Author Topic: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?  (Read 14449 times)

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #45 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".
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 09:48:09 AM by Older Salt »
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #46 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.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20647
  • Thanked: 6436 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #47 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."
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20647
  • Thanked: 6436 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #48 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!
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20647
  • Thanked: 6436 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #49 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).
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #50 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.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #51 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.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Older Salt

  • Ora Pro Nobis Sancta dei Genitrix.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2863
  • Thanked: 235 times
  • Pray for the Dead.
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #52 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.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.
 

Offline Elliott

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
  • Thanked: 24 times
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #53 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.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13324
  • Thanked: 5566 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #54 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.

Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Acolyte

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 434
  • Thanked: 150 times
  • Soli Deo gloria
  • Religion: RC
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #55 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.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 03:26:41 PM by Acolyte »
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5445
  • Thanked: 3448 times
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #56 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.
 

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13324
  • Thanked: 5566 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #57 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.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 

Offline Bonaventure

  • Oberstleutnant
  • Hauptmann
  • *****
  • Posts: 9047
  • Thanked: 1651 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #58 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.
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5445
  • Thanked: 3448 times
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #59 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.