And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years"....after which point (long after the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity), he continued to permit people in difficult circuмstances to participate in the NOM, per the testimony of Fr Crowdy in the UK.
Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.Duh...
Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.
Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circuмstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.
Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.
(http://malekmusings.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/2/6/31268741/8015210_orig.gif?404)More psychological projection of your own undesirable traits to others.
Translation (a la Jaynek):
“Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”
I don't care what you think you have. I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you. If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition. Your trolling posts add nothing.I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:
:sleep:
I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:
Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,Thank you Sean, The Church says that no matter the circuмstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that. You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.
“If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”
Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.
Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.
Thank you Sean, The Church says that no matter the circuмstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that. You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
The Faith of the Catholic Church is not represented by the Archbishop's theological opinions of the Novus Ordo, and to disagree with them is not a defection from the Catholic Faith, and that is what really counts in times of confusion.
Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.That they are questionable is enough to set them as off limits. Sean, that is the very point, if one cannot be sure of the validity of any given priest, then the validity of the sacrament must be held a doubtful, because the Church always requires us to take the safer course in these matters.
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.Absolutely false. Card Ottaviani and his fellow theologians said the new mass is doubtful.
Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.How on earth can it be valid if it's evil?
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
How on earth can it be valid if it's evil?
An example of “evil but valid” would be the Satanic Mass:
No. It is my understanding that Satanic "Masses" use hosts that were validly consecrated outside of it; they know that the consecration would never be valid in the context of their evil rite.
Regardless of how you parse the rite, there is still the matter of the uncertainty of validity of priests. It is still under the proscription of the Church.Well, unless you're sedevacantist, it was promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church. Ergo, it's a Catholic rite. The Pope has the authority to create rites, contrary to popular belief Trent cannot and does not prevent future Popes from changing rites or creating new ones. So if the Catholic Church does not create rites which are not Catholic, and NO is not Catholic, then Paul VI cannot be a valid Pope.
Besides the New Order service is a protestant rite is spirit and in fact. Its author and the promulgating Pope, said as much. No different that a Lutheran or Anglican rite.
It is not Catholic, you can try to justify it by pointing out that its has some catholic elements, but so do the aforementioned rites which are not Catholic. The Church does not create rites which are not Catholic or might structurally be called Catholic while being born of a spirit and purpose which is entirely non-Catholic.
The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church.
Firstly, you need to distinguish between the rite (which is evil), and the sacrament (which is holy).So you're saying a Pope would willing issue a rite comparable to the Satantic Mass, and that somehow this Pope is not a heretic or apostate.
Then, you need to distinguish between the “essential rite” (ie., the words of consecration, which as promulgated, are the same in both rites, and therefore not evil), and the “solemn rite” (ie., the prayers surrounding the essential rite, which as promulgated, are evil by defect/omission, for example, by the elimination of the offertory).
An example of “evil but valid” would be the Satanic Mass:
The “solemn rite” is evil for its positive blasphemies, but the “essential rite” is preserved intact, in order to achieve validity/transubstantiation for the purpose of desecration.
Regardless of how you parse the rite, there is still the matter of the uncertainty of validity of priests. It is still under the proscription of the Church.Your mind lacks nuance:
Besides the New Order service is a protestant rite is spirit and in fact. Its author and the promulgating Pope, said as much. No different that a Lutheran or Anglican rite.
It is not Catholic, you can try to justify it by pointing out that its has some catholic elements, but so do the aforementioned rites which are not Catholic. The Church does not create rites which are not Catholic or might structurally be called Catholic while being born of a spirit and purpose which is entirely non-Catholic.
The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church.
So you're saying a Pope would willing issue a rite comparable to the Satantic Mass, and that somehow this Pope is not a heretic or apostate.No:
Your understanding is deficient and incomplete:How can a priest "have the intention to do as the Church does" in consecrating hosts in a "Satanic Mass"?
There are also apostate priests who consecrate their hosts.
