Can a case be made for the Novus Ordo Mass being per se invalid, and if so, why, given the following "best-case scenario"?

* Offered by a priest ordained according to the pre-Vatican II rite, by a bishop consecrated likewise
* With the intention of doing what the Church has traditionally done, viz. confecting a sacrifice of the true Body and Blood
* Using certainly valid matter, viz. plain wheaten bread and pure grape wine
* Adhering strictly to the rubrics of the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae
* Using the Roman Canon ("Eucharistic Prayer I") as it appears in the 1969 Missal

Other considerations:

* In Latin versus the vernacular (NB: permission has been given, in isolated cases, for the Tridentine missal or its predecesors, to be used in a vernacular version, and AFAIK nobody has questioned the validity of those Masses)?
* If in the vernacular, with pro multis being rendered as "for many" (or its equivalent in whatever vernacular language being used)?
* Using any of the other original four Eucharistic prayers (II, III, IV)?

I've read discussions of this, but they revolve around such things as a priest being ordained in the new rite, a bishop having been consecrated in the new rite, defect of intention, using doubtful matter, and playing fast and loose with the rubrics.  I've also omitted such things as ad orientem, exchange of the communal sign of peace, use of lectors (a fortiori female ones), and so on, as none of these things affect validity.

Thoughts from the forum?

Yes, I hold that the NO Mass is invalid ex adjunctis due to the replacement of a Catholic Offertory, which unequivocally expresses the nature of the Mass as Sacrifice (vs. some institution narrative by way of commemoration), with a тαℓмυdic table prayer.

Only an idiot without any knowledge of Catholic Sacramental Theology thinks that the Mass can't be invalidated by its context (in this case the blatantly non-Catholic "offertory") just because the essential form may (now) be correct).

Pope Leo XIII explained the principle at work in the invalidation of the Anglican Orders, rendering them invalid even after they had corrected the main defect in the essential form.

Striving4Holiness was one of the tsunami of newbie trolls that infested CathInfo in November:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/open-letter-to-e-michael-jones-in-defense-of-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano/msg959742/#msg959742

In his early posts he revealed himself and I  spotlighted him as among the newbie trolls:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/open-letter-to-e-michael-jones-in-defense-of-archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano/msg959743/#msg959743

Having seen that the other trolls were banned, Striving4Holiness kept a low profile until late January.

The troll is back. It is not yet clear whether Striving4Holiness is just a back-up account of one of the already banned trolls or if he is himself a new and different troll.

Let's keep a careful eye on this one. Meanwhile I will gather some kindling and fuel for the fire.

Can a case be made for the Novus Ordo Mass being per se invalid, and if so, why, given the following "best-case scenario"?

* Offered by a priest ordained according to the pre-Vatican II rite, by a bishop consecrated likewise
* With the intention of doing what the Church has traditionally done, viz. confecting a sacrifice of the true Body and Blood
* Using certainly valid matter, viz. plain wheaten bread and pure grape wine
* Adhering strictly to the rubrics of the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae
* Using the Roman Canon ("Eucharistic Prayer I") as it appears in the 1969 Missal

Other considerations:

* In Latin versus the vernacular (NB: permission has been given, in isolated cases, for the Tridentine missal or its predecesors, to be used in a vernacular version, and AFAIK nobody has questioned the validity of those Masses)?
* If in the vernacular, with pro multis being rendered as "for many" (or its equivalent in whatever vernacular language being used)?
* Using any of the other original four Eucharistic prayers (II, III, IV)?

I've read discussions of this, but they revolve around such things as a priest being ordained in the new rite, a bishop having been consecrated in the new rite, defect of intention, using doubtful matter, and playing fast and loose with the rubrics.  I've also omitted such things as ad orientem, exchange of the communal sign of peace, use of lectors (a fortiori female ones), and so on, as none of these things affect validity.

Thoughts from the forum?

Yes, the Novus Ordo liturgy is, by design, invalid as a propitiatory SACRIFICE of the "immaculate Host [the Victim]." It can, in some cases, produce a valid Sacramental Host, but it does not do all that is required for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice for sins, which requires "the shedding of blood." As St. Paul says in Hebrews 9:22, "without shedding of blood there is no remission."

So, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass requires the "double consecration," i.e., two independent consecrations, one of the Body and one the Blood, which represents the separation of those same two elements, as if a lamb was being slaughtered on the altar.

The Novus Ordo breaks this complete sacrificial action by invalidating the Consecration of the Wine. So, even if you have a validly-ordained priest saying the Mass, because the form of the Consecration of the Wine has been broken, there will not be a valid propitiatory SACRIFICE of the VICTIM. At the end, I will show that doing a single Consecration without the other is called "wicked" by the Church. This is why the Novus Ordo is a sacrilege, a form of "black Mass."

How do we know they invalidated the Consecration of the Wine? I'll explain:

1. De defectibus (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html), the instruction included in the Roman Missal promulgated by Pius V and backed with the authority of the Papal Bull Quo Primum, states:

V - Defects of the form

20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

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

There is no doubt that the words "mysterium fidei" were removed from the form in the Novus Ordo. But does that change the meaning?


2. The removal of the words "mysterium fidei" does change the meaning of the form. St. Thomas Aquinas explains the meaning of every word in the proper form (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q78.A3). You should read that entire section, but here are the most important parts of that Article:

Obj. 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Isa. 57:14: Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people. But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ’s body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add the mystery of faith.

Reply Obj. 5: The word mystery is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ’s blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

-----

Obj. 6: Further, it was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word charity ought rather to be used than faith.

Reply Obj. 6: It is called the Sacrament of Faith, as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ’s blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ’s Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith because it is a profession of faith. This is called the Sacrament of Charity, as being figurative and effective thereof.

So, as St. Thomas says, those words have a very important precise theological meaning in the context of that prayer. They are not dispensable, according to him.


3. Someone might object that the words "mysterium fidei" are in still in the Novus Ordo, because it is said immediately after the Consecration in the memorial acclamation. However, those words are not part of "the form of the Sacrament" used to confect the Eucharist. How do we know this? We know it because the rubrics to the Novus Ordo require the "priest" to genuflect to the "Most Blessed Sacrament." This genuflection occurs BEFORE the words "mysterium fidei" are said by the "priest." Therefore, the intention of the "priest" to consecrate has ended BEFORE the words "mysterium fidei" are said by him. See the General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM]:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/docuмents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html)

274. A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross from the solemn adoration during the liturgical celebration on Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. Certain specific features to be observed in a concelebrated Mass are noted in their proper place (cf. nos. 210-251).

Clearly, the "priest" should not genuflect "after showing the chalice," if he believes that the words "mysterium fidei" are required to confect the Sacrament, because in the Novus Ordo he has not said those words at that point. Therefore, we can assume that his intention is to use a "form" that does not include the words "mysterium fidei."


4. But, as I mentioned above, this is not to say that a validly-ordained priest could not confect the Body of Our Lord during the Novus Ordo liturgy. He could do so. With the correct intention, he would absolutely do it, because the form of the Consecration of the Bread includes the necessary language. However, in doing so, he will, perhaps unknowingly, commit sacrilege. Here is what Canon law says:

Canon 817 (1917 Canon Law)
It is nefarious, even if urged by extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside of the celebration of Mass.


Canon 927 (1983 Canon Law)
It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

See this analysis on the concept of the "Black Mass." https://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-black-Mass.htm


5. When you understand the motives behind the Novus Ordo changes as well as the Presbyter Ordination changes in 1968, you will see that those responsible were trying to eliminate what they called "the slaughter-house priesthood" and the "slaughter-house Mass." The slaughtering of a Victim (Jesus) was just psychologically too jarring and unnecessary in their minds. So they created what Jesus described to Marie-Julie Jahenny as the "Second Celebration" for those "who await the reign of a new Messiah [the Antichrist] to make them happy."

Here are some quotes from her writings related to that:

Marie-Julie Jahenny on “the Second Celebration” (the Novus Ordo Mass)

Ecstasy July 21, 1881

"The Church will suffer the most cruel persecutions which hell has never yet invented.

"Soon, in large parts of this land of the dead, there will be no sanctuaries. The apostles will have fled. The holy souls weep over the ruins and abandonment; See how much they insult Me and how much they offend Me ... There will be a relentless hellish (attack) against the devotion to the Sacred Heart. "

"There will be a book of the 'second celebration' by the infamous spirits who have crucified Me anew and who await the reign of a new Messiah to make them happy. Many holy priests will refuse this book sealed with the words of the abyss, but unfortunately there are those who will accept it, and it will be used."

