry that out correctly.

There are some sites which carry sermons from fully traditional priests, send me a PM if you'd like suggestions.

Marsha

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:33:26 PM »

Quote

As Bishop Williamson recently wrote in his column, there are good Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Not every single Catholic priest in the Novus Ordo is a conspiring Crypto-Jєω-Freemason-Illuminati-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-Feminist, etc

Where could I find this?

Vladimir · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:45:40 PM »

Quote from: PenitentWoman

Quote
As Bishop Williamson recently wrote in his column, there are good Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Not every single Catholic priest in the Novus Ordo is a conspiring Crypto-Jєω-Freemason-Illuminati-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-Feminist, etc

Where could I find this?

Quote

Number CCLXXXI (281)

1 December 2012
VARIOUS “CHURCHES”
Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion.

“Church” derives from the Old English “cirice”, deriving in turn from the Greek word “kuriakon”, meaning “of the Lord”. Thus “Doma kuriakon” meant “house of the Lord”, and from naming the building, “church” came to mean also the people that were regularly to be found in the building.

“Catholic” Church names many a building, but principally the worldwide group of people (“katholos” in Greek means “universal”) who share one Faith, one set of Sacraments and one Hierarchy, all three having been established by the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his life on earth two thousand years ago. But from this original group of believers as instituted by Our Lord, other groups have regularly broken away, while still claiming to be Christ’s true Church. How then am I to know which is his true Church?

“Christ’s Church” has four Marks, as they are called. 1 One - above all by oneness of Faith Our Lord meant to unite his Church and not to found many churches (cf. Jn. XVII, 21-23: “That they may be one”). 2 Holy - Our Lord founded his Church to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven (cf. Mt. V, 48: “Be you perfect”). 3 Catholic - Our Lord founded his Church for all men of all lands and all ages (cf. Mt. XXVIII, 19: “Going, teach ye all nations”). 4 Apostolic - Our Lord founded his Church as a monarchy, to be ruled by the Apostle Peter and his successors (cf. Mt. XVI, 18: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock (in Greek “petran”) I will found my Church”). Wherever these four Marks are, there is Christ’s true Church. Where they are lacking, there is not Christ’s Church.

“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible?

“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials. Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks. Similarly “Mainstream Church” means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant. However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

Kyrie eleison

[/size]

Emphasis mine.

However, I believe the quote that I had in mind in my previous post was actually not published in the Eleison Comments but made at a recent conference - perhaps one of the first ones given in Toronto several weeks ago.

If it turns out the quote is not from Bishop Williamson (I really think it is though, my memory isn't THAT bad), then I will gladly retract that statement while supporting its principles even if they were not uttered by the good bishop. It only takes a bit of experience to reach that conclusion.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2013, 09:46:09 PM »

Quote from: PenitentWoman

Quote
As Bishop Williamson recently wrote in his column, there are good Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Not every single Catholic priest in the Novus Ordo is a conspiring Crypto-Jєω-Freemason-Illuminati-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-Feminist, etc

Where could I find this?

I was there recently when he said it in person.

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:11:30 AM »

Thank you!

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #10 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:16:34 PM »

Quote from: PartyIsOver221

Please do not listen to the former advice given by the above poster. The duplicity in his response made me have to respond to this thread, otherwise I may have simply passed it.

Search for answers on the rest of this forum and you will find the truth of the matter. The Novus Ordo mass is doubtful , at best, and totally invalid, at the worst case. We are called to avoid doubtful sacraments as Catholics.

May God guide you on this spiritual learning you are embarking on and illuminate you with full truth, not half-truths but full truth.

yes, the sacraments of novus ordo have been changed and modernized like everything else. It has been water downed to please the protestants and other enemies of the Church.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:18:58 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

Quote from: PenitentWoman
Quote
As Bishop Williamson recently wrote in his column, there are good Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Not every single Catholic priest in the Novus Ordo is a conspiring Crypto-Jєω-Freemason-Illuminati-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ-Feminist, etc

Where could I find this?

Quote
Number CCLXXXI (281)

1 December 2012
VARIOUS “CHURCHES”
Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion.

“Church” derives from the Old English “cirice”, deriving in turn from the Greek word “kuriakon”, meaning “of the Lord”. Thus “Doma kuriakon” meant “house of the Lord”, and from naming the building, “church” came to mean also the people that were regularly to be found in the building.

