Is it schismatic, heretical, to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?

Dear Reader:

Have you looked at the changes to the mass, and learned about your faith as you are obliged to do as a Catholic? How as a an Apologist, as a Defender of the Faith, are you able to defend the changes of the Conciliar Catholic Church since 1963, Vat. II?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

[quote=Kristopher]Dear Reader:

Have you looked at the changes to the mass, and learned about your faith as you are obliged to do as a Catholic? How as a an Apologist, as a Defender of the Faith, are you able to defend the changes of the Conciliar Catholic Church since 1963, Vat. II?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
[/quote]

From *The Catholic Way *by Bishop Donald Wuerl:

"St. Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century of the Christian era, was a devout follower of the Lord, convinced that he could bring others to the practice of the faith by explaining to them what Christians believe and how we worship.

He wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius, who reigned from 138 to 161, sometime around the year 155 explaining what Christians did when they celebrate the Eucharist. In the Catechism there is a step-by-step outline in the words of Saint Justin Martyr. Were you to take this text and line it up against the order of the Mass that we use today, you would find very little difference - and that only in the details (see section 1345 of the Catechism)" (p 175)

Any priest may say a Novus Ordo Mass, although (since it is a deviation from the normative practice) he must first have his Bishop’s permission. Provided such permission has been granted, it is perfectly acceptable to attend such a Mass. In my city (Portland, OR) this Mass is available each week (with the Bishop’s permission).

FWIW, the topic of sedevacantism is not permitted on this forum (though I think that’s very odd, IMHO), so in the interest of preserving this thread, I would discourage it from moving in that direction.

[quote=DavidFilmer]Any priest may say a Novus Ordo Mass, although (since it is a deviation from the normative practice) he must first have his Bishop’s permission.
[/quote]

Obviously you meant to say the Tridentine Mass. The Novus Ordo (literally New Order) is the Mass of Paul VI.

John

[quote=John Higgins]Obviously you meant to say the Tridentine Mass.
[/quote]

Yes, of course. I completely misinterpreted the OP’s question. And now I wonder about it…

[quote=Kristopher]Dear Reader:

Have you looked at the changes to the mass, and learned about your faith as you are obliged to do as a Catholic? How as a an Apologist, as a Defender of the Faith, are you able to defend the changes of the Conciliar Catholic Church since 1963, Vat. II?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
[/quote]

Who are you to question the validity of the Mass?

The form of the Mass is a discipline and can change, just as Pope St Pius V did with Quo Primum.

But please, enlighten us as to the errors in the Mass and lets see if you can do so without using the SSPX talking points on the Mass.

[quote=Kristopher]Dear Reader:

Have you looked at the changes to the mass, and learned about your faith as you are obliged to do as a Catholic? How as a an Apologist, as a Defender of the Faith, are you able to defend the changes of the Conciliar Catholic Church since 1963, Vat. II?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
[/quote]

Sometimes the point gets obscured, but the order of the Mass promulgated by Paul VI (with revisions promulgated by John Paul II) is the normative Mass for the Roman rite; it is establishes and embodies the law of the Church, the liturgical law. Such law is a matter of discipline and can be changed, but only by competent authority; as law it is binding on all faithful of the Roman rite. The TLM is an exception and concession by pastors in the interest of charity. To be legitimately celebrated requires an indult of the local bishop.

Calling the Normative Mass the Novus Ordo implies it is an innovation and aberration, that the TLM is the real Mass. This is a common trend in the 20th c. Church: to take an exception and make it the new rule. You saw it done with contraception in the 40’s thru 70’s; from the '80’s till now SSPX is employing the same strategems with TLM.

The Mass celebrated according to the latest GIRM is the real Mass of the Roman rite. Real Catholics should refer to the present Roman rite as the Normative Mass, not the Novus Ordo.

Good point.

What most do not realize is that when Pope St Pius V put out Quo Primum making, what we now call the, TLM the normative Mass of the Latin Church, it was the Novus Ordo.

All Novus Ordo means is new order, or new rite, as opposed to the old rite which was the Mass that was before it.

They use Novus Ordo in an attempt to make everyone think this is some kind of innovation and a move away from what the Church Teaches, which could not be father from the truth.