How can a priest "have the intention to do as the Church does" in consecrating hosts in a "Satanic Mass"?Because “what the Church does” is confects a sacrament, which is precisely what such a priest would intend, in order to carry out his desecration.
The NOM is evil (in the scholastic/philosophical, not moral sense) for what it does not contain.
If the Church promulgated an evil rite for the use of the faithful; that can only mean that the Church has essentially defected in one of her most importants missions because She has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship.
If the "pope" himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an evil liturgy, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world, then that can only mean the gates of hell HAVE prevailed over the Church, because She is no longer sanctifying the faithful; but on the contrary, leading souls to Hell.
The Holy Eucharist offered in every single rite, western and eastern, approved by a Pope are both a sign and cause of unity as the Church teaches and the Vicar of Christ is the center of that unity, as the Church also teaches. The question is then how can one reject a Rite of Mass as evil, sacrilegious, invalid, etc....which the Roman Pontiff himself not only approves, but also offers daily?
Because “what the Church does” is confects a sacrament, which is precisely what such a priest would intend, in order to carry out his desecration.
"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places…. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself."
There are several responses one could make to this objection:
For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.
People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificuм’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).
Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.
I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.
Well.. it is the Church Herself which has all power as regards the dispensation of all the Sacraments, including that of the Eucharist, as long as the substance remains untouched.Cantatella-
So it is the Church Herself which gets to decide upon the validity of liturgical rites; and not Sean Johnson.
If Paul VI is a legitimate pope of the Catholic Church, then the NOM is equally pleasing to God, despite all the horrific abuses done in particular parishes. I have a reason to suspect that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope though, but a true impostor and therefore, the NOM would be an invalid rite simply for not having the approbation of a legitimate pope, instead of other superficial reasons.
The Council of Trent:
I realize that to say that the R&R position is heretical is no longer permitted in this forum; but I do not know the new rules concerning sedevacantism discussions in this board.
The last thread I participated on the sedevacantism subject with had more than 45 K views, all my hundreds of posts simply got deleted all of a sudden, with no explanation whatsoever. There were great sources on that thread which now are forever gone.
I would appreciate if Matthew let me know why my posts are simply being deleted with no warning. I am able to follow the rules of a particular forum once they are explained to me.
(I hope this post don't get deleted) I never know anymore.
Yes, I know.
I used to have a very anti-sedevacantist position, and for a long time, I shared your same views.
However, I had an "aha" moment when reading the Cassiciacuм Thesis of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, and then all of a sudden, everything made sense.
Cantatella-
Yes, the Church defined how a valid sacrament is confected (“ex opere operato”) at Trent, and it is I who am the one faithful to that teaching by applying it to the NOM (or black Mass), and not you (who would accept/apply that theology in some cases, and not in others).
When you can show a defect in the validity of the minister, a contrary intention to confect a sacrament, a mutation in the sacramental form, or the presence of invalidating matter, we can talk.
But if all those are present, the sacrament is valid (regardless of context).
Period.
Any other contention is an heretical violation of Trent.
You should read Don Curzio Nitoglia’s article describing his conversion away from sedeprivationism after having been ensnared by it for 20 years.
He had the opposite epiphany.
There are several responses one could make to this objection:Would you care to share your own view? If it's the same as +ABL's, then please explain to me how exactly the indefectibility of the Church doesn't affect its Mass.
For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.
People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificuм’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).
Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.
I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.
Would you care to share your own view? If it's the same as +ABL's, then please explain to me how exactly the indefectibility of the Church doesn't affect its Mass.I agree with +Lefebvre:
I agree with +Lefebvre:Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?
If the suggestion that a Pope could promulgate an evil rite of Mass (legitimately or illegitimately) represents an affront to indefectibility, then the suggestion that the Mass can altogether vanish and cease to be offered is an even greater affront.
