I don't want to go to Mass anymore

[Michael Wilson]

C.R.
You are correct as to the "minimum-intention" as it relates to the Sacrament of Baptism; this is not the case as in the sacrament of the Eucharist  and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, here is a pre-Vatican II morals theology manual:

Moral Theology: A Complete Course, John A. McHough, O.P. And Charles Callan, O.P.
V-II. pg. 663.
b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.-Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration.

If a priest were to pronounce the words of Consecration in the manner of a narrative tone as is indicated by the N.O.M. There is a serious doubt as to the validity of the sacrament, as the original authors of the Ottaviani Intervention noted back in 1968:

The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" (no. 55d)
and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls
the memory of Christ Himself" (no. 556).
In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of
Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the
words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical
and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus
Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").1

Which the said authors also added this note:

8 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.

Just recently Cardinal Arthur Roche of the Dicastery of Divine Worship stated that the "theology of the Church has changed in regards to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass":
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-roche-says-latin-mass-needs-to-be-restricted-because-the-theology-of-the-church-has-changed/

Cdl. Roche says Latin Mass needs to be restricted because the 'theology of the Church has changed'
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Defending the increasing restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, Cardinal Arthur Roche – who leads the Vatican's Congregation (now Dicastery) for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments – stated that "the theology of the Church has changed."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 for a program aired March 19, Roche defended the restrictions on the Traditional Mass, which both he and Pope Francis have implemented since July 2021.

"The theology of the Church has changed," argued Roche. "Whereas before the priest represented, at a distance, all the people – they were channeled through this person who alone was celebrating the Mass."

Now, though, Roche stated that "it is not only the priest who celebrates the liturgy but also those who are baptized with him, and that is an enormous statement to make."

Moments prior to this, Roche's comments were pre-empted by papal biographer Austen Ivereigh, who argued that those devoted to the Traditional Mass had "become a movement undermining the Second Vatican Council." Hence, said Ivereigh, the restrictions were necessary "to put a limit, to put borders, not to suppress it, but to put it back into the hands of the bishops."....

Apart from the fact that "the theology of the Church" cannot change without changing the faith,  the fact that the N.O.M. Represents an altogether new, different, non-Catholic , but rather an Ecumenical and Protestant one, so has the signification of the new rite of the Mass which is no longer Catholic but Ecumenical and Protestant.

[lauermar]

I know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.

That would be partaking in the worship of non-Catholics, and that is a Mortal Sin. That is definitely not an option.

I'm sorry that you're stranded away from the Traditional Mass...and that your local parish is such a source of heresy and pain. Certainly, don't assist at the "Mass" there. Nothing good seems to be happening in that place, and you'll only risk your faith and sanity to stay.

I know there's no TLM near you -- are there any other options? Eastern Catholics? Even Eastern Orthodox would be the valid body and blood of Our Lord, though we cannot receive at their liturgy. No, it isn't your patrimony as a Western Christian, but at least it is Our Lord and I've never seen an Orthodox priest spread modernism.

Nope that's a very stupid thing to do. While the Orthodox may seem reverent and all that (I'm sure they are) they are in schism from the Church and to attend their 'Masses' is undoubtedly a grave sin.

They do have 7 valid sacraments, correct? They aren't Protestant. Given the ongoing heresies and modernist developments in the Roman church, lately ordained women and blessing gay marriages, the Orthodox are asking who is actually in schism and who is not? They haven't changed in 2000 years while the Roman church is unrecognizable.

Their tradition is vastly different. The give dulia to BVM but not hyper-dulia since they confuse it with latria. Mariology, the Rosary, Fatima and Marian feast days are viewed as Roman new developments. If you join, you can't practice these devotions openly. Also, you cannot partake of their sacraments without taking instruction and initiation rites first.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

They aren't Protestant

They aren't descended from the European heretic tradition known as "protestantism," but they are heretics.  Just like protestants...

[clau clau]

God forbid.

Unfortunately He didn't.

 

[Michael Wilson]

Lauremar on the so called Orthodox "churches":

They do have 7 valid sacraments, correct? They aren't Protestant. Given the ongoing heresies and modernist developments in the Roman church, lately ordained women and blessing gay marriages, the Orthodox are asking who is actually in schism and who is not? They haven't changed in 2000 years while the Roman church is unrecognizable.

The Orthodox have 7 valid sacraments, but they profess a false faith. The prohibition of Catholics to participate in non-Catholic sacraments is a divine precept, not a Church discipline law. By participating in these sacraments, you are proclaiming that the Orthodox are the true Church and the Catholic Church is a false one.

Their tradition is vastly different. The give dulia to BVM but not hyper-dulia since they confuse it with latria. Mariology, the Rosary, Fatima and Marian feast days are viewed as Roman new developments. If you join, you can't practice these devotions openly. Also, you cannot partake of their sacraments without taking instruction and initiation rites first.

And in many cases you will be required to be re-baptized and renounce the "errors" of the Catholic Church, such as the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son; the infallibility of the Pope; Purgatory; and of course true devotion to Our Blessed Mother. They do not "confuse" anything; they know what the Catholic Church teaches and why, but they have hardened their hearts against God's revelation.

[Santantonio]

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of
Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi of the
words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the
constituents of a historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical
and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus
Meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").1

This would appear to be one of the misunderstandings or points that were "fixed" ?
The OI was a point in process, not a final judgement...

It should be noted that the Ottaviani Interention... "cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the Mass of Paul VI, which had been promulgated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, though the definitive text, which took account of some of the criticisms of the Short Critical Study, had not yet appeared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention

New and Traditional side-by-side
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TEXTS OF THE TRADITIONAL MISSAL AND THE NEW MISSAL OF 2011
https://lms.org.uk/missals

[Michael Wilson]

Santantonio,

This would appear to be one of the misunderstandings or points that were "fixed" ?
The OI was a point in process, not a final judgement...

The OI was based on the final draft of the N.O.M.

It should be noted that the Ottaviani Interention... "cast doubt on the orthodoxy of the Mass of Paul VI, which had been promulgated by the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969, though the definitive text, which took account of some of the criticisms of the Short Critical Study, had not yet appeared.

Yes, #7 of the G.I.R.M. Was modified, since it gave a Protestant definition of the Mass; but the new definition was also not a Catholic one, but a masterfully ambiguous one, where the authors were careful not to give the Catholic definition of the Mass, while appearing to do so.
The text of the Mass remained the same as the "Critical Study" had given its unfavorable assessment of; and summarized very well by the "Introduction" signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci:

the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

[awkward customer]

the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

The Novus Ordo Mass isn't valid then, is it?   How can it be if it represents a "striking departure from the theology of the Mass ...."?

The Conciliarists are quite open about the NO Mass not being the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they describe the NO Mass as 'the People of God gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist with the priest presiding'.

Sometimes all anyone has to do is realise that the Conciliarists mean what they say.

[Miriam_M]

They aren't Protestant.

According to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.

[james03]

According to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.

They allow 2 divorces.  That's heresy.

[Michael Wilson]

According to the Tradition of the Church, they (the Orthodox) are heretics.

They allow 2 divorces.  That's heresy.

Three; but what is the difference? Once you admit the principle that a valid, consummated marriage is dissolvable, then there is no real reason not to allow the dissolution of any number.