Okay, Kristopher, what problems, exactly, do you have with the current Roman rite Mass? Be specific and we can gofrom there!

[quote=DianJo]Okay, Kristopher, what problems, exactly, do you have with the current Roman rite Mass? Be specific and we can gofrom there!
[/quote]

Dear DianJo:

Pardon me for my lack of understanding; however, I see myself having no problems with The Novus Ordo Mass, because I understand that a problem exists only when a particular need, or desire remains obstructed and therefore, remains unsatisfied–this as you assume is not the case for me, but rather I am as I said, without any problems at all, so far as The Novus Ordo Mass is concerned–it is no problem for me. Perhaps it is a problem for others, and these questions, which I asked of others, should of course allow others opportunities to voice their problems, with respect to The Novus Ordo Mass, and I believe it is most reasonable of you to allow for this sharing others might have of their problems as they attend a Novus Ordo Mass, thank you!

In anycase, I hope that you will appreciate this: Rather than misconstrue questions, which I asked of others, to mean that I wish discuss what for all intents and purposes is personal of myself–please: Share of yourself, your own answers to these questions, thank you!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

[quote=ByzCath]Who are you to question the validity of the Mass?

The form of the Mass is a discipline and can change, just as Pope St Pius V did with Quo Primum.

But please, enlighten us as to the errors in the Mass and lets see if you can do so without using the SSPX talking points on the Mass.
[/quote]

Dear ByzCath:

You are assuming that I am knowledgable about errors in The Novus Ordo Church, The Concilliar Church?

Do you have an answer to the question, and will you support your answer with something objective about the question?

I am only asking a question: I am not offering my time to others that they might learn from me about what is schismatic about The Novus Ordo Church; it seems that anyone who will argue that The Concilliar Church is neither schismatic, nor anything leading to heresy has some evidence in support of these claims.

I read answers: Changes are permissable to the mass. This is not an answer to my question, but something altogether different. If changes to the mass had been granted no permission to exist–how then would any traditions at all ever of adorned the rich fabric of what some say is not only The Latin Mass, but also The Tridentine Mass; though, some seem to argue neither one, nor the other is a true statement: The point is argued the mass of the only true Catholic Church is The Mass of the Council of Trent–this of course is not my arguement and my apologies to you that I am unfamiliar with whose arguement it is, exactly, but you see the sense of it, it being far more specified by the term “Council of Trent” instead of “Latin”, or “Tridentine”. As I understand it, the word “Tridentine” refers to a mass originated outside The Council of Trent. Latin of course is a language.

So, do you have an answer to the question, and support for your answer, about the question that I asked?

So far is it goes for me to be someone asking a question about the validity of the mass: I never asked anything at all about its validity–I am asking: Is it schismatic, The Concilliar Church? The basis for schism often is one of truth; though, it remains schismatic nonetheless, and we understand that this often leads to heresy, correct?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

[quote=Kristopher]I am only asking a question: I am not offering my time to others that they might learn from me about what is schismatic about The Novus Ordo Church; it seems that anyone who will argue that The Concilliar Church is neither schismatic, nor anything leading to heresy has some evidence in support of these claims.

[/quote]

There is no such thing as “The Novus Ordo Church” or “The Concilliar Church”, there is only the Catholic Church.

You also seem to not know what schism means.

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So for the Catholic Church to be in schism means that the Pope refuses to submit to himself and is not in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

The Mass of the One True Church is not the Mass of the Council of Trent as you seem to neglect all the other Churches that make up the Catholic Church.

The Mass is the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Latin Catholic Church. We Byzantines have the Divine Liturgy.

Before Trent, each local Church had its on variation of the Mass. It was Quo Primum that placed one Mass for the whole of the Latin Church.

It is you who is in schism by denying the right of the Pope to change the discipline of the Mass.

[quote=Kristopher]Dear Reader:

Have you looked at the changes to the mass, and learned about your faith as you are obliged to do as a Catholic? How as a an Apologist, as a Defender of the Faith, are you able to defend the changes of the Conciliar Catholic Church since 1963, Vat. II?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
[/quote]

OK, I’ll bite. You want answers. Here goes.