"The Bishops betray. They will give their strength and their life to the fatal government."

"Today, I, Creator, God, I lose all the authority of My Powers. Today, I am the most despised and regarded as the most incapable of men."

"In a short time, on the threatened earth that is no longer strong, because the blasphemies that have shaken it, the iniquities and crimes have separated it piece by piece, in a short time on French soil, I will no longer be recognized; My adorable dignity will be desecrated. They will (do more to Me than on the day of My Passion); (then) they had given Me nothing but a scarlet robe. Before the century is over, long before, they will have covered Me in all sorts of insults. The religion that I had established, the Gospel that I preached, all this, they will tear apart under an appalling form, to make trembling, and they will throw all these infamous things on My shoulders and all over My Adorable Body. They will change My sufferings and My grief of My Passion, in writings that will shake the heart of the righteous and their peaks will crack pain, as the mountain, on the day of My Crucifixion. Before the year which bears a figure of consolation to My French people, before that epoch is sounded, the holy sacrifices of the altars will have taken an infernal form."

"In the streets, in cities, in the countryside and in all villages, the infectious poison of those cursed books will spread with an immensity and with a rapidity hotter than the sun's path, from sunrise to sunset."


Ecstasy date November 27, 1901. (NOTE: Other sources say this prophecy was given in 1902)

Our Lord to Marie-Julie Jahenny:

“I give you a warning even today. The disciples who are not of My Holy Gospel are now in a great work of the mind to form as the second facsimiles when they will make to their idea and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words odious in My sight.

When the fatal hour arrives when they will put to the test the Faith of My eternal priesthood, it is these sheets that they will give to celebrate in this last period. The first period, it is that of My priesthood which exists since (or after) Me. The second, is the period of persecution when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion have formulated - and they are strongly enforced - these sheets as the book of the second celebration, these infamous spirits (or, infamous minds) are those who crucified Me and who are waiting for the reign of the new Messiah to make them happy."

"Many of My holy priests will refuse this book sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, (they) will be the exception, it will be used."


On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and its liturgy:

"They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children."

She announces the "dispersion of the pastors" by the Church herself; true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: "...new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities."

A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject.....


Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.


Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?

Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.

A few Snips from an interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject.....


Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.

Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.

When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.

I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.


Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?

Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.

My question concerned only validity, not liciety or morality.

Lots of good information here, and I thank everyone for their comments.

Simply drawing an analogy with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, the MISSAL itself can have an intention.  I believe that is where Trads misfire.  Pope Leo XIII made it clear that the Church, by judging intention, wasn't attempting or, rather, pretending, to read the internal forum intention, but rather the intention of the Missal, which having been carried out to implement the agenda of the "Reformers" by that very fact had a vitiated intention, and this remained true even AFTER they implemented a "fix" to the ambiguous/equivocal essential form that disambiguated it.

Same can be ... and must be ... said of the Novus Ordo, where the very intention of the Missal (the Liturgical initiative) was to blur the difference between the quintessentially Catholic theology of the Mass and the heretical Prot theology, and that by itself might suffice to vitiate it's intention.

In addition, if there's anything in the Mass that tells you what the intention of the Mass is, it's the Catholic Offertory.  See, the Canon includes an Institution Narrative, re-enacting Our Lord's actions/words.  But what is the intention of repeating them?  Just to commemorate it?  To put on a performance?  No, the Catholic Offertory explains that it's actually a Sacrifice.  That part got ripped out, leaving an "Institution Narrative" that can mean anything.

The new mass' consecration changed the formula from a precise, sacramental offering by the priest (in the first person, since He is offering it in the place of Christ) to a 3rd person narrative, which meets the goals of V2 to make the mass into a "memorial supper" instead of an actual, real, sacrifice.  The new mass is an abomination and a horrid sacrilege.

Exactly right.
The True Mass is a re-enactment of Calvary where the priest in Persona Christi offers the sacrificial Body and Blood to God. In the new "mass" the priest raises the bread and chalice to the community to show them what it is that they are about to eat.