“Catholic” Church names many a building, but principally the worldwide group of people (“katholos” in Greek means “universal”) who share one Faith, one set of Sacraments and one Hierarchy, all three having been established by the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his life on earth two thousand years ago. But from this original group of believers as instituted by Our Lord, other groups have regularly broken away, while still claiming to be Christ’s true Church. How then am I to know which is his true Church?

“Christ’s Church” has four Marks, as they are called. 1 One - above all by oneness of Faith Our Lord meant to unite his Church and not to found many churches (cf. Jn. XVII, 21-23: “That they may be one”). 2 Holy - Our Lord founded his Church to bring men to the All-Holy God and his holy Heaven (cf. Mt. V, 48: “Be you perfect”). 3 Catholic - Our Lord founded his Church for all men of all lands and all ages (cf. Mt. XXVIII, 19: “Going, teach ye all nations”). 4 Apostolic - Our Lord founded his Church as a monarchy, to be ruled by the Apostle Peter and his successors (cf. Mt. XVI, 18: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock (in Greek “petran”) I will found my Church”). Wherever these four Marks are, there is Christ’s true Church. Where they are lacking, there is not Christ’s Church.

“Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible?

“Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

“Official Church” means the Church as led by, and following, its visible officials. Since these today are largely Conciliar, so the “official Church” is largely Conciliar and not Catholic, according to the four Marks. Similarly “Mainstream Church” means today’s official Church as opposed to the “Traditionalist” remnant. However, let nobody say there is nothing one, holy, universal or apostolic left in the mainstream Church, any more than everything in the “Traditionalist” remnant shows forth the four Marks. Wheat and chaff are always mixed in Christ’s Church (cf. Mt. XIII, 24-30).

Kyrie eleison
[/size]

Emphasis mine.

However, I believe the quote that I had in mind in my previous post was actually not published in the Eleison Comments but made at a recent conference - perhaps one of the first ones given in Toronto several weeks ago.

If it turns out the quote is not from Bishop Williamson (I really think it is though, my memory isn't THAT bad), then I will gladly retract that statement while supporting its principles even if they were not uttered by the good bishop. It only takes a bit of experience to reach that conclusion.

I agree, there alot of good priests and faithful who are waiting for the Church to become "Catholic" again but are outnumbered, threatened or suppressed.

Yes, there is a pocket of restistance within novus ordo.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:25:31 PM »

The Novus Ordo is doubtful at best, and even one said reverently is, as Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism".

As for Baptism in the NO, that is more likely to be valid, even if you were baptized by a heretic. As the Council of Trent stated:

Quote

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, session VII)

However, I'm pretty sure that the SSPX does re-baptize those who were baptized in the NO just in case, should one request it.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #13 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:43:04 PM »

They don't "rebaptize," they "conditionally rebaptize."

There are three things necessary to make a sacrament valid:

Form, matter, and intention.

Examples of an invalid baptism because of form:

"I baptize you in the name of the creator, the redeemer and the sanctifier."
The Novus Ordo has done, and is continuing to do, this invalid form in some places.

A baby is near death, and the priest, instead of sprinkling water on the head, uses a cotton ball with water and signs the sign of the cross over the chest of the baby and says the words of baptism.

This is invalid form, because the water is not being sprinkled over the head is necessary to confer baptism on a baby.

(I know a relative that had a sister with a baby in this situation, and this is what the novus ordo priest did.)

Example of invalid baptism because of matter:

The priest uses holy water, or soda, or juice, or some other liquid, rather than regular, natural water, for baptism.

Example of an invalid intention of the priest.

Priest holds the baby up and says, "WELCOME THIS BABY TO THE COMMUNITY."

(This happened with my sister.)

The priest has to intend to do what the Church does, which is take away original sin, leaving the indelible mark of baptism on the child/person. If they don't do that, then it's invalid intention. It's not "welcoming someone into the community." The intention is to remove original sin.

This is a sketchy area to deal with. We don't know the mind of the priest, unless he expresses it in the above way, or some other similar heretical fashion.

So if you know (or even suspect) that one of these things has happened in your baptism, best thing to do is to get conditionally rebaptized. Meaning, if your first baptism wasn't valid because of suspected improper form, matter, or intention (the first two being rather obvious, the last being hard to call without knowing the priest's state of mind) then go to your priest and have it done the right way.

Pelly · « **Reply #14 on:** January 09, 2013, 12:49:37 PM »

I don't remember what form was it, though according to my Cathecism books, the form is:
(name), I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Amen)
So a re-baptism might be possible.