in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion regarding the value of the sacrament, the safer opinion being abandoned.... Therefore, one should not make use of probable opinions only in conferring baptism, sacerdotal or episcopal orders." (Proposition 1 condemned and prohibited by Innocent XI, Dz. 1151)Consequently, it is forbidden to accept a likely or probably valid ordination for the subsequent conferring of sacraments. One must have the greatest possible moral certitude, as in other things necessary for eternal salvation. The faithful themselves understand this principle, and it really is a part of the “sensus Ecclesiae,” the spirit of the Church. They do not want to share modernist, liberal rites, and have an aversion to receiving the sacraments from priests ordained in such rites, for they cannot tolerate a doubt in such matters. It is for this reason that they turn to the superiors to guarantee validity.”
...validly perform and confer the Sacraments, provided they make use of the matter and form always observed in the Catholic Church according to the institution of Christ, and provided they intend to do what the Church does in their administration (p. 155).
the intention of doing what Christ intended when He instituted the Sacrament and what the Church intends when it administers the Sacrament.
Excellent research! Most people incorrectly think that a positive doubt is a personal thing, ie person A has a doubt about the new mass but person B does not. That’s not what doubt has to do with at all! They are viewing doubt as a personal, relativistic and subjective thing.Is it reasonable to have doubts about my Baptism?
The doubts exist because the theology is different. The doubts are based on factual changes in the new rites. The doubts exist whether they realize, or accept them or not...just like Truth exists whether people know of it or not. Facts and truth exist outside of us, as part of reality, which most people ignore or are ignorant of.
Excellent research! Most people incorrectly think that a positive doubt is a personal thing, ie person A has a doubt about the new mass but person B does not. That’s not what doubt has to do with at all! They are viewing doubt as a personal, relativistic and subjective thing.It's not relativism that serious people have examined the case of the new mass and come to different conclusions. If we see any credibility in the opposing view, it is a recognition that the reality in this case is difficult to grasp.
It's not relativism that serious people have examined the case of the new mass and come to different conclusions. If we see any credibility in the opposing view, it is a recognition that the reality in this case is difficult to grasp.
On the other hand, if we give no credibility to the opposing view, then we are saying the opposing view is wrong and theologically incompetent.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/approaching-doubtful-sacraments-and-canon-law-andor-catholic-moral-theology/6/?action=reporttm;msg=649380)Are you making this personal?
Ok, then your problem is not relativism but ignorance of the facts.
If the top theologians in rome say the new mass can be positively doubtful, then what other facts are there to include? I'll be happy to read, if you provide.Well, you have already changed your terms: "can be doubtful" is not "is doubtful".
My speech is imperfect. Mea culpa. I am just the messenger. Go read the Ottaviani report (see below link), which was produced by the top theologians in rome in the 60s. You can also add a positive doubt to the new mass which did not exist in the 60s - the doubt over the new ordination rites and the episcopal consecrations. However, even if a new mass was said with no doubts, even if we could say with 100% certainty that it is valid, this does not mean one can attend.A valid sacrament requires matter, form, priest and intention. The Ottaviani report did not say the form (the "rite") was doubtful. It said the rite was deficient and so opens the possibility that the minister might not form the proper intention. And this was in a footnote, as I recall.
How does the principle "Ecclesia suplex" fit into this debate?If a Catholic rite is performed correctly, Church discipline assumes a correct intention unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.
To me, it seems only natural that God would supply validity if a malicious person (e.g. a Freemason on a mission to destroy the Church's holy orders) were to intentionally refuse intention.
Intention is interior, however, and a doubt about something without any evidence is a negative doubt.This is true, generally. But if we are talking about specifically the new mass, +Ottaviani was very clear that the problem is that the new rite’s prayers are not clear in their intention - this is the evidence needed for positive doubt. Contrary to the True Mass whose intention is explicit and clear, the new mass has an ambiguous intention, thus the “priest” must supply what is lacking in the prayer. Thus, the doubt about the new mass is a positive doubt (+Ottaviani said the consecration can be “positively doubted”) as we can’t be sure of the ministers intention.
But if we are talking about specifically the new mass, +Ottaviani was very clear that the problem is that the new rite’s prayers are not clear in their intention - this is the evidence needed for positive doubt.I think you're shifting again from "could be doubtful" to "is doubtful". Below are two versions of what I think is the relevant part of the Ottaviani report. They say "could be valid" and "could also not be valid" based on intention. This reads to me as saying case-by-case and not that all new Roman Masses are doubtful.
