Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: The Cub on October 28, 2018, 04:59:28 PM
-
A very powerful lesson on The Traditional Mass! :applause:
Fr. Mark on the Traditional Mass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tf-AmbCd9U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tf-AmbCd9U)
-
Ok, so let's take this young, wet behind the ears pup, who presumes to try indoctrinating Catholics that liturgical orthodoxy is really "spontaneous" - and let's have him take a seat and listen to Fr. James Wathen give a Sunday sermon that destroys this little breezer and holds up for ridicule his notion of 8 centuries of Divine Worship -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segYoODdddA
We see that here we have a traditional priest who, indeed, "loves that kind of stuff."
-
Yes, this notion that Liturgy was spontaneous for the first 8 centuries or so is a bunch of Modernist nonsense ... an attempt to justify the modern liturgical innovations.
-
Open your hearts!
You like the Latin Mass.....that is great.....great!
Did Christ speak Latin at the Last Supper? No, He spoke Aramaic, and He said DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. What does that tell you? What does the word 'THIS' refer to? Does a subsequent Pope have the right to change the DISCIPLINE of the Mass from Aramaic (established by Jesus) and declare that Latin should henceforth be employed?
Answer: "Yes."
But to claim that the Novus Ordo is invalid is pretzel logic based upon emotion.
A Pope declares that the Latin Mass is never to be changed, which is his right.....and in respect of the DISCIPLINE of the Mass, ONLY stands as long as successor Popes agree. The Key word is DISCIPLINE....vs.SUBSTANCE AND FORM. What is substance? unleavened bread and wine. What is form? "This is My Body; This is My Blood."
Pope Paul VI changed the DISCIPLINE of the Mass (Emphasis added), which is JUST AS MUCH HIS RIGHT as Pope, ....and indeed, the Novus Ordo contains both Substance and Form.
You have no argument with a subsequent Pope changing the directives of Jesus Christ (viz. "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.") in respect of the DISCIPLINE of the First Mass recited in Aramaic.....but you argue that the Novus Ordo is invalid because a subsequent Pope changed the DISCIPLINE of the Mass as set forth by a predecessor Pope to be in Latin.
This is a non sequitor.
Would you have others believe that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is not present in consecrated hosts and wine via the Novus Ordo?
Do not quible over nonsense....enjoy the Mass whether in Latin or in the local language.....or even the True Traditional Mass as explained by Fr. Mark in the video in the OP.
God bless you and your families.
cub
-
So is this "The Cub" modernist a Novus Ordo troll here on CI?
Does the Pope have a legal right to alter the Mass? Of course. Does he have the moral right to pitch it and replace it with a Protestant service? No, he does not.
What we're disputing is this video by "Father" Mark where he falsely claims that Liturgies in the Church for the first 8 centuries or so were mostly improvised. That's utter nonsense that is easily refuted with even a modicuм of research.
Not all Traditional Catholics consider the Novus Ordo Mass to be invalid, although many do. And they consider it invalid not merely because it was changed but because the essential form was changed. No Pope can change the essential form of the Sacraments, which are of divine institution.
-
Jesus spoke Latin with Pontius Pilate. Latin is a dead language for protection from people like Cub.
-
Jesus spoke Latin with Pontius Pilate. Latin is a dead language for protection from people like Cub.
As if Our Lord's use of Aramaic has anything to do with whether the Novus Ordo Mass represents legitimate change. IMO, Our Lord used Hebrew at the Last Supper.
-
Open your hearts!
-snip-
.
Habemus ad Dominum!
.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that the traditionalist resistance can be reduced to linguistic objections. Traditionalists don't reject (whether on the grounds of invalidity, unlawfulness, or both) the New Order of Mass because it's in the vernacular, they reject it because it has been stripped of everything uniquely Catholic. It is, most would argue, intrinsically impious. And don't mistake this for an actual argument, I am simply telling you what the argument is. You can read the Ottaviani Intervention or virtually any other traditionalist literature on the mass to see why we believe this is the case.
.
If the Tridentine mass had simply been offered in the vernacular and nothing else had changed, there'd be no fuss.
-
You have no argument with a subsequent Pope changing the directives of Jesus Christ (viz. "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.") in respect of the DISCIPLINE of the First Mass recited in Aramaic.....but you argue that the Novus Ordo is invalid because a subsequent Pope changed the DISCIPLINE of the Mass as set forth by a predecessor Pope to be in Latin.
You do not seem to understand the actual position of traditionalists (both in general and on this forum). Few, if any, would say that the main problem with the new Mass is that it is in the vernacular. The new Mass is not simply a translation of the Traditional Mass. The Novus Ordo omits and changes the prayers of the Traditional Mass, often with serious theological implications. I cannot recall ever seeing someone question the validity of the Novus Ordo only because of its language, but rather they do so due to these changes. The words of Consecration were tampered with, so these concerns are justified. If you want to have a real discussion with traditionalists (and not merely troll the forum) you need to understand what traditionalists believe and not argue with a caricature as you have been.
As has already been stated, the claims in the video are nonsense. There is no history of spontaneous rather than liturgical worship throughout the first eight centuries of the Church. While the video mentioned many names of Saints, it presented no quotes or other evidence to support its claims. The only group known for Charismatic style worship was a heretical group called Montanists.
However, even if it were true, that would not be reason to model our worship today on these alleged ancient practices. That would be the error of antiquarianism condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Perhaps reading this encyclical would give you a better understanding of the Catholic understanding of liturgy. You currently seem to have a poor grasp of the subject. Here is a link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html)
I see that Mithrandylan posted as I was typing my answer. I agree that the Ottavin Intervention would help you to understand the real issues. Here is link for that too: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm)
-
You claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because different prayers are recited from those of the Tridentine Mass.
Were the prayers of the Tridentine Mass recited at the Last Supper? At the Last Supper was there altar boy participation, as in the Tridentine? I know of nothing in Tradition or Holy Scripture indicating altar boys being present at the Last Supper.
