Do invalid Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation?

[Daniel]

So the Catholic Church has a law saying that we must attend Mass every Sunday and every holy day of obligation.
The Catholic Church also says that the NO Mass is perfectly fine.
But we know that many NO Masses are probably invalid.

My question is, do these invalid Masses fulfill the obligation?
There's a NO parish just a few blocks from where I live, and I'm tempted to start going there, because it's closer and because their Mass is at a more convenient time (don't have to wait around all morning for Mass to start), but I highly suspect it's invalid due to a defect in the priest's intention (the priest, while saying Mass, acts more like a performer than a priest).


If we are bound to attend a valid Mass each Sunday and holy day of obligation, then why does the Catholic Church, knowing that many NO Masses are invalid, tell us that the NO Mass fulfills the obligation? The Catholic Church doesn't even issue a warning, "Warning: NOM might not fulfill the obligation. Attend at your own risk."

[Michael Wilson]

Father Henry Davis S.J. Pastoral and Moral Theology Vol. IV; Ch. VII page. 27:

In conferring the Sacraments (as also in the Consecration in Mass), It is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ our Lord has instituted; it would be a grievous sin against charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be a grievous sin against justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether 'ex officio' or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament. In the necessary Sacraments, there is no doubt about the triple sin; in Sacraments that are not necessary, there will always be the grave sacrilege against religion. The same is true of one who uses a probable opinion in the reception of a Sacrament, in respect of its matter or form, for his action, for his action exposes the Sacrament to invalidity.

So from what it states above, it would be wrong to assist at the N.O.M. If you think it is probably invalid. 

[Daniel]

Thanks, Michael Wilson. That makes sense. But do we know that that's not just the opinion of that priest?


The way I see it at the moment, it seems that if it is wrong to attend an invalid Mass, then either the NOM is always valid, or else the Catholic Church is negligent and uncharitable. The Catholic Church says that the former is untrue, yet if the the latter is true then the Catholic Church is unholy. From both possibilities it seems to follow that the Catholic Church is not the true Church.

[Michael Wilson]

Daniel,
the priest sites the ruling of Innocent XI which can be referenced in Denzinger.
The N.O. Is forcibly valid if the Popes promulgating it are true Popes; this is an open question as Msgr. Lefebvre himself stated on more than one occasion.
That goes also for the syllogism of the Church: The Church is infallible in her discipline; which includes the rites and ceremonies used in the celebration of the sacraments, when truly promulgated by the Church; in order to be truly promulgated by the Church there has to be a reigning Pope there to promulgate it. Which again is doubtful at least since John XXIII.

[Philip G.]

Daniel - I do not believe an invalid mass will fulfill the precept.  If you suspect the mass is invalid, do not attend.  Can you give me some examples of some of the things the priest does that are concerning?  Because, for it to affect intention/validity, it would have to be either very frequent, or very obviously problematic.  Is there any consistency to the mass he offers?  Meaning, is there any reflection of a rite taking place, or is it a free for all prayer session?  Are the words of the main repetitive prayers faithful to the original english translation?  That seems to be a tactic I notice.  The choir is given permission to lead the gloria, the sanctus, and the agnus dei, but they alter it under the guise of musicality and turn it into a pop song with a chorus and what not, when the words are not such in the original prayer.  Do they say any form of a confession/confetior?  They like to leave that one out.     

[St. Columba]

As an aside, if a priest does not take communion at the Mass, the mass is also invalid (according to the late Fr Hesse).

I have actually been to a few Novus Ordo Masses where the priest did not take communion.  In this case, I think it would be incumbent on the faithful to attend another mass later that (Sunday), if one is available.

[Miriam_M]

I have actually been to a few Novus Ordo Masses where the priest did not take communion. 

That's shocking.  It's inexplicable to me why the priest would not.

[Miriam_M]

An aside from me is that any Mass, including a TLM, is invalid if the priest fails to consecrate the wine and merely consecrates the bread.

[St. Columba]

I have actually been to a few Novus Ordo Masses where the priest did not take communion. 

That's shocking.  It's inexplicable to me why the priest would not.

