Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre and the New Mass (Read 2985 times)

Raphaela · « **on:** December 06, 2016, 04:37:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40394&f=19&min=513&num=3

I heard about this case. This was after Hamish Fraser's death and his wife was very isolated in the north of Scotland. She asked Fr Crowdy, an elderly English priest who worked with the SSPX, about whether she could go to the New Mass. He asked the Archbishop at Econe, who said it would be better for her to go to it than stay 'home alone'. Hamish died in 1986, so it was some time after that.

marcel · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:21:12 PM »

The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/nmissa.htm

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.
The New Mass is displeasing to God. This is because:
The various circuмstances that usually surround the celebration of the New Mass make us slowly lose our Faith.
The New Mass lacks something good it should have as a sacrifice worthy of being offered to God.
The New Mass is bad in itself, containing ambiguities and an actual lie about the words Jesus said at the Last Supper.
The New Mass is bad because of the purpose expressed in it.
The way the New Mass is celebrated most of the time has been condemned by infallible declarations of the Council of Trent.

RogerThat · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2016, 11:33:06 PM »

Quote from: marcel

The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/nmissa.htm

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.

This is very false statement that keeps rearing its ugly head on these forums.
The Church believe that the sacraments are done ex opere operato. An athiest priest who does not believe in Jesus of the sacraments but who follows the missal will still confer a valid (although illicit) sacrament. The church confers jurisdiction in this place. Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister and the faithful present, provided they have the correct disposition (i.e.: free from mortal sin), receive grace.

St. Thomas, in Summa, agrees to this. See here. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2016, 02:12:51 AM »

Quote from: RogerThat

Quote from: marcel
The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/nmissa.htm

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.

This is very false statement that keeps rearing its ugly head on these forums.
The Church believe that the sacraments are done ex opere operato. An athiest priest who does not believe in Jesus of the sacraments but who follows the missal will still confer a valid (although illicit) sacrament. The church confers jurisdiction in this place. Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister and the faithful present, provided they have the correct disposition (i.e.: free from mortal sin), receive grace.

St. Thomas, in Summa, agrees to this. See here. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

Just saying This is my body" and "This is my blood" does not make a mass, for the Lutherans and Anglicans do the same and their masses are not masses.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2016, 05:32:09 AM »

Quote from: RogerThat

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

When you speak of the validity of "the mass", you are actually speaking about the validity of the consecration in the new "mass", not "the mass" itself.

Whether the consecration is valid or not at *all* of the NO services, we simply do not know because that is something impossible to know while we live.

Per De Defectibus

Quote from: De Defectibus

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.