In the event that a priest at a Tridentine Mass runs out of consecrated Hosts while distributing them to the Faithful in Holy Communion, does he restart the Tridentine Mass from the beginning to consecrate additional hosts? Or does he return to the altar with some unconsecrated hosts and recite the holy words of consecration: “This is My Body; This is My Blood”? Answer: He does not restart the Mass from the beginning, but consecrates additional hosts by reciting the holy words of consecration over them.
Fact: Substance and Form existed at the Last Supper; thus, it was a valid Mass.
Fact: Substance and Form exist at Tridentine Masses; thus they are valid Masses.
Fact: Substance and Form exist at Novus Ordo Masses; thus they are valid Masses.
Would you have others believe that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is not present in consecrated hosts and wine via the Novus Ordo simply because you prefer certain complimentary prayers in Latin?
This is another non sequitor.
-
Substance and Form exist at Novus Ordo Masses; thus they are valid Masses.
Maybe, maybe not. Go read Cardinal Ottaviani's analysis of the new mass.
Either way, even if a new mass is valid, it's still illict and immoral, therefore sinful.
-
You claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because different prayers are recited from those of the Tridentine Mass.
.
No one said the Novus Ordo was invalid or inferior or unlawful because it has different prayers. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom has different prayers and we have no problem with it. St. Mark's liturgy has different prayers and we have no problem with it. I take it you didn't read the Ottaviani Intervention. If you want to be taken seriously you have to take your opponent seriously.
.
Were the prayers of the Tridentine Mass recited at the Last Supper? At the Last Supper was there altar boy participation, as in the Tridentine? I know of nothing in Tradition or Holy Scripture indicating altar boys being present at the Last Supper.
.
Well as a matter of fact the traditional rite is certainly closer to the last supper than the Novus Ordo, but that's beside the point. The argument isn't that a mass can only be valid if it's words and ceremonies perfectly mimic only the words and ceremonies of the Last Supper. We're traditionalists, not Wesleyans.
.
Fact: Substance and Form existed at the Last Supper; thus, it was a valid Mass.
Fact: Substance and Form exist at Tridentine Masses; thus they are valid Masses.
Fact: Substance and Form exist at Novus Ordo Masses; thus they are valid Masses.
.
Fact: substance and form exist at schismatic liturgies, thus they are valid.
Fact: substance and form exist at a black mass, supposing a priest offers it, thus black masses are valid.
.
While some traditionalists do indeed argue that the Novus Ordo is invalid, what all traditionalists agree with is that it is unlawful and inferior, and not worthy of attendance. There is more to a Catholic mass than the confection of a valid Eucharist.
.
Would you have others believe that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is not present in consecrated hosts and wine via the Novus Ordo simply because you prefer certain complimentary prayers in Latin?
.
Obviously not.
This is another non sequitor.
.
Well, at least it isn't like your post which is a non sequitur. :D And a strawman, to boot. A very loosely packed one, at that.
-
Why do Novus Ordoites bother trying to convert Catholics to their impious sect. I think Cub has good intentions, but you know what they say about intentions. If the NO is the true Church, it’s magisterium, obviously including their popes, have been convincing people that they can be saved outside the Church for decades. What’s the point of it all? As I told an NO priest once; “If your position is correct then I have nothing to worry about, I will be saved, but if I’m correct, you’ve got big problems.” He could not think of anything else to say after that.
-
.
No one said the Novus Ordo was invalid or inferior or unlawful because it has different prayers.
This Novus Ordo troll sets up one straw man argument after another. In point of fact, he's arguing from a position of ignorance. He doesn't know what Traditional Catholics actually think but argues against his distorted perception of the arguments.
-
Substance and Form are not even the right terms.
For Sacramental validity, we speak of MATTER and Form.
SUBSTANCE = MATTER + FORM.
-
If the NO is the true Church, it’s magisterium, obviously including their popes, have been convincing people that they can be saved outside the Church for decades. What’s the point of it all? As I told an NO priest once; “If your position is correct then I have nothing to worry about, I will be saved, but if I’m correct, you’ve got big problems.” He could not think of anything else to say after that.
Fantastic point. All Trads are sincere in their beliefs so we're saved in spite of our "non-schismatic-but-really-close-to-it attitude".
It's just another example of liberal logic failure: Tolerance for all religions except those which have principles.
-
It's just another example of liberal logic failure: Tolerance for all religions except those which have principles.
I used to keep a list of what I referred to as the Conciliar Oxymorons. Here's one.
Liberty for all, except the enemies of liberty.
-
Why do Novus Ordoites bother trying to convert Catholics to their impious sect.
They're not trying to convert you, they are trying to justify themselves. The Novus Ordo is great for them, they can be in charge and live however they want.
-
“In the event that a priest at a Tridentine Mass runs out of consecrated Hosts while distributing them to the Faithful in Holy Communion, does he restart the Tridentine Mass from the beginning to consecrate additional hosts? Or does he return to the altar with some unconsecrated hosts and recite the holy words of consecration: “This is My Body; This is My Blood”? Answer: He does not restart the Mass from the beginning, but consecrates additional hosts by reciting the holy words of consecration over them.”
This is absolutely incorrect. If the celebrant runs out of Hosts to distribute, the distribution of Holy Communion ends. You cannot go back and simply say the words of consecration.
Any traditional priest would return to the altar when he realizes he is running low on Hosts and break the remaining Hosts into smaller particles.
Still, I’m not sure what bearing any of this has on this thread.
-
In the event that a priest at a Tridentine Mass runs out of consecrated Hosts while distributing them to the Faithful in Holy Communion, does he restart the Tridentine Mass from the beginning to consecrate additional hosts? Or does he return to the altar with some unconsecrated hosts and recite the holy words of consecration: “This is My Body; This is My Blood”? Answer: He does not restart the Mass from the beginning, but consecrates additional hosts by reciting the holy words of consecration over them.