As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it.http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister’s intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.http://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of “doing what the Church does” consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.
I think you're shifting again from "could be doubtful" to "is doubtful". Below are two versions of what I think is the relevant part of the Ottaviani report. They say "could be valid" and "could also not be valid" based on intention. This reads to me as saying case-by-case and not that all new Roman Masses are doubtful.Ok, good points, but you're confusing the prayers of the new mass vs the priest's intention. +Ottaviani said that based on the prayers alone, there is positive doubt. This is because the new mass' consecration formula (as well as the deficiencies in the Offertory prayers) no longer make it clear the Church's/priest's intention. So, based on the prayers alone, the new mass is positively doubtful, 100% of the time.
As you probably know, Paul VI sent the report to the CDF for comment, and Ottaviani's successor at the CDF did not give it a positive review. (Paul VI supposedly also made changes to the Mass before publication that addressed some points of the Ottaviani report.) In any event, after Paul VI gave a couple audiences explaining the new Roman Mass, and the new Mass was actually published, Ottaviani is reported to have written "no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized", though the text still raises "perplexities".Every theological issue raised by +Ottaviani, +Bacci and the other theologians about the new mass is still there. Paul VI may have made some changes after their report, but his changes did not minimize the new theology, the protestantization of the mass, or the doubtful consecration.
Ok, good points, but you're confusing the prayers of the new mass vs the priest's intention. +Ottaviani said that based on the prayers alone, there is positive doubt. This is because the new mass' consecration formula (as well as the deficiencies in the Offertory prayers) no longer make it clear the Church's/priest's intention. So, based on the prayers alone, the new mass is positively doubtful, 100% of the time.Ottaviani report said "one may be allowed to doubt it", ie, it could be. If he meant "one must doubt it", that's what he would have said. Well trained theologians are careful with what exactly they write. You see that in Archbishop Lefebvre's doctrinal writing, too.
Ottaviani report said "one may be allowed to doubt it", ie, it could be. If he meant "one must doubt it", that's what he would have said. Well trained theologians are careful with what exactly they write. You see that in Archbishop Lefebvre's doctrinal writing, too.An obligatory doubt makes no sense, in this case. 1) +Ottaviani didn't have the authority nor the papal directive to issue an order that catholics "must" doubt the new mass. This type of ruling would have to come from the pope. 2) he was studying the new mass before it was finalized (though it was in its last stages of finalization and didn't change much after this). He's not going to issue a "final opinion" on an unfinalized liturgy. 3) His allowance that one may doubt the new mass, as an expert theologian, carries all the weight it needs to.
An obligatory doubt makes no sense, in this case. 1) +Ottaviani didn't have the authority nor the papal directive to issue an order that catholics "must" doubt the new mass. This type of ruling would have to come from the pope. 2) he was studying the new mass before it was finalized (though it was in its last stages of finalization and didn't change much after this). He's not going to issue a "final opinion" on an unfinalized liturgy. 3) His allowance that one may doubt the new mass, as an expert theologian, carries all the weight it needs to.Liturgies can be changed as the Church pleases. If it's valid then it's valid and that's that. Calling a valid mass immoral renders you anathema according to Trent.
.
As i've said before, the issue of the validity of the new mass is irrelevant as to why you cannot attend. Even if it was valid, +Ottaviani said that its theology was anti-Trent and protestantized. This alone makes the liturgy illicit and immoral and highly sinful.
Liturgies can be changed as the Church pleases. If it's valid then it's valid and that's that. Calling a valid mass immoral renders you anathema according to Trent.Paul VI violated Trent when he fabricated all the new Rites and new Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae is not binding on the faithful at all. I think it can be debated whether his publication was an official act of the Church considering he did not make any indication by a solemn pronouncement that his missal is to used. And, no reference to Quo Primum.
Paul VI violated Trent when he fabricated all the new Rites and new Mass. The Novus Ordo Missae is not binding on the faithful at all. I think it can be debated whether his publication was an official act of the Church considering he did not make any indication by a solemn pronouncement that his missal is to used. And, no reference to Quo Primum.Fabricated? It is within the Pope's authority to promulgate new Masses. Trent does not and could not prevent the Pope from doing that.
Liturgies can be changed as the Church pleases.
