Author Topic: Why are the sacraments of the Novus Ordo (Read 4074 times)

InfiniteFaith · « **on:** September 23, 2012, 10:54:23 PM »

Evidently, some believe the sacraments are invalid in the novus ordo Church. Are these the same people that still accept Pope Benedict? Or is it only the Sedevacantists that claim this about sacraments in the novus ordo?

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2012, 03:28:27 AM »

+JMJ+

IMHO, a valid Pope would correct the errors in the form of the sacraments. I don't believe it's possible for a legitimate Pope to continue to recognize invalidly-ordained 'priests' and 'bishops' or for him to administer invalid sacraments.

The 'popes' of Newrome have been altogether too busy offering 'indult' services, 'updates' and 'revisions' to be bothered with doing things the way they have been done for nearly 2000 years previously.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2012, 04:23:50 AM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Evidently, some believe the sacraments are invalid in the novus ordo Church. Are these the same people that still accept Pope Benedict? Or is it only the Sedevacantists that claim this about sacraments in the novus ordo?

I'm not sedevacantist, but I believe the NO sacraments are doubtful.

Often there is no way to prove validity or invalidity since only God knows for sure - because we cannot be confident of validity, the only thing to do is never participate in any NO sacraments.

clare · « **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2012, 04:48:35 AM »

I recognise Pope Benedict XVI, and I think the new sacraments lend themselves more to invalidity. They can be valid, but that doesn't mean they always or usually are.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2012, 07:45:21 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Evidently, some believe the sacraments are invalid in the novus ordo Church. Are these the same people that still accept Pope Benedict? Or is it only the Sedevacantists that claim this about sacraments in the novus ordo?

I'm not sedevacantist, but I believe the NO sacraments are doubtful.

Often there is no way to prove validity or invalidity since only God knows for sure - because we cannot be confident of validity, the only thing to do is never participate in any NO sacraments.

This is also the conclusion that I came to a few years ago. One absolutely cannot be sure if the NO sacraments are valid or not. Since this is the case, it is best not to participate.

These are difficult and troubling times for Catholics, indeed.

PaulLuke · « **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2012, 10:28:12 AM »

I am also nowhere near to being a sedevacantist. I believe that the Novus Ordo sacraments, when celebrated according to the new rubrics (they don't call them "rubrics" anymore, I don't think, but I don't know what else to call them), with the correct form, matter, and intent, are perfectly valid. However, with that said, I find that the average NO sacrament is much more likely to be administered with an incorrect form, matter, and/or intent. Between priests ad-libbing, improper matter (most common with the Eucharist), and ambivalent intents, many sacraments administered are unfortunately invalid, to the harm of the souls who were expecting God's grace. However, I also feel that the average lay NO Catholic couldn't care less about proper form, matter, and intent, so I guess oftentimes one gets what he deserves.

I pray for the reversion of these lost souls and the return to reverent administration of the sacraments in the entire Church.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2012, 04:29:54 PM »

Didn't Paul VI tell a close personal friend that his INTENTION in creating the Novus Ordo mass was to create a worship service that would be very similar to the protestant worship services out there?

The INTENTION during the inception of this "mass" was to make nice with people who openly deny a need for the pope and deny a need for priests even. They usually have something dismissive to say about Our Lady. So, a "sacrament" created to be a faith-heresy blend...

...can that ever be truly valid?

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2012, 04:55:57 PM »

Quote from: CathMomof7

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Evidently, some believe the sacraments are invalid in the novus ordo Church. Are these the same people that still accept Pope Benedict? Or is it only the Sedevacantists that claim this about sacraments in the novus ordo?

I'm not sedevacantist, but I believe the NO sacraments are doubtful.

Often there is no way to prove validity or invalidity since only God knows for sure - because we cannot be confident of validity, the only thing to do is never participate in any NO sacraments.

This is also the conclusion that I came to a few years ago. One absolutely cannot be sure if the NO sacraments are valid or not. Since this is the case, it is best not to participate.

These are difficult and troubling times for Catholics, indeed.

The same can be said about the sacraments administered by sede and schismatic priests. Some of their holy orders are highly questionable.

