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

[VeraeFidei]

Traditionally a Roman Catholic Mass was a valid Mass that was celebrated in communion with the Pope.  People did not take it upon themselves to evaluate a Mass in terms of how well it presented Catholic doctrine. This is a novel phenomenon. I think that everyone here agrees that the NO does not present Catholic doctrine well, certainly not as well as the TLM.  However, that has never been a criterion for determining whether a liturgy was a Catholic Mass. By the traditional standard, the NO is a Roman Catholic Mass.

Jayne.

Why was Cranmer's prayer service rejected, then?

Was Cranmer's prayer service in communion with the Roman Pontiff?  Aren't we talking about something established 1549, well after he had broken from Rome? (Even if you mean the 1544 liturgy, it is after the break.)

Your assertion that whether or not a Mass presents the truths of the faith is an untraditional criterion is, frankly, absolutely unbelievable. There has never been a time in the history of the Church when there was a Mass which did not properly present Catholic dogma. That is the entire point! We are in a Crisis, and the new order "Mass" is both an effect and a cause of the Crisis.

As far as I know, determining whether a Mass properly presented Catholic dogma has never been the task of laity.  This is an entirely novel thing.

Did Cranmer's service mention the Holy Father in the Canon? That would be an interesting question...

Also, the laity aren't "determining." We are using our god-given reason to draw logical conclusions and act accordingly; not to bind the consciences of others with our non-existent moral authority.

[SouthpawLink]

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.

Benedict XVI's terminology contradicts Paul VI's terminology, the latter of which repeatedly referred to the Novus Ordo as a "new Rite of Mass" (General Audiences of 19 November and 26 November 1969).

With regard to the OP, no, I do not believe the Novus Ordo to be a valid Mass, and will not until someone soundly refutes Fr. Cekada's Work of Human Hands, wherein he argues against the validity of the new form of consecration.

[Petrie]

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.

Benedict XVI's terminology contradicts Paul VI's terminology, the latter of which repeatedly referred to the Novus Ordo as a "new Rite of Mass" (General Audiences of 19 November and 26 November 1969).

With regard to the OP, no, I do not believe the Novus Ordo to be a valid Mass, and will not until someone soundly refutes Fr. Cekada's Work of Human Hands, wherein he argues against the validity of the new form of consecration.

I think you mean, "new form of Institution Narrative".   

[Patriarch]

No; it is a Protestant service. It was admittedly and intentionally designed by the 'Consilium' to purposefully approximate Protestant services (i.e., Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Calvinist services).

[SouthpawLink]

Thank you for your correction, Petrie.