Author Topic: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?  (Read 13476 times)

Offline VeraeFidei

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2353
  • Thanked: 243 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #75 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.
 

Offline SouthpawLink

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 995
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #76 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.
"Is there no exception to the rule forbidding the administration of the Sacraments to baptized non-Catholics who are in good faith? In the case of those who are in good health, the prohibition is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office" (Rev. S. Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. I, sec. 625, p. 322ff.).

Contrast the above with the 1983 CIC, Can. 844 §3 & 4: "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church. . . .  If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church." — The phrase "properly disposed" does not save the canon from error, because the context shows that no conversion is expected on the part of non-Catholics ("manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments" is the sole requirement).
 

Offline Petrie

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1489
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #77 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".   ;)
Also known as 2Vermont in case you were wondering :-)
 

Offline Patriarch

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 396
  • Thanked: 70 times
  • Jesus, Son of David, have mercy upon me.+
  • Religion: traditional Catholicism (FSSP)
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #78 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).
“Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy great mercy . . . ”
— Psalm 50, 3.
 

Offline SouthpawLink

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 995
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Do You Believe The Ordinary Form Is A Roman Catholic Mass ?
« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2014, 11:27:52 PM »
Thank you for your correction, Petrie.  ;)
"Is there no exception to the rule forbidding the administration of the Sacraments to baptized non-Catholics who are in good faith? In the case of those who are in good health, the prohibition is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office" (Rev. S. Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. I, sec. 625, p. 322ff.).

Contrast the above with the 1983 CIC, Can. 844 §3 & 4: "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church. . . .  If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church." — The phrase "properly disposed" does not save the canon from error, because the context shows that no conversion is expected on the part of non-Catholics ("manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments" is the sole requirement).