Yet that is precisely how some reknowned exegetes interpret Daniel, and the very assertion made by a Doctor of the Church (eg., St Alphonsus) and several saints, and nobody ever suggested their positions were at odds with indefectibility.
Your mind lacks nuance:It does not matter! It was introduced for un-Catholic purposes intentionally. As a matter of principle because of its obvious defects no one should attend it. Again, its sacraments are always doubtful, therefore the Church forbids it under the pain of mortal sin. This has nothing to do with Pfeiffer. If one hold to the principles and doctrine of the Church, they will reject the new mass as such, for what it is, a non-Catholic fake rite of mass.
I have never in my life “justified” the new Mass, only put the brakes on Pfeifferian or sede exaggerations (eg, It can never be valid; it can never give grace; nobody can ever attend it for any reason whatever; etc.).
Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?There were defects in its promulgation, and Paul VI did not bind the Church to it. It was imposed by deception and the illegalities of suppressing the True Mass of the Church.
It does not matter! It was introduced for un-Catholic purposes intentionally. As a matter of principle because of its obvious defects no one should attend it. Again, its sacraments are always doubtful, therefore the Church forbids it under the pain of mortal sin. This has nothing to do with Pfeiffer. If one hold to the principles and doctrine of the Church, they will reject the new mass as such, for what it is, a non-Catholic fake rite of mass.
When you say "it's sacraments are always doubtful," you must be speaking of the conciliar Church?Dear Sean,
That is obviously nonsense:
1) There are plenty of priests in the conciliar Church about whose valid ordination there is no doubt whatsoever (either because they were ordained before 1968, or because they left the SSPX to join a diocese, or were ordained in the FSSP back when Cardinal Stickler did ordinations, etc.).
2) If one of those priests said a NOM, using proper form, matter, and intention, then clearly it is false (and proximate to heresy) to say all "its sacraments are always doubtful."
You would be rejecting some very basic dogmas of the faith with a position like that.
PS: Have you ever heard the axiom, "A negative doubt is to be despised?" A negative doubt is asking yourself the question "what if?" In sacramental theology, when it comes to judging the validity of a sacrament, this is never permitted. What is required to force an abstention is positive (not negative) doubt: A defect in ordination; a contrary intention to doing what the Church does; a substantial mutation in the essential sacramental rite; invalid matter.
If those 4 things are in place, forming a positive doubt is theologically impossible, and validity is (morally) certain.
You are broadcasting some very bad advice to the world: You are letting your (rightful) opposition to the conciliar Church adversely affect your doctrine.
Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?
Dear Sean,
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Dominicans of Avrillé are in direct opposition to your opinions expressed above.
Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now. The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics. It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/
Obviously the exception would be the valid priests ordained before the change of the Latin Rite, I sometimes confess to one of these retired military priests in avoiding doubtfully ordained Novus Ordo priests. These priests, would have to be Catholic, however, and not modernists. There is also a retired validly ordained priest in the diocese that holds LGSTD "services".
I side with Fr. Hesse on the NOM and Fr. James Peek SSPX. The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity. As far as I know, it even remains today the official position of the SSPX that the New Mass is intrinsically evil and cannot be attended whatsoever. When Sean Johnson denies this, he actual appears (if not is) dangling on the slippery slope towards Modernism and in accusing (if he does at all) the SSPX of becoming Liberal he would be hypocritical to say the least.
Again...
Regarding the New Mass: "...it is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church"; that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996 and Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and
"For Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX the new mass is intrinsically evil and therefore to be totally rejected." (Fr. Jean Violette, Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and
"...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996), and
"Personally, I don't believe in discussions which would not deal with the heart of the matter: with Vatican II, with the new Mass, intrinsically evil as we always said in Tradition, with the new code of Canon Law, which introduces the new Vatican II ecclesiology in the legislation of the Church." [Abbe Benoit de Jorna, Superior of the St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, Interview with Giovanni Pelli, May 15, 2001]
Centro-You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.
Do you have ADHD?
I have explained ad nauseum that the NOM is intrinsically evil.