On what planet?
-
Cub asks this question (and answers it incorrectly) because he falsely equates Holy Communion as equal to the Mass itself, instead of distinguishing between the purpose of Mass (ie adoration of God) and the purpose of Communion (the glory of God through our sanctification).
This is why 99% of novus ordo/indulters argue that a “valid” consecration is all that matters. To them, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the end goal (which is why they put up with the scandalous liturgical sacrileges). If they understood Mass in the Catholic way (God centric) then they would see that no matter if the consecration/Communion is valid, God is still blasphemed and outraged by an irreverent and sacrilegious atmosphere or liturgy.
If the celebrant runs out of Hosts to distribute, the distribution of Holy Communion ends. You cannot go back and simply say the words of consecration.
Absolutely correct.
-
Now, a priest, under extreme circuмstances, COULD just say the words of Consecration and have the Consecration be valid. So this was Cub's way of clumsily arguing short-form theory, that as long as the essential words remain intact, the Mass is valid. But, as Pax points out, Cub conflates validity with whether the Mass pleases God. Secondly, in most vernacular versions of the NOM, they DID touch the essential words of consecration ... so that short-form theory had to become much shorter. If you say that the form goes past "this is the chalice of My Blood...", then the essential words have been tampered with.
-
Many seem to think that a valid consecration equals a valid Mass. They are not synonymous.
A priest can walk into a bakery, with the intention to consecrate every single piece of bread in that bakery, and if he says the essential form, the Sacrament is confected. It would be ridiculous to say, in this instance, that a Mass of any sort had just taken place.
-
CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?
-
CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?
Yes. This is a classic sacramental theology question, used to teach the concepts of essential form and intention.
It is GRAVELY illicit for a priest to do such a thing.
-
CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?
Theoretically he could. But in a case so extreme it would be possible to question the sanity (and therefore intention) of the priest who would do such a thing.
-
Many seem to think that a valid consecration equals a valid Mass. They are not synonymous.
Well, most people use "valid Mass" as a shorthand for "a Mass that included a valid consecration". How do YOU define valid Mass?
-
... he falsely equates Holy Communion as equal to the Mass itself, instead of distinguishing between the purpose of Mass (ie adoration of God) and the purpose of Communion (the glory of God through our sanctification). This is why 99% of novus ordo/indulters argue that a “valid” consecration is all that matters.
If they are not priests there is no consecration, even if they do a perfect Tridentine mass. The main reason we have doubts about the consecration is that we have doubts whether the new ordination rite creates priests, and also whether the new formula for the consecration of bishops creates a bishop. Without a bishop there are no ordinations PERIOD, and without the proper ordination rite, there are no priests, and without priests there is no consecration of the host. Ad to all of that what you are discussing about the words of consecration, and you have the reason why I do not go to the Novus Ordo, all of the odds are against it being a real mass.
-
CAN a priest walk into a bakery and, outside of Mass, say the words of Consecration and the place is full of the Holy Eucharist?
^^^^ THIS, that THIS can happen, is what I have heard used to defend saying "OK" to the Novus Ordo, to defend it - and ^^^ THIS is what I have heard used against those saying the "traditional Mass is the only Mass of the Latin rite." According to the Bakery people, such "Quo Primum adherence" so to speak, is being too fussy, or wrong, or over-legislative, etc., etc. & etc.
Nevermind if the Bakery priest involved is "truly" ordained, or even if the bread in the bakery is made of Wheat (part of necessary matter) - there naturally has to at least be sacrilege here if a priest were to attempt such a thing. But to make such a cavalier comparison/reference, is to trivialize the Holy Mass, besides showing contempt for proper care and decorum, rubrics, etc.
As for Cub, he seems to need some good orthodox Catholic catechetical sessions if his present assertion with "Fr. Mark" is a continuation of the kind of understanding he demonstrated some time ago when, after the death of JP II, he posted the answer below to the question of "Where is Pope John Paul II?"
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/useroff.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=86) The Cub (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/The%20Cub/)
- Jr. Member
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/star.gif)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/avatars/stock/86.jpg) (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/The%20Cub/)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
Where is Pope John Paul II? (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/where-is-pope-john-paul-ii/msg65070/#msg65070)
« Reply #78 on: January 29, 2010, 11:03:03 AM »
.
John Paul II the Great is resting in the Glory of God in Heaven....interceding for our needs/prayers.
-
Well, most people use "valid Mass" as a shorthand for "a Mass that included a valid consecration". How do YOU define valid Mass?
All valid masses have valid consecrations, but not all valid consecrations are done inside a valid mass.
A valid mass MUST have a valid Offertory, Canon, Communion. The novus ordo has about only 30% of the Offertory and 40% of canon, (and who knows what little % of the communion) compared to the True Mass. Even the "leftover" prayers in the Offertory and Canon have been changed to delete any words which refer to a 'sacrifice' or 'offering'. The novus ordo changed the PURPOSE and theology of the mass from the sacrifice of Calvary to the sacrifice of Christ on Holy Thursday.
(Talk to any novus ordo person and they will say that Christ's sacrifice is His offering of Himself to us in Holy Communion ...NOT his sacrifice on the cross (this is total heresy from V2).
Or, they will say that the Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary but that the purpose of the mass is Holy Communion (i.e. Eucharistic Supper)...again, this is false). Very subtle changes in the theology of the novus ordo but very important.
Ergo, even if the consecration is valid, the Mass is probably invalid and immoral because the PURPOSE of the consecration is altered due to changes/deletions in the prayers. The prayers and rubrics in the True Mass form the proper intentions and purpose of the mass so it is always valid. The novus ordo has gutted so many prayers and changed those leftover that what remains does not supply the proper intention for the mass, using the prayers/rubrics themselves. That's why the novus ordo people do not have a true understanding of the sacrifice of the Mass, because the prayers/liturgy do not teach it clearly. So, as Cardinal Ottaviani said, the validity of the new mass "can be positively doubted" because the purpose/intention relies SOLELY on the PERSONAL intention of the priest and not the rite itself.