Actually, believe it or not Miriam, I think it was a good sign: my guess is that the priest in question felt unworthy to receive, maybe because he committed a serious sin the night before (perhaps the solitary sin), and did not have the chance to go to confession.  How many Novus Ordo priests would not even care, and just communicate regardless.

I think I read that priests are allowed to do an act of perfect contrition in such cases and proceed with communicating, but I might be wrong about that.

I got to know the priest that occasionally did this (from Africa), and he struck me as someone who was struggling with his celibacy, but also had a conscience, making the above conjecture plausible. 

Thanks!   

[Miriam_M]

I have actually been to a few Novus Ordo Masses where the priest did not take communion. 

That's shocking.  It's inexplicable to me why the priest would not.

Actually, believe it or not Miriam, I think it was a good sign: my guess is that the priest in question felt unworthy to receive, maybe because he committed a serious sin the night before (perhaps the solitary sin), and did not have the chance to go to confession.  How many Novus Ordo priests would not even care, and just communicate regardless.

I don't care whether you personally thought it "a good sign."  The Church considers it a bad sign to celebrate the Mass while in a state of mortal sin.  It is a sacrilege, whether or not the priest communicates.  The four stated mortal sins are listed here:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/06/05/catholic-priest-who-offer-mass-in-mortal-sin-beware/

The four sins are explained herein:

No one sins more grievously than the priest that offers Sacrifice unworthily. When we sin in any other way we, as it were, injure God in His property, but when we unworthily offer Sacrifice we dare to lay violent hands upon His person. This was the sin of the Jews who had the daring audacity to offer violence to the person of Jesus Christ. But St. Augustine teaches that the sin of the priest that offers Sacrifice unworthily is still more grievous: "Those that unworthily offer Jesus Christ in Heaven sin more grievously than the Jews who crucified Him when He was upon earth." The Jews did not know the Redeemer as priests do. Besides, as Tertullian says, the Jews lay hands on Jesus Christ only once, but the sacrilegious priest dares frequently to repeat this injurIous treatment. It is also necessary to remark, that, according to the doctrine of theologians, a priest by the sacrilegious celebration of Mass is guilty of four mortal sins:

1. Because he consecrates in the state of sin;

2. Because he communicates in the state of sin;

3. Because he administers the Sacrament in the state of sin;

4. Because he administers it to an unworthy person, that is, to himself, who is in mortal sin. [Cfr. our Moral Theology, I. 6, n. 35, and V. Hic dicimus, 9]

So either the priest(s) in question were in a state of sin and attempting to reduce the four-fold sacrilege by half, or they were ignorant of their obligations.

[Stubborn]

So the Catholic Church has a law saying that we must attend Mass every Sunday and every holy day of obligation.
The Catholic Church also says that the NO Mass is perfectly fine.
But we know that many NO Masses are probably invalid.

My question is, do these invalid Masses fulfill the obligation?
There's a NO parish just a few blocks from where I live, and I'm tempted to start going there, because it's closer and because their Mass is at a more convenient time (don't have to wait around all morning for Mass to start), but I highly suspect it's invalid due to a defect in the priest's intention (the priest, while saying Mass, acts more like a performer than a priest).


If we are bound to attend a valid Mass each Sunday and holy day of obligation, then why does the Catholic Church, knowing that many NO Masses are invalid, tell us that the NO Mass fulfills the obligation? The Catholic Church doesn't even issue a warning, "Warning: NOM might not fulfill the obligation. Attend at your own risk."

The conciliar "mass" is not the Catholic Mass just as the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. All anyone needs to do to see this truth is; 1) compare the new "mass" with the True Mass, then 2) believe what you see. For whatever reason, #2 is most difficult to do for most people.

When the Church bound us under pain of mortal sin with the obligation of going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, She did not bind us to go to the new "mass" - which wasn't even invented then, rather, She bound us to go to the only Mass the Church has ever known, the True Mass. Per Quo Primum, *that* is the Mass we are obligated to assist at, not the new one, not ever and not under any circumstances whatsoever.

Popes can determine, add, subtract and change which Holy Days we are obligated to, but per Quo Primum, no pope can lawfully change the True Mass, much less create a new "mass", strip it of all things holy to make it a sacrilegious mockery of the True Mass, then oblige us to go to that mockery. It simply doesn't work that way. 

[Sempronius]

So the Catholic Church has a law saying that we must attend Mass every Sunday and every holy day of obligation.
The Catholic Church also says that the NO Mass is perfectly fine.
But we know that many NO Masses are probably invalid.

My question is, do these invalid Masses fulfill the obligation?
There's a NO parish just a few blocks from where I live, and I'm tempted to start going there, because it's closer and because their Mass is at a more convenient time (don't have to wait around all morning for Mass to start), but I highly suspect it's invalid due to a defect in the priest's intention (the priest, while saying Mass, acts more like a performer than a priest).


If we are bound to attend a valid Mass each Sunday and holy day of obligation, then why does the Catholic Church, knowing that many NO Masses are invalid, tell us that the NO Mass fulfills the obligation? The Catholic Church doesn't even issue a warning, "Warning: NOM might not fulfill the obligation. Attend at your own risk."

The conciliar "mass" is not the Catholic Mass just as the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. All anyone needs to do to see this truth is; 1) compare the new "mass" with the True Mass, then 2) believe what you see. For whatever reason, #2 is most difficult to do for most people.

When the Church bound us under pain of mortal sin with the obligation of going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, She did not bind us to go to the new "mass" - which wasn't even invented then, rather, She bound us to go to the only Mass the Church has ever known, the True Mass. Per Quo Primum, *that* is the Mass we are obligated to assist at, not the new one, not ever and not under any circumstances whatsoever.

Popes can determine, add, subtract and change which Holy Days we are obligated to, but per Quo Primum, no pope can lawfully change the True Mass, much less create a new "mass", strip it of all things holy to make it a sacrilegious mockery of the True Mass, then oblige us to go to that mockery. It simply doesn't work that way.

Thats too simplistic to think that way. If I am to judge the mass by the people that attend them then I can seriously not know which mass is "valid" because there are some people in novus ordo that are better than trads.


And a Pope can change the liturgy. A Pope cannot bind future popes.

[Michael Wilson]

Its not about the people who attend, its about the people who invented the N.O.M. Article 7 of the reformed (as in Protestant Reformation) missal stated what the new Mass was:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. [3] For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst." (Mt. 18:20)[4]

Therefore this new service is merely a "memorial'' and a "gathering of the people of God" with only a spiritual presence of Christ (they hope) as per Matt. 18.20.

[Stubborn]

Thats too simplistic to think that way. If I am to judge the mass by the people that attend them then I can seriously not know which mass is "valid" because there are some people in novus ordo that are better than trads.

We are dealing with #2 in my previous post.

Who said anything about judging by the people that attend them? Not I.

What I said, was to compare the two, that is, compare the True Mass to the new "mass" (see below video). The reason I said that is because the True Mass is the only thing the new "mass" can be compared to. You must compare the new "mass" to that which it replaced. Once you do this, then, just believe what you see - the majority seem to find this an impossibility.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJxM7Lo2URw[/yt]

And a Pope can change the liturgy. A Pope cannot bind future popes.

Because Quo Primum made that Liturgy (TLM) a law, it is as I said, "no pope can *lawfully* change the True Mass." If you can show us where anyone, pope included, is permitted to *lawfully* change the liturgy, please post it. Here is a link to Quo Primum for you, please read it. It is with good reason that the Law of  Quo Primum was prominently inserted at the very beginning of every altar missal up until V2.

Further, consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy forever.

If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.

Are you admitting that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy?

[Miriam_M]

Thats too simplistic to think that way. If I am to judge the mass by the people that attend them then I can seriously not know which mass is "valid" because there are some people in novus ordo that are better than trads.

It is too judgmental to think that way.  God alone knows that, not you.
Undoubtedly there are some people in the Novus Ordo that are "better" than some trads, just as the reverse is probably also true.  I assume by "better"you mean more virtuous, more holy, etc.  But "better" is judged by God alone.