If it's valid then it's valid and that's that. Calling a valid mass immoral renders you anathema according to Trent.Just because a consecration is valid doesn't make it moral and pleasing to God. A priest can walk into a grocery store and perform a valid consecration on all the bread in aisle 8, but that would be HIGHLY sinful, sacrilegious and sinful (i.e. immoral). It would also be illicit and therefore, sinful (i.e. immoral).
It is within the Pope's authority to promulgate new Masses. Trent does not and could not prevent the Pope from doing that.The pope has the authority to revise parts of the mass which are non-essential. Colin is correct when he said that Paul VI violated Trent (Quo Primum, to be exact, since Quo Primum was made law because of Trent. They are inseparable).
I suppose every parish in the world being ordered to use it, and priests being barred from saying other rites without express permission, is not enough indication that the missal is to be used?No pope has ever ordered the new mass to be used, under penalty of sin. The bishops ordered priests to say the new mass and lied to every catholic in the world when they said that the True Mass was outlawed. But the popes have never said this. In fact, in +Benedict's motu proprio, he clearly said that the True Mass was never outlawed and that it was always permitted. Clearly, this directly contradicts your erroneous view of history.
Old laws of the Church do not have to be mentioned by name to be superseded either.Yes they do. Every revision made to the Quo Primum missal since the 1570s has included a reference to Quo Primum and a specific mention of the previous missal being revised. John XXIII did just that in 1962. When you have established law, you must mention existing laws to overrule them. But Paul VI was creating a new missal, unrelated to Quo Primum (which is why it's illegal) that's why he didn't revise John XXIII's missal.
Fabricated? It is within the Pope's authority to promulgate new Masses. Trent does not and could not prevent the Pope from doing that.Yes, the new Mass is a fabrication. Ratzinger, in 1986 wrote,
And the rest of your post is just legalism at its finest. You cannot honestly argue that the Pope promulgating a new rite is not an official act of the Church. I suppose every parish in the world being ordered to use it, and priests being barred from saying other rites without express permission, is not enough indication that the missal is to be used?
Old laws of the Church do not have to be mentioned by name to be superseded either.
"The new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth."
-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church... or be changed, by any pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
"At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass... by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . “And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA [IOANNES DE TURRECREMATA], O.P. (1388-1468)[/pre]
(UNCLE OF THE GRAND INQUISITOR)
OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED THEOLOGIAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BASEL/FLORENCE
GIVEN BY POPE EUGENE IV THE TITLE OF "DEFENDER OF THE FAITH"
"Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope
can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are
not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that
he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in
what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts
of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore,
were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the
articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of
the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such
commands, to be passed over (despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia
[1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated and defined by the Council
of Florence and defined by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)
"By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ
despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity
of the Church is dependent upon its relationship with Christ. The Pope
can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ,
or by commanding something that is against the divine or natural law.
by doing so, the Pope separates himself from the body of the Church
because this body is itself linked to Christ by obedience. In
this way, the Pope would, without doubt, fall into schism....
"He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal
Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or
if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world
by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See.
Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for
example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal
customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects
of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one
unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated
places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross
as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way,
relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
"By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the
observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope
could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are
not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been
established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope]
Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a
Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the
universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal
customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed...."
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
Yes, the new Mass is a fabrication. Ratzinger, in 1986 wrote,Popes cannot take power away from their successors. The Tridentine Mass was not the first rite the Church ever used either, and there were many others in use that were not abolished. The Tridentine Rite was only special insofar as the Church chose it, not that it was the only rite the Church could ever use and that using another was heresy or whatever.
Session VII CANON XIII.
The word for "any" is quemcunque which can be translated to "whomsoever" or "whatever". Is the Pope not a pastor of the Church?
-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church... or be changed, by any pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.Context is key here. Before Trent there were a multitude of different rites in use, most old but some new too, and even within rites there was a lack of standardisation. Pope St. Pius V sought standardisation, so he banned all the rites less than 200 years old and barred any new ones from being made. No, this prohibition of pastors altering rites does not apply to the Pope. The Pope is above canon law.
Clearly we see that even the Pope does not have the right to do whatever he pleases in regards to the sacred liturgy. It is YOUR idea that the Pope has the right to construct an entirely new rite of Mass, not the Church's.Those quotations refer to the Pope failing to observe the established liturgy and customs, it does not mean that he cannot legally change them just as Pope St. Pius V and many, many other Popes did.
Blessed Pope Pius IX, when requested to add the name of St. Joseph to the Canon, replied: “I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the Canon?”