To which your incoherent response is apparently to "rebut" me by explicating my own position right back to me??
You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.Umm...yes, you are very mistaken:
And the last post of mine was a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Dominicans (of whom you famously would call up to bother in their monastery to argue whether or not good fruits come from the New Mass, if I'm not mistaken.)
The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity.
Dear Centro-Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo. But that is not the point or even a true fact.
Yes, that was a very stupid response from Avrille, wasn't it?
Please ask Avrille to explain how, in the presence of a valid minister, intent, form, and matter, the sacraments could nevertheless be doubtful.
Presumably, they were supposing that one of those 4 criteria was in doubt to make such a statement.
But that is not per se the case, as should by now be quite obvious.
My motives for joining the Third Order were not superficial. I joined because of St. Dominic, St. Catherine and the penitents and saints of the order as well as the spiritual benefits for my soul and others’. I would never leave over any petty trifle.
I just don’t know what to think when you conflate yourself to being so important and you weren’t even a professed member. It’s as if Sean Johnson is more important than the Dominican Third Order. It’s beneath you.
I think you’re great guy and you’re Faith is strong. I consider you a friend so I hope you will settle down with the constant frivolous debating.
Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo. But that is not the point or even a true fact.JPaul-
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires. I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
I think Sean that the argument goes that if a priest thinks the Mass is just a meal, which it fundamentally is not, then he is not doing what the Church does.
Moreover, unless there is evidence in the external forum of a priest forming a contrary intention, the intention is prersumed valid, as a principle of sacramental theology, thereby yielding moral certitude (which is all the Church requires, and which definitely removes and pre-empts any specious argument regarding in favor of doubt).This only applies to the sacraments of the Old rite, which were worded with precise language so that the Church’s intentions were fulfilled when the priest used such words.
This only applies to the sacraments of the Old rite, which were worded with precise language so that the Church’s intentions were fulfilled when the priest used such words.
As Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci et all explained in the “Ottaviani intervention”, the new mass and sacraments have new language and such wording does NOT provide the proper intention. So the intention for the new rite must be provided by the priest, which is a “crap shoot” because that all depends on 1) if they are a valid priest and 2) if they were trained properly in the seminaries.
Sean, your position is based upon many assumptions and opinions and more often than not we would seem to have a perfect storm roiling about the false mass so as to lean towards its possible validity, which is itself is unimportant because it is not Catholic in the first place.My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.
As Father Hesse says, "it is not a work of the Catholic Church", and as Father Wathen states, "it is always a great sacrilege."
Good and true statements of two principled Catholic men.
My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM."Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.
You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.
You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.
With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).
Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.I'm not going there.
Hi PV-
The “essential rites” of the old and new consecratory prayers of Mass are identical, and consequently the intention to consecrate is equally expressed in either.
I'm not going there.
"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.
My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.The above mentioned clerics opinions are indeed based upon the doctrine of the Church, and if I might say, they knew and understood that doctrine much better and more succinctly than you.
You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.
You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.
With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).
Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
Hi Flats-
At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”
-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers
This is not about faith. It is about doing something the contrary of what the thing is intended to do.Flats-
In any case, even if you are right, it still does not justify presuming the sacraments are valid, which is what you are insinuating. It is more prudent to re-do them. And that is all I am saying. The Church will judge the rest in good time.
There is of course precedence for what you are saying in regard to baptism. Even a Jew can baptise validly.
Is there any definitive pronouncements in a similar vein in relation to the other sacraments?
Flats-
Wrong again: The presumption is always in favor of validity, not invalidity.
Ok well that has not been the opinion of a huge number of priests tradition and Archbishop Lefrebvre. Do you have citations to show you know better?
The point I think that would be made is that considering the Mass only a meal and not a sacrifice, constitutes a postive doubt. It is deliberately going against what the Church does.
If one had no opinion either way, then you might be right.
