Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?

[Maximilian]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

Validity and liciety are two different things.

Regardless of its sacramental validity, it is a bastard rite. Holy Mother Church does not give her flock bastard liturgies. Ergo

You hit the nail squarely on the head here, bud.

So the Church gave us a Mass where the Body and Blood of Christ, the most unbelievable miracle ever on earth after the Resurrection, is not confected?

Yes. Just like the church in England did 450 years ago. And the church in Northern Europe did a few years before that.

[Jayne]

No trad worth his salt uses the lying phrase extraordinary form.   

I use it when it is the clearest way to communicate with my audience.  I have no problem using the terminology that Pope Benedict designated for us to use.

For what it is worth (not that I happen to care), he did no such thing; he merely stated that the Mass and the New Order are the "Extraordinary" and "Ordinary" forms; there is no command in Summorum to adopt the terminology.

I did not mean to say that he commanded us to use it but I can see that I did not phrase that clearly.  Thanks for clarifying.

[LouisIX]

No trad worth his salt uses the lying phrase extraordinary form.   

I use it when it is the clearest way to communicate with my audience.  I have no problem using the terminology that Pope Benedict designated for us to use.

I don't think it is correct terminology but I also use it when speaking to a certain audience, both for ease and to better speak to that audience.

[Acolyte]

This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.

[LouisIX]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

Validity and liciety are two different things.

Regardless of its sacramental validity, it is a bastard rite. Holy Mother Church does not give her flock bastard liturgies. Ergo

"Bastard" is just a pejorative phrase with no theological value.  In order to properly answer the question we have to make proper distinctions.  Of course none of us like the Novus Ordo Missae, but that's not the question here.

[Acolyte]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

That it is valid.

[LouisIX]

In that case, I believe that nearly all of us agree that it is valid.  But validity and the adjective of "Roman Catholic" are not necessarily congruent as the Orthodox have valid masses, as do various other heretics and schismatics.

[Larry]

This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.

It's not enough. Especially since the traditional offertory prayers were replaced with "work of human hands etc." and the translation for 45 years was "pray brethren that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable". That was done deliberately, as were all of the changes in the NO. I'm grateful to Benedict for allowing a more correct translation, but the NO is still gravely deficient unless Canon I is used. And it usually isn't.

[Larry]

In that case, I believe that nearly all of us agree that it is valid.  But validity and the adjective of "Roman Catholic" are not necessarily congruent as the Orthodox have valid masses, as do various other heretics and schismatics.

As mentioned earlier, Cranmer's Prayer Service was valid when said by validly ordained priests who had the correct intention. There were lots of priests during that era who appeased their consciences by saying that the new prayer service was valid and that the Sacrament could be confected during it. Even Luther's "Mass" could be valid under certain circumstances. What's amazing is that the Novus Ordo resembles both Cranmer and Luther's services in almost every detail when the First Canon isn't used.

[Kaesekopf]

I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Chestertonian]

I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You can have a Latin Novus Ordo that is at least aesthetically traditional.

[Petrie]

In that case, I believe that nearly all of us agree that it is valid.  But validity and the adjective of "Roman Catholic" are not necessarily congruent as the Orthodox have valid masses, as do various other heretics and schismatics.

The Orthodox liturgy is more "Catholic" (see Eastern Catholics) than the NO. 

Perhaps I am one of the few in this thread who have positive doubts about the validity of the NO.  When you read about the complete overhaul of the TLM and the clear intentions of those who designed it, it is very difficult to walk away thinking, "yeah, it's just as valid, just inferior".

[Petrie]

I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I agree with you but what is ironic is that the usual definition for those two words actually make it sound like what most are saying here:  the TLM is extraordinary and the NO is just ordinary.  The latter being inferior.  Of course in Church terminology it means something different, but it is ironic.

[Petrie]

This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.

It's not enough. Especially since the traditional offertory prayers were replaced with "work of human hands etc." and the translation for 45 years was "pray brethren that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable". That was done deliberately, as were all of the changes in the NO. I'm grateful to Benedict for allowing a more correct translation, but the NO is still gravely deficient unless Canon I is used. And it usually isn't.

Correct. Giving lip-service to the word sacrifice once or twice does not automatically make the NO "Propitiatory". The TLM is clearly propitiatory through and through.  The mass was gutted.

[Older Salt]

What do you mean by "Roman Catholic Mass"?  That is is promulgated by the Catholic Church?  That it is valid?  That it is adequately congruent and reflective of the Catholic tradition?

Validity and liciety are two different things.

Regardless of its sacramental validity, it is a bastard rite. Holy Mother Church does not give her flock bastard liturgies. Ergo

You hit the nail squarely on the head here, bud.

So the Church gave us a Mass where the Body and Blood of Christ, the most unbelievable miracle ever on earth after the Resurrection, is not confected?

What is so difficult to understand about validity having nothing to do with liceity?

The NO was legally promulgated by the Holy Father, but I was referring to the "ERGO" concluding his statement thereby insinuating invalidity.