Follow-up on N.O.M.

[Miriam_M]

The Rorate article is here:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2024/04/on-55th-anniversary-of-novus-ordo.html#more

I post this because the validity of the NOM --not specific to Una Cum -- was being discussed earlier on the SV forum before the branching out to the Terry Schiavo matter. But it's a subject that has value to sedeplenists, doubters, and the uncommitted as well.

Some notable segments of this article:

One does not have to be a great mathematician to take the findings of these scholars to arrive at the conclusion that only 38% of what is contained in the Roman Missal of 1962 was retained in some form in the Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI. That this was the intent or expectation of the revision called for by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council has no basis in Sacrosanctum Concilium. It is a fact that to call the Missal promulgated in 1969 as continuous with the previous books called the Roman Missal up to 1962 is an affront to reality under the cover of cynical nominalism.



The Missal promulgated by St. Paul VI is the product of the members of the Consilium appointed by the Pope to carry out the revisions to the Missal asked for by the Council Fathers. Much has been written about the members and work of this Consilium, headed by Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the radical reconstruction of the Holy Week Rites promulgated in 1955.  It would be a gross understatement to say that what resulted from the Consilium was the product of shoddy scholarship du jour, incompetence, a romanticism about the early Church and a disregard for the organic integrity of the Roman Mass within the Catholic Tradition.  The form of the Roman Mass that resulted is a snapshot of a particular decade in Western history. Its relevance to the postmodern world is increasingly irrelevant.  The history of the Catholic Church in the past fifty years speaks for itself.  The laity who remain in the Church and continue to practice the Faith: they are the real evidence of the divine nature of the Church against which the gates of Hell cannot prevail. These faithful men and women do not confuse the Holy Spirt with the "Spirit" of Vatican II.



To be clear about an important point:  there is no question of the validity of the Paul VI Missal.  It is valid, it is worship, the Sacrifice is made present and the Sacrament is confected. God does not abandon his Church because of the foolishness and pridefulness of those called by Him to lead his Church.  If the existence and reality of the Church were at the mercy of le trahison des clercs, then the gates of Hell would have indeed prevailed long ago against Her. Without any denigration of the role of the papacy in the Catholic Church, we must remember  St. Paul's words:  "He is the head of the body, the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be preeminent." And that He--is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Bonaventure]

There will never be a consensus on validity until this crisis is over.

I don't think the validity of the NO matters.

Spiritual harm is spiritual harm, whether the Eucharist is confected validly or not.

[Miriam_M]

There will never be a consensus on validity until this crisis is over.

I don't think the validity of the NO matters.

Spiritual harm is spiritual harm, whether the Eucharist is confected validly or not.

I was actually much more interested in the portions about the destruction of the Missal and the dismissal of the principles and directives in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

[awkward customer]

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, it certainly seems as if the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  (See other thread)

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, if there are no more Bishops, soon there won't be any more priests.

[Miriam_M]

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, it certainly seems as if the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  (See other thread)

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, if there are no more Bishops, soon there won't be any more priests.

Which would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ has defected, which is an impossibility.

[Baylee]

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, it certainly seems as if the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  (See other thread)

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, if there are no more Bishops, soon there won't be any more priests.

Which would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ has defected, which is an impossibility.

But a mass promulgated by the same church and hierarchy that gives spiritual harm to the Faithful would not mean it has defected? 

[awkward customer]

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, it certainly seems as if the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  (See other thread)

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, if there are no more Bishops, soon there won't be any more priests.

Which would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ has defected, which is an impossibility.

No. It would mean that the Conciliar Church, with its fake bishops and non-ordained priests, is not the Catholic Church.

[LausTibiChriste]

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, it certainly seems as if the NO rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  (See other thread)

Whether the NO Mass is valid or not, if there are no more Bishops, soon there won't be any more priests.

Which would mean that the Church of Jesus Christ has defected, which is an impossibility.

No it doesn't.

I don't have the ecclesiological knowledge to hash this out with any sort of academic rigour, but the "Church" is not the Vatican and the coke fueled gay heretics occupying it.

What appears to be the Church can defect while the actual Church remains.

It's akin to saying Christ wasn't God because He was beaten and bloodied

[awkward customer]

You've got to admit it's a brilliant strategy.

While everyone is distracted by arguments over the liturgical reforms, Latin, whether the Pope is the Pope, women in trousers, the consecration of Russia etc, the elimination of the Episcopacy carries on quietly, without anyone noticing.

I've been trying to work out how long it would take destroy the priesthood in this way - a generation at the most.  How long before the only valid bishops and priests in the world are Trads?

[Kaesekopf]

Let's keep this thread discussion limited to the topic noted:  the Novus Ordo Missae.  There's a sedevacantist subforum if you would like to discuss the (in)defectibility of the visible Church.

[Baylee]

Then shouldn't the whole thread be moved to the SV forum because the OP mentions the validity of the NOM? How does one debate in this thread about that without "going there"?   

[Kaesekopf]

Then shouldn't the whole thread be moved to the SV forum because the OP mentions the validity of the NOM? How does one debate in this thread about that without "going there"?   

Surely you can find the self-control to limit the discussion to only the NOM? 

There's more to life than sedevacantism.

[Baylee]

Then shouldn't the whole thread be moved to the SV forum because the OP mentions the validity of the NOM? How does one debate in this thread about that without "going there"?   

Surely you can find the self-control to limit the discussion to only the NOM? 

There's more to life than sedevacantism.

That's ironic given (in)defectibility wasn't even raised by a "sedevacantist".

I just thought posting it in the SV forum would allow for a more open discussion on the topic given validity was raised in the OP. It was a respectful question.  There was no need to be rude.

[Kaesekopf]

That's ironic given (in)defectibility wasn't even raised by a "sedevacantist".

awkward customer isn't a sede? 

[Baylee]

That's ironic given (in)defectibility wasn't even raised by a "sedevacantist".

awkward customer isn't a sede? 

Miriam was the one who brought up defectibilty.
AC made a comment that she concluded meant the Catholic Church defected.