Flats-
You are mixing and mashing ideas:
What has always been the opinion of Tradition is that conciliar converts ought to be conditionally ordained.
But the reason for that is not because the sacraments are all per se doubtful (i.e., objectively and in themselves invalid).
The reason is because either:
1) There is positive doubt regarding one off the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament;
0r
2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.
See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:
http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
Except that Leo XIII taught that rights can be invalidated by the context even if the essential form remains intact. Then you forget the change in the essential form made by most vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo (which the English has changed back a couple years ago).
From the link you just gave me....
"If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice"
Do you agree with this Sean?
LUDOVIC CARDINAL BILLOT, S.J.
ON THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH:
A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD PART OF ST. THOMAS, VOL. 1.
THESIS XVIII (q. 64, a. 8 )
It is Catholic dogma that for the validity of a sacrament, there must
be in the minister the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover,
it is commonly and truly held that an external intention, as they call it,
does not suffice, but that an internal intention is required.
The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in
the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required.
Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a
sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not
intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to
do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the
Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he
intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is
not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not
err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards
something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something
which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that
which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which
Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their
religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jew or a pagan can have an
intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen
placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I
entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words,
'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to
receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)
Although, however, all Catholics agree in asserting the necessity of
the aforesaid intention, in the sixteenth century a certain new opinion was
introduced by Catharinus, asserting that a merely external intention
suffices. Furthermore it is called external, not because considered in
itself it is not internal, but because the whole intention is directed
towards external appearance; for according to Catharinus, it consists in
the will by which someone wishes to conduct himself externally as a serious
minister of the sacrament, although within himself he intends to ridicule
or to imitate. Nevertheless, most of the few theologians who agree with
Catharinus say that the aforesaid external intention does not suffice
unless the minister in question confects the sacrament in the place and
sacred vestments according to the customary rite of the Church, for, they
say, through these circuмstances an exterior rite in itself indifferent is
determined to be sacramental.
Furthermore, the opinion of Catharinus is not held in honor by the
anathema of Trent. "I deem," says Pallavicini,[1] "that the opinion
proscribed by Trent[3] is the same which Leo X condemned in Luther by his
Constitution: viz., that the sacrament was instituted by Christ in such a
manner, that even if the minister carries it out in manifest derision and
mockery, the effect follows... But in truth the Catholic theologians whom
we have enumerated, agree in demanding for the efficacy of a sacrament the
will, not only of following the external action, considered physically,
which the Church prescribes, (which will is likewise present in the man who
administers the sacrament in jest), but of exercising his action through
the exterior ceremony of a man acting seriously, and through the appearance
of a man directing that ceremony where the Church directs it." -- No less
to the contrary is the most common teaching of theologians, to which one
must completely hold fast. It teaches that an internal intention is
required, one which in other words is not directly wholly to the exterior
appearance, but is an intention by which the minister not only wishes to
refrain from all show of simulation as regards the action which appears
outwardly, but also truly resolves within himself, "I wish to do that which
the Church does."
[1]. S. Thom., in IV, D.6, q.1, a.3, q.2, ad 1um.
[2]. Pallavicini, Hist. of the Conc. of Trent. l.9, c.6.
[3]. Trent, Sess. VII, can. 11 on the Sacraments.
Conclusion: Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I
wonder if the priest has the proper intention? After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.). According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the
point.
We are making an argument of principle: That there is a presumption of validity when valid minister, form, matter, and intent are present.The NOM cannot be presumed to be valid; quite the opposite. There is doubt in regards to the priest’s ordination, as well as the form/intent, due to the imprecision of the words that have been changed in the canon AS WELL AS the offertory and communion.
The problem with johnson, he lives in his own head wanting the rest of the world to buy tickets to proffer his brand. He tries to apply the beginning of the NOM from 1968 starting with real priests of the time as still existing in intention with the evolved ecuмenical NOM 60 years later in 2018. Reason, he's an indulter with an indulter mind. Always morphing trying to find a way to live with a local mass and school for himself whatever it is. He tries to justify this saying he is a part of some 'internal resistance' to placate his existence in any entity. Result, he is a conflating gnat.:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1: I could not have put it better.