So the new mass has a double doubt - 1) is the priest valid? 2) is the priest's intention valid?
Who knows...
-
All valid masses have valid consecrations, but not all valid consecrations are done inside a valid mass.
A valid mass MUST have a valid Offertory, Canon, Communion.
I'm not sure if valid is the right word for this. Most people use the expression "valid Mass" to mean a Mass in which transubstantiation takes place.
-
The novus ordo has about only 30% of the Offertory and 40% of canon, (and who knows what little % of the communion) compared to the True Mass.
I was actually surprised to find that the NOM, if you take "Anaphora" I (i.e. the first of their choices of Canons), in Latin, it's 98% of the Tridetine Canon entirely intact.
-
Yes, maybe the word is not invalid but unholy.
If the mass is composed of 3 principle parts (Offertory, Canon, Communion) then it stands to reason that if the Offertory is deficient then so is the mass. A valid consecration only ensures that the Canon is valid. It can’t ensure that the mass is perfect being that 1 part cannot perfect the other 2, for each part is separate.
The Offertory is important for the validity of the mass....or should we say HOLINESS of the mass. So, since the Offertory frames the PURPOSE of the Canon, the PURPOSE of the mass itself (by specifically mentioning atonement for sins, adoration of God, etc) then if the Offertory is deficient or if it only mentions 1 or 2 of the purposes of the mass (instead of all 4), then the mass is not perfect, therefore it is not holy, therefore it is displeasing to God, just as Cain’s offering was imperfect and second-rate. The Offertory changes are mainly what makes the mass Protestant - the minimization/deletion of the idea of an “offering” an “offeror” an “oblation” and a “sacrifice”.
Further, the systematic and pervasive “Communion in the hand” approach to Communion also attributes to the unholiness of the new mass, since the purpose and reverence which is essentially inherent in the sacrament is corrupted. Even if the Offertory was a perfect English translation, Communion in the hand is an abominable sacrilegious scandal which cries to heaven for reparation. (Of course, this assumes that the priest is actually a priest and his intention is also valid).
The further possibility that the priest could be a fake is another scandal and act of unholiness.
Then you have the problem of the priest (assuming he’s one) having a faulty intention of a “supper” or “memorial” or “remembrance” instead of an actual sacrifice. (I’ve had novus ordo people tell me that the sacrifice of Calvary was a memorial but the Communion sacrifice was real. Or vice versa. Or both are real. Or both are memorials. ...The fact that they even refer to the mass as TWO DIFFERENT SACRIFICES shows how much the new theology is a lie and an anti-catholic mess. And who knows WHAT the “priest” thinks about it all! His idea/intentions could be just as screwed up!)
So, just as a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but be be utterly abominable in God’s eyes because it’s PURPOSE is unholy, so the new mass’ deficient Offertory is imperfect and unholy, therefore the mass as a whole is imperfect and unholy.
We can say the new mass is unholy because the True Mass is perfectly holy, since it is from God Himself. Yet when the new mass changed from perfect to imperfect, through the actions of man, the result is an unholy liturgy because nothing from man is holy. It is not possible to improve upon God, therefore any change to His ways are a departure from He who is Holiness itself.
-
To go back to my original argument that an invalid Offertory invalidates the Mass...if the Church tells us that by arriving late and missing the Offertory, that means we don’t fulfill our Sunday obligation (because we haven’t heard a complete mass), then how does this also not apply to the new mass? If its Offertory is deficient, protestantized, and invalid then how can the overall mass not be so?
-
The Mass isn't a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament. If the Eucharist is confected, the mass is valid. By analogy a baptism, no matter the ceremony surrounding it, is valid if the baptismal form and matter are correctly applied.
.
Talking about the Novus Ordo mass intrinsically ("by the book" and without regard to the problem with Novus Ordo orders), it seems valid to me. Not a hill I'm willing to die on, but for whatever it's worth. I wouldn't regard it as a Catholic liturgy, though. And probably mostly for the very reason you've highlighted, Pax. It has no real offertory.
.
-
.
Yes, this notion that Liturgy was spontaneous for the first 8 centuries or so is a bunch of Modernist nonsense ... an attempt to justify the modern liturgical innovations.
.
.
You have to keep in mind who it is bringing this silly message:
.
.
John Paul II the Great is resting in the Glory of God in Heaven....interceding for our needs/prayers.
.
-
You do not seem to understand the actual position of traditionalists (both in general and on this forum). Few, if any, would say that the main problem with the new Mass is that it is in the vernacular. The new Mass is not simply a translation of the Traditional Mass. The Novus Ordo omits and changes the prayers of the Traditional Mass, often with serious theological implications. I cannot recall ever seeing someone question the validity of the Novus Ordo only because of its language, but rather they do so due to these changes. The words of Consecration were tampered with, so these concerns are justified. If you want to have a real discussion with traditionalists (and not merely troll the forum) you need to understand what traditionalists believe and not argue with a caricature as you have been.
As has already been stated, the claims in the video are nonsense. There is no history of spontaneous rather than liturgical worship throughout the first eight centuries of the Church. While the video mentioned many names of Saints, it presented no quotes or other evidence to support its claims. The only group known for Charismatic style worship was a heretical group called Montanists.
However, even if it were true, that would not be reason to model our worship today on these alleged ancient practices. That would be the error of antiquarianism, condemned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei. Perhaps reading this encyclical would give you a better understanding of the Catholic understanding of liturgy. You currently seem to have a poor grasp of the subject. [AND HE LIKES IT THAT WAY!] Here is a link: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html)
I see that Mithrandylan posted as I was typing my answer. I agree that the Ottaviani Intervention would help you to understand the real issues. Here is a link for that too: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm)
.
