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

[Jayne]

The way that a Mass was developed has always been the criterion for determining whether it is Catholic or not. Either it arises from ancient and apostolic lineage or it does not. There is no other real criterion.

Can you support your claim with any sort of documentation? I can not think of any examples of lay people evaluating the catholicity of the Mass based on this or any other criteria.

The pope has never had the power to create a "Mass" out of thin air. Nor any other parts of the Catholic Faith for that matter. His job is to be a servant who protects and hands down the patrimony he has received.

The pope does have authority over the liturgy, although it is not absolute.  He does have the authority to establish new rites. This is described in Mediator Dei

Also the NO was not created "out of thin air" even though it did not develop organically.  It drew from established Catholic sources. 

[VeraeFidei]

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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

[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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Absolutely false. Read Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order. Cranmer's prayer service was ambiguous enough to confect the Sacrament when a true priest with the correct intention said it(and there were lots of true priests in England in the wake of the English Reformation).

[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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

Yup. Cranmer's prayer service used the correct words of consecration: "For you and for many". The vernacular Novus Ordo didn't even have that going for it up until a few years ago.

[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.

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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

Yup. Cranmer's prayer service used the correct words of consecration: "For you and for many". The vernacular Novus Ordo didn't even have that going for it up until a few years ago.

So, the Catholic Church has given us Cranmer's Service Part Deux? This is why it behooves us to look at what else the "Catholic" Church gave us with Vatican II.  The changes are part of a bigger package.  How about the priests?  What about bishops?  What about those new rites?  It is imperative to look at those changes as well because if the "Catholic" Church can give us a Faux Catholic Mass why not Faux Catholic priests and bishops.  We could have a Cranmer's Prayer Service post Reformation when the priests were no longer priests.

[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.

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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

Could you post them?

[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.

I couldn't care less for its validity. Liciety is the crux of the matter.

Legal means licit.

[Older Salt]

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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

Ever compare the "consecration" of the wine in Cranmers Prayer service with the NO prayer?

We are talking about the difference in validity betwixt Cranmers service and the NO.
Not the TLM, here.

[Older Salt]

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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Absolutely false. Read Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order. Cranmer's prayer service was ambiguous enough to confect the Sacrament when a true priest with the correct intention said it(and there were lots of true priests in England in the wake of the English Reformation).

Incorrect.
Rome officially declared that Cranmers service was an invalid mass from the beginning.

"Cranmers Godly Order" also says this.

[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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Ever compared the text of the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood to its new order counterpart?

Yup. Cranmer's prayer service used the correct words of consecration: "For you and for many". The vernacular Novus Ordo didn't even have that going for it up until a few years ago.

So, the Catholic Church has given us Cranmer's Service Part Deux? This is why it behooves us to look at what else the "Catholic" Church gave us with Vatican II.  The changes are part of a bigger package.  How about the priests?  What about bishops?  What about those new rites?  It is imperative to look at those changes as well because if the "Catholic" Church can give us a Faux Catholic Mass why not Faux Catholic priests and bishops.  We could have a Cranmer's Prayer Service post Reformation when the priests were no longer priests.

No, it's a heretical service that could be valid under certain conditions.

[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.

Incorrect.
Cranmers Prayer Service altered the prayers that confected the Sacrament as to make it invalid, no matter if a valid priest was saying it.

The NO does not.

Absolutely false. Read Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order. Cranmer's prayer service was ambiguous enough to confect the Sacrament when a true priest with the correct intention said it(and there were lots of true priests in England in the wake of the English Reformation).

Incorrect.
Rome officially declared that Cranmers service was an invalid mass from the beginning.

"Cranmers Godly Order" also says this.

Please cite the source from the Church that says Cranmer's service was always invalid.

[VeraeFidei]

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.

Funnily enough, there is a very recent article on the blog Rorate Caeli about this very question. While I think their non-condemnation of the term "Extraordinary Form" is quite troubling, they do indeed make it clear a) that it is not normative, objectively speaking; b) that no one in authority has commanded its use over and above another "name" for the TLM, and c) that even in Summorum, Benedict uses other terms and also appears to contradict himself about whether or not the TLM and the New order are distinct rites.

[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?

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.

[Jayne]

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.

[ImperialGuardsman]

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".

It does not matter if the intention of the Concilium was not correct, the NO was promulgated by valid authority in Pope Paul VI as Mass, ergo his binding it as such made it valid.

Is there a limit or breaking point to this logic?  Can something truly terrible become valid just because it gets validly promulgated?  If Paul VI were to have promulgated a different Mass, let's call it the Ultra Novas Ordo, wherein there was no canon but only the Supper Narrative, would it still be made valid by his binding it as such?  To be clear, we would go from the Prayers of the Faithful immediately to the Narrative of the Last Supper.  Matter would still be correct, intention could still be correct, and the form would have been approved. 
Just for perspective, I am at the NO far more often than the TLM.