If the dominicans and their sisinono letters tried to help him see the error of his ways and didn't help him, what is left a frying pan? Only everyone else is a heretic but him and his indult world.
Context can only invalidate a rite if it is such as to be tantamount to forming a contrary intention (as was the case with the Anglicans).
a satanic mass can have a valid consecration
No, because the intention of the minister is not supplied by the form of the sacrament, but by the subjective and internal intention of the minister:
And you can argue that, or else point to things in the Novus Ordo which seem to embrace a Protestant view of the Liturgy. In any case, this is cause at least for positive doubt regarding its validity. Consequently, I would not, except in danger of death, receive in Communion a Host that was consecrated in the New Rite (to say nothing of the positive doubt regarding NO ordinations and episcopal consecrations). I do not say that it's certainly invalid, just that there's positive doubt due to the nature of the changes. If you read the Ottaviani intervention, those theologians/prelates argue that the Catholic intention regarding the Mass has been completely corrupted and replaced with a Protestant understanding in the NOM.My variant on your comments is:
The NOM cannot be presumed to be valid; quite the opposite. There is doubt in regards to the priest’s ordination, as well as the form/intent, due to the imprecision of the words that have been changed in the canon AS WELL AS the offertory and communion.
If one reduces the mass to the consecration only, they are mistakenly forgetting the other 2 essential parts of the mass.
The validity of the consecration is separate from the validity of the mass as a whole. There can be a valid consecration but an invalid mass, just like a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but is obviously blasphemous.
Highly debatable, and even the Satanists know this, so Satanic Masses use stolen consecrated Hosts.
I disagree, and so does St. Thomas. It's based on the objective and externally-manifested (albeit internal) intention of the minister. So if the priest performs the Catholic Rite as prescribed, he has the intention to do WHAT the Church DOES ...A priest who forms a contrary internal intention does not confect the sacrament, despite the performance of the external rite.
A priest who forms a contrary internal intention does not confect the sacrament, despite the performance of the external rite.
Generally speaking, we are morally certain that a priest who performs a sacramental rite (e.g., TLM or NOM) possesses sufficient intention, because there can only be positive doubt regarding a contrary intention if it is manifested somehow in the external forum.
But this is not the case in Fr. Scott's argument:
He is not concerned about what is being externally manifested, but in what is NOT being externally manifested.
By definition, this can only produce a negative doubt, since, there being no external manifestation of a contrary intention, the consideration pertains to the internal forum (which is unknowable without such external manifestation).
In short, the requisite intention, which is nearly automatic (and not on the basis of the form of the rite, but on the basis of a sane priest performing a sacramental rite obviously aware of doing what the Church does) is so difficult to lose, that doubting its presence without any manifestation of having formed a contrary intention, is practically inadmissible.
Here, once again, is Fortesque:
“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”
-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers
Highly debatable, and even the Satanists know this, so Satanic Masses use stolen consecrated Hosts.Your point is valid if we’re talking about a satanic priest who was never a real priest. In the case of a former valid priest-turned-satanist, then the consecration would be valid, and there are historical cases of this.
Generally speaking, we are morally certain that a priest who performs a sacramental rite (e.g., TLM or NOM) possesses sufficient intention, because there can only be positive doubt regarding a contrary intention if it is manifested somehow in the external forum.The point is that when comparing the external intentions of the TLM vs the NOM, one is comparing apples-oranges. Cardinal Ottaviani, and his fellow theologians (of which you are not one) said that the external intention of the NOM is corrupted and cannot be trusted as a visible display of the sacramental intention, due to the changes in the prayers, which affect the mass’ overall purpose and also the priest's intention.