Sigismund · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2012, 05:05:40 PM »

Quote from: PaulLuke

I am also nowhere near to being a sedevacantist. I believe that the Novus Ordo sacraments, when celebrated according to the new rubrics (they don't call them "rubrics" anymore, I don't think, but I don't know what else to call them), with the correct form, matter, and intent, are perfectly valid. However, with that said, I find that the average NO sacrament is much more likely to be administered with an incorrect form, matter, and/or intent. Between priests ad-libbing, improper matter (most common with the Eucharist), and ambivalent intents, many sacraments administered are unfortunately invalid, to the harm of the souls who were expecting God's grace. However, I also feel that the average lay NO Catholic couldn't care less about proper form, matter, and intent, so I guess oftentimes one gets what he deserves.

I pray for the reversion of these lost souls and the return to reverent administration of the sacraments in the entire Church.

My thoughts exactly.

songbird · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2012, 05:24:29 PM »

I believe the N.O. sacraments to not be valid. Baptism is an initiation and not to remove original sin, exorcism has been taken out. Eucharist is definitelly invalid, because Holy Orders was changed in 1967-68. And that means, no absolution, and Confirmation is out because Holy Orders is out. N.O. is NOthing to me.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2012, 05:58:48 PM »

But then again. If you all are wrong...then wouldn't that mean that your Sacraments are invalid?

Agobard · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2012, 06:46:50 PM »

Quote from: songbird

I believe the N.O. sacraments to not be valid. Baptism is an initiation and not to remove original sin, exorcism has been taken out. Eucharist is definitelly invalid, because Holy Orders was changed in 1967-68. And that means, no absolution, and Confirmation is out because Holy Orders is out. N.O. is NOthing to me.

Marriage, the man and woman do the marrying. The Church as witness. Clandestine marriages were no longer allowed by Trent for reasons of the Church not being a witness. This was changed because of past abuses, women thinking they were married, the husband was already married someplace else and simply using her...

So if you don't believe there is anyone to witness it in the N.O., clandestine marriage with family as witness?

For the first millennium, there were no real fixed decision on marriage by the Church. Biblical morality, yes. Having power to dictate marriage rules, out of Rome? It was more fluid and local. Rome began to claim real power over marriage when they stated the wife had to give consent in the marriage. If my memory serves me correctly, this occurred around the 12th Century? I had not thought about this in 4 years, so it is quite dusty. Before then, many marriages did not require female consent and they were valid. Once when the Church took power of that decision, even more decision followed. On matters of sin, from St Paul and others, the Church declared what is moral and not moral. But on this and around the same time, the Church began to really decree from Rome, ie: that they thought polygamy was no longer allowed. They did not fully say it was not allowed yet, a pope said he thought it was not allowed. I can get the exact quote from Denzinger.

So what was allowed in biblical times and throughout much of the world - no consent on the part of the female, was henceforth invalidated a marriage. Jacob working for Rachael, did her father ask if she wanted to marry Jacob? It did not matter, the father could make the decision in such matters since the beginning of civilization, all during Roman times though the First Millennium. That decision from Rome saying marriage is a sacrament and requires the consent of both husband and wife was monumental in the history of mankind. It would force all cultures, peoples who would arranged the marriage of their children to others similar in values, culture, morals, etc to allow their daughter to gradually pick the husband of her choice. And the fruits?

This is one reason why some parents desire such high marriage ages, because this was taken away from them. Where in the distant past you would have some Tyrolean peasant young lady set up with an honorable young man of similar culture, tradition, and values who could support her, arranged by her parents and his parents. Now she is throw out into the public, in some instances whoever can best "con" her wins, for young women are easy to fool if someone has developed a skill for it. Of course, you can understand why some want to lock up their daughters until...

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2012, 06:50:05 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

But then again. If you all are wrong...then wouldn't that mean that your Sacraments are invalid?

Our sacraments are a continuation of Traditional Catholicism. The NO sacraments are an ad hoc invention of a man who we can at least entertain the thought that he had an animus against the Holy Church.

The lineage of the SSPX Bishops is, as I see it, beyond question to be completely valid and the society never left the Catholic Church (it was the Conciliur Church that left Catholicism).

Maybe that's a topic for another thread. The topic is: With so much protestantism infused into the novus ordo mass, which I see as at least 6 parts protestant, 2 parts catholic-proto blend, and with religious liberty approaching indifferentism, when could we conclude that the novus ordo is no longer even nominally catholic?