As usual, you've done a fine job of defending Tradition, JayneK, but it would seem your words would be lost on the recipient ("the Cub"), since he's most likely not about to read what you wrote, or, at best, if he does read it, he won't pay attention to what you're saying, but will only attempt to refute or argue against your sound propositions.
.
He's not going to read Mediator Dei either, for the same reasons! He doesn't want to know what it contains, because it's inconvenient for his agenda.
-
A very powerful lesson on The Traditional Mass!
.
The way he fabricates history and makes it up as he goes along, he could as well be Fr. Mark...TWAIN.
.
Alternatively, we could go for Fr. Off-the-Mark
.
Or, would you prefer Fr. Mark of the Beast?
-
The Mass isn't a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament. If the Eucharist is confected, the mass is valid.
This doesn't make sense to me. The Eucharist is PART of the mass. The mass is MORE than just the Eucharist. So, just because the Eucharist is confected, doesn't mean the mass is valid. You can confect the Eucharist without an Offertory or a Communion, but that doesn't mean that a mass took place.
For example, in "De Defectibus" Pius V explains that if a priest dies after the consecration but before the Canon is complete, the mass is NOT complete. Another priest would have to complete the mass where the first one left off. This proves that the consecration is not the "litmus test" for the mass being valid.
A sacrifice must have 3 things to be complete - an offering, the sacrifice of the victim and the consuming of the victim. The new mass does not have a valid/holy offering, it MAY have the sacrifice of the victim and it does have the consuming.
---
Speaking of the new mass' irreverance, here is an exerpt from the Council of Trent on the Mass, Session 22, first decree. Let us all pray for these poor new massers' that God may open their eyes to see that the new liturgy is displeasing to God, that they may leave this sacrilegious atmosphere and come to the Truth.
What great care is to be taken, that the sacred and holy sacrifice of the mass be celebrated with all religious service and veneration, each one may easily imagine, who considers, that, in holy writ, he is called accursed, who doth the work of God negligently; and if we must needs confess, that no other work can be performed by the faithful so holy and divine as this tremendous mystery itself, wherein that life-giving victim, by which we were reconciled to the Father, is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear, that all industry and diligence is to be applied to this end, that it be performed with the greatest possible inward cleanness and purity of heart, and outward show of devotion and piety.
-
Talking about whether the Novus Ordo is valid sends us down a rabbit trail of determining the minimum requirements for validity and whether or not the NO meets them. That is rarely a useful discussion, especially when talking to a NO apologist. I prefer to describe the Novus Ordo as seriously problematic. This opens a discussion of what are the problems that make trads unwilling to attend the NO. I think this is the real issue in most cases.
That some people have doubts about its validity is one problem among many. This is what people like the Cub need to understand. Personally, I think that the NO is intrinsically valid, but that is not enough make me want to attend it. The problem that I am most concerned by is its loss of Catholic identity and obscuring of key doctrines. The removal of the Offertory is the prime example of this.
For me, my choice to attend the Tridentine Mass is based on a well-founded belief that it is a superior form of worship. Since worship is what we offer to God, we are obliged to give him the best of which we are capable. If I attempted to worship at the Novus Ordo I would not be doing my best.
-
https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/31482784/De-Defectibus-Decree-of-Trent (https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/31482784/De-Defectibus-Decree-of-Trent)
Chapter 2
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting tocomplete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum;
and: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui provobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning doesnot invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.
---
From Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum, introduction of the New Mass:
Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR;
over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.
The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.
---
It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning. It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning. It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday. All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.
What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.
-
Talking about whether the Novus Ordo is valid sends us down a rabbit trail of determining the minimum requirements for validity and whether or not the NO meets them.
If there are facts which establish doubt, then that is all that is necessary for one to avoid it. Canon law does not allow one to attend doubtful masses or sacraments under pain of sin. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish a concrete answer but just to establish problems.
-
.
As usual, you've done a fine job of defending Tradition, JayneK, but it would seem your words would be lost on the recipient ("the Cub"), since he's most likely not about to read what you wrote, or, at best, if he does read it, he won't pay attention to what you're saying, but will only attempt to refute or argue against your sound propositions.
.
He's not going to read Mediator Dei either, for the same reasons! He doesn't want to know what it contains, because it's inconvenient for his agenda.
Correct. Cub is nothing more than a troll. He heard about Traditional Catholics, maybe Googled it up, maybe ran into one somewhere, and felt as if he would do the world a service by converting some of those Trads who are known to hang out at CathInfo. He has about as much theological aptitude, given his Novus Ordo background, as a local-variety garden turnip. So theological arguments are wasted on Cub.
-
Prior to this post, all of Cub's activity had been related to end-times scenarios ... financial collapse, etc.
I believe this might be the same person as a poster on this forum: www.timebomb2000.com
I was actually on that secular forum (got booted several times for anti-Semitism and just opened new accounts), and during one of my vocal anti-Protestant rants, someone pointed me in the direction of CathInfo.
-
It's debatable if the moving of the chalice's "mystery of faith" phrase alters the meaning. It's debatable if the use of "for all" in the english translation changed the meaning. It's debatable if the additional words to the bread/chalice formula changes the meaning from the priest speaking in first-person (as Christ) to a narrative recounting of Holy Thursday. All these debatable facts give rise to EXTREME doubts to the validity of the new mass.
What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin.
I think this was a good summary of probably the strongest argument for claiming the NO is invalid. I agree, that, whether or not it makes the NO invalid, it was wrong to make changes that affected the Consecration. I question, however, your last comment:
"What's NOT debatable is that the changing/altering/additional words to both formulas consitute a mortal sin, for all in attendance. The changing of the formulas is public knowledge, therefore it is public sin."
I don't think it is public knowledge. It seems to me that the average Novus Ordo attendee has no idea that the formula is different. In my experience, the vast majority think that the NO is a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass and that the only real difference between them is the language.