The point is that when comparing the external intentions of the TLM vs the NOM, one is comparing apples-oranges. Cardinal Ottaviani, and his fellow theologians (of which you are not one) said that the external intention of the NOM is corrupted and cannot be trusted as a visible display of the sacramental intention, due to the changes in the prayers, which affect the mass’ overall purpose and also the priest's intention.
External intention?
Please quote the passage.
Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.
The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.
PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."
PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated. Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:
“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Docuмentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)
Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
The good Archbishop Lefebvre, God rest his soul, would disagree with you:
1) On a case by case basis, there may or may not be positive doubt as regards the validity of the NOM: But as a matter of principle, one cannot conclude they are all per se doubtful, because:
Your point is valid if we’re talking about a satanic priest who was never a real priest. In the case of a former valid priest-turned-satanist, then the consecration would be valid, and there are historical cases of this.
The good Archbishop Lefebvre, God rest his soul, would disagree with you:
- "And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith.This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
-“I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)
-“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)
-“It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)
-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
-“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecuмenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecuмenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecuмenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecuмenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
-"This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments.We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)
-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
-“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)
-“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)
-“We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecuмenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass!Everything was done in this ecuмenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecuмenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
-“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)
“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)
“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecuмenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Conference at Econe, June 24, 1981)
-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
Tx:
You like to quote mine?
Excellent!
Please find me one of the Archbishop saying something along the lines of, "Even in the face of a certainly validly ordained minister, with proper intention, valid form and matter, the conciliar sacraments are nonetheless all doubtful."
You won't be able to.
You can't prove that it was valid. Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing. But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.
Tx:Matter, form and intent don't matter if the NO mass is not Catholic.
You like to quote mine?
Excellent!
Please find me one of the Archbishop saying something along the lines of, "Even in the face of a certainly validly ordained minister, with proper intention, valid form and matter, the conciliar sacraments are nonetheless all doubtful."
You won't be able to.
-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation."http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
You can't prove that it was valid. Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing. But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.
Matter, form and intent don't matter if the NO mass is not Catholic.
.
"And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith."
There johnson goes again. ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.
Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.
Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.
There johnson goes again. ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.one can only lead a horse to water...
Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.
Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.
one can only lead a horse to water...ya, then the horse changes the water into koolaid.
It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself explaining he often uses hyperbole to make a point. Only dunces like you try to make him literal:
That makes sense, otherwise one could argue a priest would confer the sacrament by merely performing, "This is My Body", without the rest of the rite....as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).
If he did, then it's incredibly irresponsible of him to be so imprecise when people's souls are on the line.
or, rather,
SJ = BS.
...as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).
No catholic = no intention of the Catholic church.
"IF" he did?
I put the quote right in front of your face, but I suppose you can't be bothered by quotes which disrupt your narrative.
Emphasis needs to be placed that the rite itself is not Catholic.
Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9
You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?
2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.
See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:
http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?
It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention)......
Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I wonder if the priest has the proper intention? After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.). According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the point.
These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."
You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?You mean like all of the protestant (non-catholic) 'rites'...which the Church places as INVALID which is why the Church does conditional EVERYTHING!
Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo. But that is not the point or even a true fact.:applause:
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires. I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
Quote
Ladislaus-
From Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol II, CH 40):
"I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
Question: How can Archbishop Lefebvre be acknowledging that people fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if, as you say, he considers those masses all of doubtful validity??
Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
“The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
“La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views? Everything you start you run away from.
Ignoramus and Flats:Thanks for your flattery. Your juvenile intellectual capacity is well deserved serving with the rats in the sewer tunnels. You may want an award for the bully who always runs away.
You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
External intention?From the Ottaviani Intervention (emphasis mine):
Please quote the passage.
Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.
The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.
PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."
PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated. Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:
“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Docuмentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)
Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”
In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.
Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...
Ignoramus and Flats:You were speculating elsewhere about why you get down votes, Sean. I have given you many and this is sort of post that leads to it.
You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.