PenitentWoman · « **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2012, 07:20:32 PM »

Quote from: songbird

I believe the N.O. sacraments to not be valid. Baptism is an initiation and not to remove original sin, exorcism has been taken out. Eucharist is definitelly invalid, because Holy Orders was changed in 1967-68. And that means, no absolution, and Confirmation is out because Holy Orders is out. N.O. is NOthing to me.

Ummmmm can I ask what you mean about the exorcism being taken out?

My N.O. priest insisted that my daughter be baptised right away. I was still sort of "out of it" and didn't pay close attention, but afterwards, my mom insisted that he said something "freaky" about exorcism during her baptism. I told my Mom she was crazy, and chalked it up to her being mad because she wanted to wait until the baby was older.

Did I miss something?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 24, 2012, 07:31:38 PM »

Quote from: PenitentWoman

Quote from: songbird
I believe the N.O. sacraments to not be valid. Baptism is an initiation and not to remove original sin, exorcism has been taken out. Eucharist is definitelly invalid, because Holy Orders was changed in 1967-68. And that means, no absolution, and Confirmation is out because Holy Orders is out. N.O. is NOthing to me.

Ummmmm can I ask what you mean about the exorcism being taken out?

My N.O. priest insisted that my daughter be baptised right away. I was still sort of "out of it" and didn't pay close attention, but afterwards, my mom insisted that he said something "freaky" about exorcism during her baptism. I told my Mom she was crazy, and chalked it up to her being mad because she wanted to wait until the baby was older.

Did I miss something?

Here's a section of an article that can be helpful to you on that question:

Quote from: Angelus August 2009 Catechism of the Crisis in the Church

WHAT ARE THE SACRAMENTS THE RITES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE VATICAN II?
All the sacraments were changed following Vatican II. There are a new rite of Ordination (1968),13 a new Mass (1969),14 a new rite of Baptism (1969),15 a new rite of Marriage (1969),16 a new rite of Confirmation (1971),17 a new rite of Extreme Unction (1972),18 and a new rite of Penance (1973),19 as indeed there are a new Breviary (1970),20 a new calendar (1969),21 new holy oils (1970),22 a new Code of Canon Law (1983),23 a new Way of the Cross (1991),24 a new Catechism (1992),25 a new rite of Exorcism (1998),26 a new Martyrology (2001),27 and a new Rosary (2002),28 not to mention the “new Evangelization” or, in France, the new Our Father, the new Creed (the expression “consubstantial with the Father” was replaced by “of the same nature as the Father”),29 the new “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary,” etc.–Vatican II has made all things new, as if to found a new religion.

89) DO THE NEW RITES BETTER EXPRESS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENTS?

Far from making the sacramental action more readily understandable and facilitating its worthy reception, the new rites do the opposite: they relativize the truths of faith, make commonplace the sacred mysteries, and weaken the respect due to the sacraments.

DO THE DEFICIENCIES OF THE NEW RITES AFFECT ALL THE SACRAMENTS?
The deficiencies of the new rites affect not only all the sacraments (more or less), but also other ceremonies such as funerals and exorcisms (which are not sacraments, but sacramentals).30 So as not to be over long in our discussion, we shall limit our examination to four examples: the new rites of baptism, extreme unction, exorcism, and burial.31

WHAT MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE BY THE NEW RITUAL OF BAPTISM?
The new rite minimizes those elements that call to mind the supernatural effects of the sacrament; it suppresses several of the preparatory ceremonies, notably the triple exorcism that authoritatively wrests the candidate from the influence of the devil.

WHY DOES BAPTISM NEED PREPARATORY CEREMONIES?
“Whoever purposes to do a work wisely, first removes the obstacles to his work; hence it is written (Jeremiah 4:3): ‘Break up anew your fallow ground and sow not upon thorns.’ ”32 Great transformations require great preparations. That is why the catechumens of the first centuries were not only instructed in the Creed, but also subjected to a period of probation, examinations, and a series of rites and exorcisms over the course of their advancement.33 All of that was incorporated into the traditional ritual of baptism.34