-
Prior to this post, all of Cub's activity had been related to end-times scenarios ... financial collapse, etc.
I believe this might be the same person as a poster on this forum: www.timebomb2000.com
I was actually on that secular forum (got booted several times for anti-Semitism and just opened new accounts), and during one of my vocal anti-Protestant rants, someone pointed me in the direction of CathInfo.
What's funny about that forum is that I would regularly post, usually in opposition to bitter anti-Catholic ex Catholics, about the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church", and they had no problem with that. I got sidelined to their "Religion" forum, but never banned for this. But the minute I made even the mildest implicit criticism of Israel, I was banned within seconds of hitting the "Post" button.
-
If there are facts which establish doubt, then that is all that is necessary for one to avoid it. Canon law does not allow one to attend doubtful masses or sacraments under pain of sin. Therefore, it is not necessary to establish a concrete answer but just to establish problems.
My point is that 100% certainty that the NO is valid would not make any difference to my decision to avoid it.
-
My point is that 100% certainty that the NO is valid would not make any difference to my decision to avoid it.
Right, there are also the issues of it being illegal and immoral, therefore sinful.
-
I don't think it is public knowledge.
All one has to do (and I know many who have done so) is compare a novus ordo missal vs the english translation of a 1962. Public knowledge does not mean that the "avg joe" knows of it. It means that the "avg joe" COULD know if he wanted to spend the time to know. Zillow makes a great website and millions of dollars in advertising simply because they collect public data on real estate transactions. I could've done the same thing but I didn't. The purchase price of my neighbor's house is public knowledge even if I don't know the price. I COULD know, but if it don't, it just means I didn't spend the time to go research it.
-
Pax,
The Tridentine canons are legislating the mass; keep in mind this is (shortly) before Quo Primum. The part about mortal sin means if the priest purposefully adds things to the formula, he sins. Not that the faithful who attend a mass where this is done sin (they wouldn't know about it in most cases anyways, given the relative silence of the consecration). Certain rites and uses of the liturgy throughout Europe not infrequently enjoyed organic developments with prayers being added over time (In England alone there were three or four uses-- Sarum, Durham, York). The legislation you're quoting is saying that you can't do that to the consecration formulas.
.
If Paul VI was pope he has all the authority in the world to re-legislate this type of thing, and infallibility would protect him from doing it in a way that invalidates the consecration.
.
The validity of it, as mentioned, is more of an academic point (an interesting one, too). As a matter of praxis, the most powerful reason not to attend the Novus Ordo is that it is, at very best, an extremely inferior form of worship without any uniquely Catholic expressions of faith. I wouldn't want to be misconstrued as suggesting that it should be attended, as I believe quite strongly that it shouldn't be.
-
Right, there are also the issues of it being illegal and immoral, therefore sinful.
I think that the majority of people who attend the Novus Ordo do not sin by doing so. I can imagine scenarios in which it would be a sin, but I do not think it is the norm among its attendees.
-
It is objectively illegal (which is sinful) and the atmosphere is irreverent and sometimes blasphemous (also sinful). Yes, they do commit a sin by attending. If their conscience does not tell them so, then they have an ill-formed conscience, which is also a sin.
To what DEGREE will God hold them accountable for attending this new mass? Only He knows. But you can't say they don't commit a sin by attending - that's based on emotions and not facts.
-
It is objectively illegal (which is sinful) and the atmosphere is irreverent and sometimes blasphemous (also sinful). Yes, they do commit a sin by attending. If their conscience does not tell them so, then they have an ill-formed conscience, which is also a sin.
To what DEGREE will God hold them accountable for attending this new mass? Only He knows. But you can't say they don't commit a sin by attending - that's based on emotions and not facts.
.
You can't say on the one hand that sin is committed while on the other hand saying that God might not hold them accountable for it. If God is holding them accountable for it, they're sinning. That's what sin is; an imputation of guilt for wrong done.
.
-
If Paul VI was pope he has all the authority in the world to re-legislate this type of thing, and infallibility would protect him from doing it in a way that invalidates the consecration.
I agree that one cannot say that the new mass is invalid based on the words alone. But the changes do give rise to doubts, which can't be ignored.
Secondly, the pope cannot change the canon as he sees fit because it is of Divine origin and not his to change. A pope cannot "bind and loose" God's laws, only human ones.
Thirdly, as above, the new consecration formula is not necessarily invalid but as Cardinal Ottaviani pointed out, in the True Mass the words and intention of the priest were contained in the formula. In the new mass, the intention is lacking, even if the words are still present. So, the new mass is not TECHNICALLY invalid, but can very easily be so due to the intention which MUST be supplied by the priest.
So, based on the faulty theology they are taught at the seminary AND on the faulty ordination rite, we have doubts that their intention is correct. The point being, one cannot say BY VIEWING A NEW MASS that "it was valid" for it all depends on the priest. Therefore, in 99% of cases, the new mass is DOUBTFULLY valid since most priests are doubtfully trained properly and doubtfully ordained.
-
It is objectively illegal (which is sinful) and the atmosphere is irreverent and sometimes blasphemous (also sinful). Yes, they do commit a sin by attending. If their conscience does not tell them so, then they have an ill-formed conscience, which is also a sin.
To what DEGREE will God hold them accountable for attending this new mass? Only He knows. But you can't say they don't commit a sin by attending - that's based on emotions and not facts.
I actually disagree with you on the objective facts involved. I do not however see the point in discussing it with you, since ultimately is God's judgment that matters.
-
You can't say on the one hand that sin is committed while on the other hand saying that God might not hold them accountable for it. If God is holding them accountable for it, they're sinning. That's what sin is; an imputation of guilt for wrong done.
Sin exists independently of the guilt for it. Sin is an offense against God. Our guilt for the sin is subjective.
-
I actually disagree with you on the objective facts involved. I do not however see the point in discussing it with you, since ultimately is God's judgment that matters.