Forlorn,I don't attend Novus Ordo Masses at all, I go to the SSPX(no Resistance masses available). Maybe if you'd actually read what I say instead of just imagining whatever you want to read instead(like your nonsensical rant about me defending Indults when I NEVER even MENTIONED them), you'd understand.
I don't even know why you're on this site. You're clearly not a Traditional Catholic. Why don't you go hang out on Fisheaters or some other novus ordo site?
As i've said before, the issue of the validity of the new mass is irrelevant as to why you cannot attend. Even if it was valid, +Ottaviani said that its theology was anti-Trent and protestantized. This alone makes the liturgy illicit and immoral and highly sinful.Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the validity of the Mass of Paul VI in the typical editions in Latin.
The Tridentine Rite was only special insofar as the Church chose it, not that it was the only rite the Church could ever use and that using another was heresy or whatever.That's true, but the aspect that you are missing is that the Tridentine rite is essentially the same as the other rites which are allowed by the Church (i.e. Benedictine, Coptic, Dominican, Eastern, etc, etc). Even most of the numerous rites which the Tridentine rite replaced (through Quo Primum) were essentially the same. (I say "most" because there were a few rites that had been corrupted and were scandalous; most rites were fine, sacramentally and liturgically, they had just lost the sense of uniformity which the Church requires in its prayers).
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the validity of the Mass of Paul VI in the typical editions in Latin. I don't think he encouraged attending it.Stanley,
I don't attend Novus Ordo Masses at all, I go to the SSPX(no Resistance masses available). Maybe if you'd actually read what I sayYou are clearly arguing that the new mass is legal and valid and therefore ok to attend. By extension, you should have no problem with the indult. If the new mass is legal, moral and valid, then why are you attending an sspx chapel, which is not in communion with new-rome? Your position is hypocritical, just like Xavier's and your attendance at an sspx chapel is a sin of disobedience to your local bishop.
Popes cannot take power away from their successors.You're correct! But the right to significantly change the Mass into a different rite has NEVER EXISTED. No Pope has ever had the right to devise AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Mass with 70% of the prayers removed.
No, this prohibition of pastors altering rites does not apply to the Pope.
If it's valid then it's valid and that's that. Calling a valid mass immoral renders you anathema according to Trent.What a paradox!
I don't attend Novus Ordo Masses at all, I go to the SSPX(no Resistance masses available).
You're correct! But the right to significantly change the Mass into a different rite has NEVER EXISTED. No Pope has ever had the right to devise AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Mass with 70% of the prayers removed.I'll try respond to the rest and Pax' other post when I get home later but I just wanted to address this now:
Minor, relatively insignificant changes, as Pax Vobis has said. Every time a new Roman Missal was issued, the Pontiff would preface by citing Quo Primum and then justifying the changes he was making as necessary and practical because every Pope recognized the binding force of Pope St. Pius V's Bull.
What a paradox!
Forlorn, from what you've written, it seems as though you have no justifications for not attending the New Mass. Recognizing the Novus Ordo Missae as valid and licit, yet refusing to attend is ludicrous! What are your justifications for attending SSPX then? You believe it's valid, licit, and a legitimate act of the Catholic Church by a Roman Pontiff. By your own admission, you have no reason not to go to the New Mass.
There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.
You're correct! But the right to significantly change the Mass into a different rite has NEVER EXISTED. No Pope has ever had the right to devise AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT Mass with 70% of the prayers removed.
Minor, relatively insignificant changes, as Pax Vobis has said. Every time a new Roman Missal was issued, the Pontiff would preface by citing Quo Primum and then justifying the changes he was making as necessary and practical because every Pope recognized the binding force of Pope St. Pius V's Bull.
By this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it
That's true, but the aspect that you are missing is that the Tridentine rite is essentially the same as the other rites which are allowed by the Church (i.e. Benedictine, Coptic, Dominican, Eastern, etc, etc). Even most of the numerous rites which the Tridentine rite replaced (through Quo Primum) were essentially the same. (I say "most" because there were a few rites that had been corrupted and were scandalous; most rites were fine, sacramentally and liturgically, they had just lost the sense of uniformity which the Church requires in its prayers).
The new mass, however, is NOT essentially the same as the Tridentine mass or any other rite. +Ottaviani makes this abundantly clear when he says that the theology of the new mass is a striking departure from the theology of Trent and that the liturgy is protestantized. Yes, the pope is allowed to make non-essential changes to the liturgy's rubrics; he is NOT allowed to change essential prayers (i.e. like the consecration, the offertory prayers and much of the canon). The pope is NOT allowed to change this because the mass is not the Church's to change; the mass is Christ's! The Mass is Divine!