ARE THE PREPARATORY CEREMONIES OF BAPTISM EFFECTIVE IN THEMSELVES OR DO THEY MERELY SIGNIFY WHAT THE BAPTISM PROPERLY DOES?
Several of the preparatory ceremonies of baptism, especially the exorcisms, are efficacious in themselves, distinct from baptism properly so called. Thus, says St. Thomas, they ought to be administered to those who were baptized in haste and therefore could not receive them.35

WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC EFFECT OF THE PREPARATORY CEREMONIES OF BAPTISM.
The preparatory ceremonies remove the obstacles to receiving the full effects of baptism: an external obstacle—the devil, who possesses a certain power over nature; and an internal obstacle—the resistance offered to the realities of salvation by a disordered sensibility (the senses are, as it were, closed to the supernatural).36

WHAT CEREMONIES REMOVE THESE OBSTACLES?
The exsufflation (with the command: “Depart from him, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost, the Consoler”) and the two other solemn exorcisms, which command the devil not only to go out of but to depart from the baptized person to be, effectively remove the evil spirits.37 The imposition of salt (on the tongue), of saliva (on the nostrils and ears–the “Ephphetha”), the imposition of hands (on the head), and the signs of the cross (on the forehead and breast) contribute to making the person receptive to the mysteries of salvation.

WHAT CEREMONIES DID THE NEW RITUAL OF BAPTISM SUPPRESS?
In the new ritual, the priest does not wear the violet stole to meet the candidate at the church door. It omits the exsufflation, the two additional exorcisms, and the blessing of the salt. It no longer renews the gesture of the Lord in healing the deaf-mute with His saliva and telling him “Ephpheta.”

WHAT DOES THE PRIEST’S WEARING OF A VIOLET STOLE AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE CHURCH SIGNIFY?
This welcome manifests that the unbaptized cannot enter the house of God without being purified of his sins. But in our age of ecuмenism and universal salvation, no one wants to hear of this.

WHAT DOES THE BLESSING OF THE SALT SIGNIFY?
The salt, symbol of wisdom, is to protect our nature from the corruption of sin, while at the same time imparting a taste of the supernatural realities. But this symbolism demands the spirit of faith. The innovators have thus eliminated it.

WHAT DOES THE “EPHPHETA” ACCOMPANYING THE IMPOSITION OF SALIVA SIGNIFY?
“Ephpheta” means “Be opened.” This ceremony helps to perceive “the good odor of Jesus Christ” and to open the ears of the soul to the teaching of the faith (teaching that comes from hearing, says St. Paul,38 that is, by an exterior teaching). But for the modernists, the truths of faith, on the contrary, come from the depths of the conscience.

WHAT OTHER CHANGES DID THE RITE OF BAPTISM UNDERGO IN THE NEW RITUAL?
Instead of addressing the future baptized through the godparents, (N., what do you ask of the Church of God?; N., do you renounce Satan?; N., do you wish to be baptized?), the new ritual addresses the questions to the parents (What do you ask for N. of the Church of God?).

ISN’T THIS MANNER OF SPEAKING TO THE PARENTS MORE IN CONFORMITY WITH REALITY?
Though the newborn makes no act of his own will in receiving baptism, the orientation of his will is changed by the sacrament. His soul acquires the moral dispositions of someone who would have voluntarily turned away from sin to adhere to Jesus Christ. In this sense, everything the godparents say in his name is realized in the infant’s soul (just as it had really contracted the state of someone who had turned away from God yet without personally committing the act of original sin). This is the mysterious and supernatural change that the Church manifests by having the godparents speak in the baptized person’s name. The new ritual abandons this profoundly supernatural vision for a purely superficial one.

CAN YOU GIVE A LAST EXAMPLE OF CHANGES MADE TO THE RITE OF BAPTISM?
In the traditional rite the priest makes the sign of the cross on the child’s forehead and breast, saying: “Receive the mark of the cross on your + forehead and within your + heart. Embrace the faith with its divine teachings. So live that you will indeed be a temple of God.” In the new rite, the sign of the cross is made on the forehead only, and the priest declaims: “N., the Christian community welcomes you with great joy. In its name, I mark you with the cross which is the sign of the Christ, our Savior. And you, parents, will mark him after me with the same sign.”

WHAT DOES THIS LAST EXAMPLE SHOW?
This last example shows the same tendency to weaken the expression of the supernatural realities the sacrament produces in the soul to emphasize the superficial aspects of the ceremony (here: the joy of the community welcoming a new member).