What parts do you disagree with? Are you arguing that we can't know the morality of the new mass and it is some mystery that is unexplainable?
-
Sin exists independently of the guilt for it. Sin is an offense against God. Our guilt for the sin is subjective.
.
There's a serious problem with equivocation here; sin is an offense against God, yes, but God is not offended by acts which are committed without guilt (i.e., acts which occur without commensurate will, knowledge, and intent). Sin, definitionally, includes guilt. If sin "exists independently of guilt" then animals sin, they just aren't guilty of sin. If sin exists "independently of guilt" then I sin if I fall out a window to my death while trying to bring my child back inside who's hanging on by their fingernails. The word loses all its meaning when you distinguish it from guilt and you'll not find any Catholic material that supports your view.
.
-
What parts do you disagree with? Are you arguing that we can't know the morality of the new mass and it is some mystery that is unexplainable?
I am not arguing anything. I am saying that I find this aspect of the discussion uninteresting and impractical and so I do not want to discuss it further. I am letting you know this as a courtesy so you will not be waiting for a response from me.
-
There's a serious problem with equivocation here; sin is an offense against God, yes, but God is not offended by acts which are committed without guilt (i.e., acts which occur without commensurate will, knowledge, and intent). Sin, definitionally, includes guilt.
First you have to separate the action from the guilt - they are separate. In the natural law, most actions are neutral acts (i.e. neither morally good nor evil) until circuмstances or intent enters the equation and then a sin is committed.
Example: Killing someone is a morally neutral act. It is only a sin when malicious intent makes it so.
Example: Stealing something is wrong BUT if the circuмstances are that you are starving, then it is allowed to steal and no sin is committed.
But when we talk about acts related to God and religion, ANY offense against these areas are ALWAYS wrong, independent of intent or circuмstances. This is because offenses directly against God are inherently evil, since God is all-holy. There are no morally neutral acts towards God - all acts contrary to holiness are wrong, in and of themselves because Holiness exists outside of ourselves. The intent/circuмstances affects our guilt, but the act against God is still wrong.
Example: A 3 yr old goes around saying blasphemy and horrible things about God. What he said is gravely offensive but he's not guilty because he doesn't know better.
If sin "exists independently of guilt" then animals sin, they just aren't guilty of sin. If sin exists "independently of guilt" then I sin if I fall out a window to my death while trying to bring my child back inside who's hanging on by their fingernails. The word loses all its meaning when you distinguish it from guilt and you'll not find any Catholic material that supports your view.
Your examples are of the natural law, of which there are always exceptions, levels of priority, etc. Offenses against the Divine Law and order have no exceptions.
-
First you have to separate the action from the guilt - they are separate. In the natural law, most actions are neutral acts (i.e. neither morally good nor evil) until circuмstances or intent enters the equation and then a sin is committed.
.
Yes, of course.
.
But when we talk about acts related to God and religion, ANY offense against these areas are ALWAYS wrong, independent of intent or circuмstances. This is because offenses directly against God are inherently evil, since God is all-holy. There are no morally neutral acts towards God - all acts contrary to holiness are wrong, in and of themselves because Holiness exists outside of ourselves. The intent/circuмstances affects our guilt, but the act against God is still wrong.
.
Example: A 3 yr old goes around saying blasphemy and horrible things about God. What he said is gravely offensive but he's not guilty because he doesn't know better.
.
In other words, it isn't a sin. Classes of actions or events that we might call "natural evils," "objective evils", or whatever other adjective to describe the matter of an action which is grave do not fall into the category of sin just because they are grave.
-
No, it's still a sin you're just not guilty for it. If a protestant during the protestant revolt descecrated a tabernacle filled with hosts, is God not offended? If a hindu blasphemes Our Lady's virginity is she still not offended? Of course. The offense against God is SEPARATE from the guilt.
Classes of actions or events that we might call "natural evils," "objective evils", or whatever other adjective to describe the matter of an action which is grave do not fall into the category of sin just because they are grave
If you're speaking of natural evils, I agree with you. I disagree when we're talking about evils against God/religion.
-
No, it's still a sin you're just not guilty for it. If a protestant during the protestant revolt descecrated a tabernacle filled with hosts, is God not offended? If a hindu blasphemes Our Lady's virginity is she still not offended? Of course. The offense against God is SEPARATE from the guilt.
If you're speaking of natural evils, I agree with you. I disagree when we're talking about evils against God/religion.
.
I totally reject the idea that someone can commit a sin without imputation of guilt. The onus is on you to justify such an idea, and with more than just your intuition.
-
.
I totally reject the idea that someone can commit a sin without imputation of guilt. The onus is on you to justify such an idea, and with more than just your intuition.
Don't you two need to be making a distinction between formal and material sin? Material sin is an objectively sinful act. But the imputation of guilt belongs to formal sin. This is the moral culpability that is affected by subjective factors of will and knowledge.
I think that you are talking about formal sin while Pax means to talk about material sin, but I'm not sure what he is saying about the imputation of guilt.
-
Don't you two need to be making a distinction between formal and material sin? Material sin is an objectively sinful act. But the imputation of guilt belongs to formal sin. This is the moral culpability that is affected by subjective factors of will and knowledge.
I think that you are talking about formal sin while Pax means to talk about material sin, but is confused about the imputation of guilt.
.
It's not a distinction that will help him, since material sin isn't sin anymore than a "material chair" (a tree or a pile of wood) could sensibly be called a chair.
.
Don't know if saying material sin=an objectively sinful act is correct either. Depending on what one means by objective; objective is often used in these contexts to describe what really is, despite whatever disagreement or confusion there may be. Well, if something isn't really sin (as is the case with material sin), then it isn't objectively sinful either.
-
.
It's not a distinction that will help him, since material sin isn't sin anymore than a "material chair" (a tree or a pile of wood) could sensibly be called a chair.
I suspect that this is the point of confusion so perhaps you could say more.