----
Stanley,
The validity of the mass is separate from it's theology. A valid consecration does not equal a pleasing, reverent Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is MUCH MORE than just a valid consecration. You keep arguing about the validity of the new mass's consecration, and you're not grasping the significance of the many, many other changes to its liturgy which are anti-catholic.
Stanley,You keep bringing up validity and doubt.
The validity of the mass is separate from it's theology. A valid consecration does not equal a pleasing, reverent Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is MUCH MORE than just a valid consecration. You keep arguing about the validity of the new mass's consecration, and you're not grasping the significance of the many, many other changes to its liturgy which are anti-catholic.
So if the New Rite is valid Mass of the Church, how is it possible for its canon to contain errors, for its ceremonies to be calls to impiety, or for the mass to be blasphemous?Because the validity of the consecration is one, minor (yet important) part of the overall Mass. The consecration is ONE of the the THREE principle parts of the mass. The mass is much more than just the canon. A black mass can have a valid consecration - does that mean a black mass is automatically moral?
Because the validity of the consecration is one, minor (yet important) part of the overall Mass. The consecration is ONE of the the THREE principle parts of the mass. The mass is much more than just the canon. A black mass can have a valid consecration - does that mean a black mass is automatically moral?Point taken. I suppose I should be asking, what makes a Mass a true Mass of the Church to which those Canons would apply?
As for massively overhauling the mass and the prayers said therein, Pope St. Gregory the Great made many large changes to the Roman rite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass#Early_changes), cutting out out many prayers and readings, and most notably altering the Eucharistic prayer. I reckon if similar changes were made today you'd call them illegal.First of all, Pope St Gregory lived post-early persecution era. For 300 years, the Church was devastated by persecutions and could not openly worship or have large-scale organization. Once the Church was able to operate in peace, you see Her, through the popes, making changes and updates that were heretofore, impossible. The early Roman church, when it changed to latin, changed many prayers because the Eastern rites were more developed and had more consistency.
With regard to the Roman Canon of the Mass, the prayers beginning Te igitur, Memento Domine and Quam oblationem were already in use, even if not with quite the same wording as now, by the year 400; the Communicantes, the Hanc igitur, and the post-consecration Memento etiam and Nobis quoque were added in the fifth century.
Pope Gregory (590-604) sought to add the words “diesque nostros in tua pace disponas” [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon, the Catholics of Rome were so outraged at this act that they threatened to kill him because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy.I wonder what the faithful of Rome would say to Paul VI considering their keen Sensus Catholicus. I often speculate how scandalized and outraged the Saints would be if they were to step into a Novus Ordo parish and someone tell them this is the Catholic Mass now.
Point taken. I suppose I should be asking, what makes a Mass a true Mass of the Church to which those Canons would apply?Apostolic origin?
Apostolic origin?And the successor of the Apostle St. Peter claims that the New Mass is just another evolution of the Tridentine Mass. Under which criteria do you disprove that?
If the top theologians in rome say the new mass can be positively doubtful, then what other facts are there to include? I'll be happy to read, if you provide.Did not the top theologians like Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci who co-wrote the Ottaviani-Bacci intervention stay back in Rome? Though we face a crisis in the Church today, does the treatise of these top theologians give the laity permission to subjectively make decisions on ecclesiastical matters?
My speech is imperfect. Mea culpa. I am just the messenger. Go read the Ottaviani report (see below link), which was produced by the top theologians in rome in the 60s. You can also add a positive doubt to the new mass which did not exist in the 60s - the doubt over the new ordination rites and the episcopal consecrations. However, even if a new mass was said with no doubts, even if we could say with 100% certainty that it is valid, this does not mean one can attend. The validity of the mass is separate from its licitness and its morality. The new mass is illegal and immoral, therefore sinful.Popes that came after Pope St. Pius V changed the Roman missal. With the Church being in crisis today, wouldn't it be best to go back to the Pope Pius V missal? It will remove all sources of confusion and conflict.
It is illegal because it violates Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict said is still a valid law and this law does not allow any other missal to be used, except the 62 missal, under pain of sin to the pope.
It is immoral because of many, many reasons - most notably because its theology is anti-Trent and protestantized, as +Ottaviani points out. It is also immoral due to communion in the hand, irreverent dress of the laity and the atmosphere in general, which is an occasion of sin to one's Faith.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm)