Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Catholic Liturgical Life => Topic started by: Acolyte on February 17, 2014, 01:42:09 AM

Title: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Acolyte on February 17, 2014, 01:42:09 AM
While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

Feel free to agree or to argue otherwise. I will say I'd be delighted if the OF were to be phased out and we were to return to the TLM as the sole Roman Rite.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 17, 2014, 01:52:53 AM
This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Chestertonian on February 17, 2014, 01:59:46 AM
I think it is valid but lacking.  the Novus ordo is like a dusty old glass box... there is a lot of dust over it, lots of scratches, so it is hard to see the treasure inside.  Not as much light can get through.  Whereas the TLM is like a freshly polished, pure glass box where the treasure is clearly visible without any extra effort. But the treasure is still there either way--the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Bonaventure on February 17, 2014, 02:02:28 AM
No. As Archbishop Lefebvre said, it is a "bastard rite."
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 17, 2014, 09:30:38 AM
While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Maximilian on February 17, 2014, 11:31:04 AM
No. We can examine all the minute details, and that is a worth endeavor, and when we've put together the pieces, we can see that essential elements are lacking. However, what is even more important, is to look at the bigger picture. What is the spirit of the NO? What is the intention? It is not a Catholic spirit. It is not a Catholic intention. It is the spirit of man, intending to worship itself.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: LouisIX on February 17, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Bonaventure on February 17, 2014, 02:45:15 PM
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
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: bben15 on February 17, 2014, 03:29:23 PM
Is it a valid Mass? Yes, and the Church regularly celebrates it.

However, is it distinctively Catholic? If you ask me, then no. The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo. The NO cannot be called distinctly Catholic because it's almost the same as a Lutheran or Anglican service. So, I have to say that it is just a Mass, not a Catholic Mass.

Plus, it was promulgated for ecumenism, not for the spiritual good of the Catholic faithful. A Catholic Mass is meant to bring people closer to Catholicism. The Novus Ordo does the opposite.   

The TLM is distinctively Catholic, while the NO is not.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Chestertonian on February 17, 2014, 03:32:08 PM
The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 17, 2014, 03:40:48 PM
The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: bben15 on February 17, 2014, 03:47:44 PM
While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.

I would love to see the NO abrogated and the pre-1955 Missal to be used, or at least the 1962 Missal. But, the 1965 is better than the Novus Ordo.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Maximilian on February 17, 2014, 03:49:12 PM
The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

I don't understand your point. Are trying to say that the Mass was first invented in 365 AD?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 17, 2014, 03:52:44 PM
While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.

I would love to see the NO abrogated and the pre-1955 Missal to be used, or at least the 1962 Missal. But, the 1965 is better than the Novus Ordo.

I think that the majority of Catholics have become so attached to using vernacular that the transition to the TLM would be difficult for them.  The 1965 rite would be an easier adjustment for them while avoiding the major problems with the NO.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 17, 2014, 04:02:47 PM
The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.

1600.  Only off by 20%.  Not bad.

I don't understand your point. Are trying to say that the Mass was first invented in 365 AD?

A few things because I'm dumb.

1)  I should have said "1300", since the codification of the Mass was around 600 (with Pope St Gregory the Great).

2)  I was trying to be a little humorous, but that failed when my thinking was off.

3)  Mass was first said by Jesus, obviously, but codified in 600.

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 17, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
While the NO was validly promulgated as Mass, it does not express the Catholic Faith that well.

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 17, 2014, 04:09:52 PM
While obviously less reverent and lacking compared to the TLM, I believe the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) is a valid Roman Catholic Mass.

I agree. 

I would like to see the NO abrogated and replaced by the 1965 rite while, at the same time, access to the TLM is improved so that it is a realistic option for most Catholics to attend.
Why even complicate the matter with the 1965 rite?

Just have one Rite throughout the whole world for unity.

The TLM in the Roman Church.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 17, 2014, 04:12:17 PM
The TLM had been in use for 1,900 years in the Church, only to be replaced by the Novus Ordo.

not....exactly.
The most important parts of the TLM are that old.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: dueSicilie on February 17, 2014, 04:20:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 17, 2014, 04:26:31 PM
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.

Exactly. 
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 17, 2014, 04:35:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Penelope on February 17, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
Would this be a good time to remind everyone that trads ought not use the "Ordinary Form/Extraordinary Form" terminology? No matter what our prelates claim, the two rites are not two versions of the same Mass. We need to weed this mentality out of Catholics' understanding of the Mass(es).
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 17, 2014, 04:45:46 PM
No trad worth his salt uses the lying phrase extraordinary form.   

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 17, 2014, 04:46:01 PM
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?

It is interesting to note that none of the approved Eucharistic miracles chosen for this Vatican exhibit occurred in the NO:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm


Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 17, 2014, 05:07:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Christknight104 on February 17, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
No trad worth his salt uses the lying phrase extraordinary form.   

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

The problem is that the Superior General of the FSSP and various Institute priests have used that term themselves in their sermons.  Can one  say the same about them?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 17, 2014, 05:17:48 PM
I would argue probably.  It's a filthy, lying phrase.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: bben15 on February 17, 2014, 06:04:28 PM
I would argue probably.  It's a filthy, lying phrase.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

"Two equal forms of the Roman Rite."  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Bonaventure on February 17, 2014, 06:46:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: VeraeFidei on February 17, 2014, 07:51:19 PM
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.

No trad worth his salt uses the lying phrase extraordinary form.   

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

The problem is that the Superior General of the FSSP and various Institute priests have used that term themselves in their sermons.  Can one  say the same about them?
Yep, this is a tough one. Two ICRSS priests I know regularly use the term "Extraordinary Form," moreso than any other term for the TLM.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Maximilian on February 17, 2014, 07:55:06 PM
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?

Yes. Just like the church in England did 450 years ago. And the church in Northern Europe did a few years before that.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 17, 2014, 08:04:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: LouisIX on February 17, 2014, 08:21:52 PM
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.

I don't think it is correct terminology but I also use it when speaking to a certain audience, both for ease and to better speak to that audience.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Acolyte on February 17, 2014, 08:24:32 PM
This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: LouisIX on February 17, 2014, 08:25:00 PM
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

"Bastard" is just a pejorative phrase with no theological value.  In order to properly answer the question we have to make proper distinctions.  Of course none of us like the Novus Ordo Missae, but that's not the question here.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Acolyte on February 17, 2014, 08:27:44 PM
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?

That it is valid.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: LouisIX on February 17, 2014, 08:46:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 17, 2014, 10:51:00 PM
This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.


It's not enough. Especially since the traditional offertory prayers were replaced with "work of human hands etc." and the translation for 45 years was "pray brethren that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable". That was done deliberately, as were all of the changes in the NO. I'm grateful to Benedict for allowing a more correct translation, but the NO is still gravely deficient unless Canon I is used. And it usually isn't.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 17, 2014, 10:54:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 18, 2014, 12:27:36 AM
I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Chestertonian on February 18, 2014, 12:46:38 AM
I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You can have a Latin Novus Ordo that is at least aesthetically traditional.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 18, 2014, 05:30:15 AM
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".
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 18, 2014, 05:36:12 AM
I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I agree with you but what is ironic is that the usual definition for those two words actually make it sound like what most are saying here:  the TLM is extraordinary and the NO is just ordinary.  The latter being inferior.  Of course in Church terminology it means something different, but it is ironic.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 18, 2014, 05:41:51 AM
This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.


It's not enough. Especially since the traditional offertory prayers were replaced with "work of human hands etc." and the translation for 45 years was "pray brethren that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable". That was done deliberately, as were all of the changes in the NO. I'm grateful to Benedict for allowing a more correct translation, but the NO is still gravely deficient unless Canon I is used. And it usually isn't.

Correct. Giving lip-service to the word sacrifice once or twice does not automatically make the NO "Propitiatory". The TLM is clearly propitiatory through and through.  The mass was gutted.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:02:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:06:58 AM
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.

I don't think it is correct terminology but I also use it when speaking to a certain audience, both for ease and to better speak to that audience.
I never use the nonsensical terms of "extraordinary" or "ordinary" when referring to Mass in the Latin Rite.

It is Traditional Latin Mass or Novus Ordo, which is what they are.

Those other terms are another ambiguous use of "newspeak".
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:08:22 AM
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?

Yes. Just like the church in England did 450 years ago. And the church in Northern Europe did a few years before that.
The NO is a valid and licit Mass if said according to the form in which it was promulgated.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 18, 2014, 08:09:37 AM
You can have a Latin Novus Ordo that is at least aesthetically traditional.

This doesn't make it Traditional.  Hence, "Traditional Latin Mass."
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 18, 2014, 08:10:30 AM
I never us the nonsensical terms of "extraordinary" or "ordinary" when referring to Mass in the Latin Rite.

It is Traditional Latin Mass or Novus Ordo, which is what they are.

Those other terms are another ambiguous use of "newspeak".

Thank you!
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Kaesekopf on February 18, 2014, 08:11:32 AM
Can we also please stop the absurdity of claiming there are more than a dozen Latin Novus Ordos?

I imagine that there've been more clown and polka Masses than there have been Novus Ordos in Latin (or even "by the book", such a meaningless phrase).
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:12:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:15:09 AM
I fail to see how 'Traditional Latin Mass' fails to convey something that 'extraordinary form' does.  TLM refers exactly to what you mean.  Everyone knows it.  Up until Summorum, that's what it was known as and no one had a problem.

'EF' is a compromised phrase, a lie, and just wrong.  If the TLM was never abrogated, it takes precedence/priority over the NO due to age and constancy of offering.

To say anything like EF is to lose the war of words, and words are very important.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

You can have a Latin Novus Ordo that is at least aesthetically traditional.
The New Order Mass, by its very name, deletes anything Traditional, no matter how it might look or what language it is in.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 18, 2014, 08:18:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Elliott on February 18, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
I'm speaking for myself and don't intend to insult anyone else here. If I believed that the N O was a Catholic mass I would feel silly being a traditionalist. Why would I trouble myself to find a TLM and everything else that rejecting the N O entails. It would seem too much trouble for what would be a preference. I would think I should move along with the Church, if the pope gave it to us then it must be what God wants for me.
I didn't stop going to the N O because I preferred the TLM. I actually enjoyed the N O more at the time.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 18, 2014, 03:12:28 PM
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.

Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Acolyte on February 18, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
This is a rather complex question that isn't easy to answer. I believe that the NO, when celebrated by a valid priest with a valid intention, makes present the Sacrifice of Calvary. Unfortunately that isn't good enough, because the same thing was true of the first liturgy of Cranmer that was imposed in England in 1549. Like the NO, a Catholic priest could say the Cranmerian liturgy and objectively make the Sacrifice present. But was it a Catholic Mass? Emphatically not.

The Novus Ordo was created by a committee of liturgical modernists that deliberately removed all references to the sacrificial nature of the Mass from the liturgy and made it ambiguous in order to please Protestants(this is of public record). This committee even wanted the Roman Canon(Canon I) removed, but at the behest of Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI overruled the committee and kept the Roman Canon. So perhaps it's still a Catholic rite when Canon I is used; the other canons are extremely problematic from a traditional Catholic perspective. My answer is to avoid the NO and go only to the TLM, or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy(which I almost exclusively attend these days). But it's not an easy question to answer.

But there is this....



    Priest: Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
    All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his holy Church.


It's not enough. Especially since the traditional offertory prayers were replaced with "work of human hands etc." and the translation for 45 years was "pray brethren that OUR sacrifice may be acceptable". That was done deliberately, as were all of the changes in the NO. I'm grateful to Benedict for allowing a more correct translation, but the NO is still gravely deficient unless Canon I is used. And it usually isn't.

"work of human hands" - I think that phrase is brought up as a way to claim the mass is centered on man. Understandable but I don't see it as a real problem.

Long before the NO, +Sheen wrote

" Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise."-Luke 23:43. THIS is now the offertory of the Mass, for our Lord is offering Himself to His heavenly Father. But in order to remind us that He is not offered alone, but in union with us, He unites with His offertory the soul of the thief at the right. "

I'm sorry. We can say the Mass was stripped of far too many prayers, that it is inferior to the TLM, and that it allows far too much wiggle room for novelty and such. But to say it's not Catholic just isn't true. The Creed is there, the Consecration is there.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Maximilian on February 18, 2014, 04:47:06 PM
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.

What is a novel phenomenon is the NO, as it's name implies. People did not need to evaluate synthetic liturgies because there was no such thing. No new "Mass" was ever invented before, except by people like Cranmer. There were various versions of the liturgy in various countries and religious orders, but those were all organic creations that developed over the course of many centuries. There was never such a thing as a "New" Mass that people had to decide about.

So by the traditional standard, the NO is the very antithesis of a Roman Catholic Mass.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 18, 2014, 04:51:24 PM
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.

What is a novel phenomenon is the NO, as it's name implies. People did not need to evaluate synthetic liturgies because there was no such thing. No new "Mass" was ever invented before, except by people like Cranmer. There were various versions of the liturgy in various countries and religious orders, but those were all organic creations that developed over the course of many centuries. There was never such a thing as a "New" Mass that people had to decide about.

So by the traditional standard, the NO is the very antithesis of a Roman Catholic Mass.

The way the NO Mass developed was not traditional, true enough.  But the way that a Mass developed has never been a criterion for being a Catholic Mass.  The tradition has always been that one accepts what the Pope says is a Mass and does not determine it for oneself.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Bonaventure on February 18, 2014, 05:05:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Maximilian on February 18, 2014, 05:44:50 PM
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.

What is a novel phenomenon is the NO, as it's name implies. People did not need to evaluate synthetic liturgies because there was no such thing. No new "Mass" was ever invented before, except by people like Cranmer. There were various versions of the liturgy in various countries and religious orders, but those were all organic creations that developed over the course of many centuries. There was never such a thing as a "New" Mass that people had to decide about.

So by the traditional standard, the NO is the very antithesis of a Roman Catholic Mass.

The way the NO Mass developed was not traditional, true enough.  But the way that a Mass developed has never been a criterion for being a Catholic Mass.  The tradition has always been that one accepts what the Pope says is a Mass and does not determine it for oneself.

This represents the essence of so much that is wrong with the Church today. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, since you are just articulating what is believed by so many others. But it is completely false.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 18, 2014, 05:53:00 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: VeraeFidei on February 18, 2014, 06:18:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 18, 2014, 08:49:15 PM
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).
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 18, 2014, 08:52:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 19, 2014, 05:25:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 19, 2014, 05:26:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 19, 2014, 09:37:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 19, 2014, 09:41:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Older Salt on February 19, 2014, 09:44:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 19, 2014, 12:39:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Larry on February 19, 2014, 12:41:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: VeraeFidei on February 19, 2014, 05:42:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: VeraeFidei on February 19, 2014, 05:47:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Jayne on February 19, 2014, 06:04:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: ImperialGuardsman on February 19, 2014, 08:55:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: VeraeFidei on February 20, 2014, 12:52:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: SouthpawLink on February 21, 2014, 08:07:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Petrie on February 21, 2014, 04:21:16 PM
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".   ;)
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: Patriarch on February 21, 2014, 08:43:25 PM
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).
Title: Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
Post by: SouthpawLink on February 21, 2014, 11:27:52 PM
Thank you for your correction, Petrie.  ;)