-
A material sin is an action which would be sinful in the proper sense (formally sinful, or actually sinful, or however one wishes to phrase it-- i.e., a sin which imputes guilt) if it were committed with knowledge, will, and intent. It doesn't necessarily have to be something dramatic or "intrinsically evil"; for a Catholic, eating meat on Friday because you innocently thought it was Thursday would be a material sin, which is to say not a sin at all (this is an example from McHugh and Callan).
.
Is this the sense of what you're trying to say, Pax? If so, there is still a gap to bridge between this and the idea that God is offended by material sin. Which is the point I'm objecting to.
-
I think that what Pax is trying to say --
I pick up $10,000 that I find in the street ... thinking it's mine. Because I, subjectively, didn't think it belonged to another, I did not offend God in the moral realm, but there's still some objective injustice in the fact that I am in possession of $10,000 that someone else should have. This is not, strictly defined, as sin, but there is an objective/material evil, privation of good, here. Does this offend God? Maybe, but in a completely different way than a willed sin. Am I "offended" when I see a bad piece of art, not immoral, but lacking in skill? Maybe, to a point. But it's not even in the same category as being offended by a willfully-committed sin. In fact, if I see a bad piece of art that was created by a young child, who worked on it as hard as he could out of love, then this in fact brings joy. Even the lack of skill in a way is transformed into an object of joy and delight. So God could even delight in some types of material lack of due good.
But I would not call every material/objective evil a sin. I would call those evils.
-
Don't you two need to be making a distinction between formal and material sin? Material sin is an objectively sinful act. But the imputation of guilt belongs to formal sin. This is the moral culpability that is affected by subjective factors of will and knowledge.
I think that you are talking about formal sin while Pax means to talk about material sin, but I'm not sure what he is saying about the imputation of guilt.
Yes, this is what we're debating. The objective/material evil exists outside of sin, because the offense to God exists outside of the sinner, since God's laws exist outside of man. Some acts are only immoral because of their intent. Some acts are immoral even when the intent is confused or ignorance exists.
As St Thomas said: To sin against God is common to all sins, in so far as the order to God includes every human order; but in so far as order to God surpasses the other two orders, sin against God is a special kind of sin. (Question 72, article 4)
Example 1: Eating a cookie is not an immoral act. But it becomes immoral if you eat one in disobedience to your mother.
Objectively, eating a cookie is a morally neutral act. It becomes wrong only because of circuмstances and intent (circuмstance of the mother's order and the intent of the child to disobey).
Example 2: A 3 yr old child uses blasphemy. This is an objectively evil act because blashemy offends God. But the child is not guilty for the sin due to ignorance.
Objectively, the act of blasphemy can never be neutral; it is always wrong because it always offends God. But circuмstances and intent can mean that even if the act is evil, a sin is not committed.
As St Thomas said: If the ignorance be such as to excuse sin altogether, as the ignorance of a madman or an imbecile, then he that commits fornication in a state of such ignorance, commits no sin either mortal or venial. (Question 88, article 6)
Example 3: A non-catholic couple who uses contraception commits a grave sin, even if they are "ignorant". This is because sins against the natural law are written on every man's heart and such sins are intrinsically evil. Objectively, they committed evil. Was their act sinful, in the sense that they were aware of its sinfulness? God will have to judge their hearts, but ignorance of the law is also a sin.
As St Thomas said: But if the ignorance be not invincible, then the ignorance itself is a sin, and contains within itself the lack of the love of God, in so far as a man neglects to learn those things whereby he can safeguard himself in the love of God. (Question 88, article 6)
But I would not call every material/objective evil a sin. I would call those evils.
Agree. It depends on the situation.
---
In the case of the new mass, we have many different scenarios to think about.
1) the new mass deals with a corruption, scandal and sacrilige of the Holiest of all prayers and of the holiest of all our Catholic sacraments. Therefore, evils which are contrary to the highest perfection are necessarily evils of the highest degree.
2) As Augustine says (Contra Mendacium vii), "those things which are evil in themselves, cannot be well done for any good end." This applies to evils contrary to religion and God, because a corruption of perfection in the order of religion is inherently evil and can never be good.
3) As St Thomas says above, ignorance can exuse one from sin (to a degree), but ignorance itself is a sin, so that one who commits sins in ignorance is guilty just as one is guilty of the sins they commit while drunk. Ignorace is a sin of omission by not informing your conscience of its duties towards God. Drunkenness is the active hindering of one's reason and conscience (i.e. a temporary ignorance).
I totally reject the idea that someone can commit a sin without imputation of guilt.
St Augustine says that: "Sin is a desire contrary to the eternal law." St Thomas, in Q71, article 6 says:
The first cause of sin is in the will, which commands all voluntary acts, in which alone is sin to be found: and hence it is that Augustine sometimes defines sin in reference to the will alone. But since external acts also pertain to the substance of sin, through being evil of themselves, as stated, it was necessary in defining sin to include something referring to external action.
Why do we say that Sin is against the eternal law and not against reason?
St Thomas continues: The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being "contrary to the eternal law," more fittingly than with reference to its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.
---
Conclusion:
In matters of Faith and of religion, our reason cannot teach itself nor conclude to the truths of God. Therefore, we must educate ourselves as to what God requires and we have a moral duty to have a well-formed conscience and to know what is necessary to please God and how He wants us to worship Him. Since we are all born with reason and intelligence and all catholics have been baptized and receive the gift of Faith, if we do not know how to love God, it is our fault. To worship God in a manner that is not ordained by Him, that is offensive to Him, that is irreverent to Him, is an evil in and of itself because all acts contrary to God, the all-good, are evil. Therefore, attendance at the new mass is evil, it is a sin (since it is contrary to the Eternal law) even if (in some cases) the guilt for such sins differs person to person, depending on the level of their willful ignorance and religious sloth. For God desires all men to be saved and He will instruct the ignorant if He is asked through prayer.