Title: Since the Mass promulgated by Paul VI is the norm and law for the Latin rite, and being in schism is wilfully denying the authority of the Pope, attending the Normative Mass is not, and cannot be, schismatic, almost by definition. The burden of proof is on you to show that it is heretical. Without any evidence, I have no reason to think it is heretical. (Being promulgated by the guarantor or orthodoxy is a prima facie case agaist heresy.)

Yes I have looked at the changes to the Mass, though I am no expert. Yes, I have learned about my faith as I am obliged to do.

Can I defend the changes? The short answer is the pope has authority to establish liturgical law. He exercized that authority after the Second Vatican Council. All Catholics who do not want to fall into schism are bound to obey the Roman Pontif. Unless there is a more specific challenge, there is no other defense that is appropriate.

This was fun. I am glad your questions were so easily answered. God bless.

Ok, I’ll bite too. No, rather I’ll put out some bait. And then give the pole to somebody else :slight_smile:

Perhaps this will bring out a contention

The Mass promulgated by Paul VI as a result of Vatican II’s request for a renewal of the Liturgy in Sacrosanctum Concilium does not lead one into schism or make one a heretic, or “is a valid Mass”, si vous preferez, à cause de ceci:

[list]
*]The Matter of the Sacrament is valid
*]The Form of the Sacrament is valid
*]The Intent of the Minister is valid (because of the words of the Liturgy)
[/list]By “valid” it may be understood - not changed.

Now, there may be invalid Masses conducted, but they are not done according to the prescribed Missal. If they were done according to the Missal, then they would be valid, wouldn’t they??

I suppose some contentions against the Pauline Missal the OP has on his mind to receive answers for as a result of hearing others who question it are tied up in at least one of those 3 aspects listed above.

-Rob

[quote=ByzCath]There is no such thing as “The Novus Ordo Church” or “The Concilliar Church”, there is only the Catholic Church.

You also seem to not know what schism means.

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

So for the Catholic Church to be in schism means that the Pope refuses to submit to himself and is not in communion with the rest of the Catholic Church.

The Mass of the One True Church is not the Mass of the Council of Trent as you seem to neglect all the other Churches that make up the Catholic Church.

The Mass is the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the Latin Catholic Church. We Byzantines have the Divine Liturgy.

Before Trent, each local Church had its on variation of the Mass. It was Quo Primum that placed one Mass for the whole of the Latin Church.

It is you who is in schism by denying the right of the Pope to change the discipline of the Mass.
[/quote]

Dear ByzCath:

I am somewhat confused by your definition of the word “schism” and your accusation of myself being in schism: If what you say is true, and I am not knowledgeable of the meaning of the word “schism”, but what you are saying is a Catholic not in communion with those in The Roman Rite of the Catholic Church are schismatic, then you say, I am schismatic, because you argue that I deny the right of the Pope to change the discipline of the mass. This makes no sense to me. Would you explain what you are driving at, and are you as a Byzantine Catholic in schism? In anycase, what little I understand about papal authority as regards him in the position as magisterium of the church is this: The magisterium is divided in two parts: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church must be obeyed by all Catholics. The Authoritative Magisterium of the Church need not be obeyed by all Catholics. Those changes to the mass, to the church as contained in The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), were given as I understand it under The Authoritative Magisterium of the Church and therefore, no schism can be considered for the reason that not all Catholics are obligated in obedience to all done by a pope.

I will not raise many questions about your point contending a pope in order to be schismatic must be contrary to a popes own magisterium, The Ordinary Magisterium, but I should say, it makes sense to my view that no pope acting upon, or acting out The Ordinary Magisterium of The Roman Catholic Church may go contrary to what has been established as such, by other popes, say Pope Saint Pius X, and Pope Saint Pius V.

The label given to The Concilliar Church is a justifiable label for what I call The Novus Ordo Church, which I begged the question in so naming: Assuming without evidence the point is true; however, as I make no claim on the matter–no question, truly, has been begged.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

I am aware there are many rites in The Catholic Church. I am aware that many of these rights are not only schismatic, materially schismatic by way of history, but also it would appear to me that they are heretical: Accepting the succession of popes since St. Peter is a scripturally based hierarchy and therefore, infallible. This teaching is fundamental to The Roman Catholic Church, and infallible as I understand it.

[quote=aridite]"…The burden of proof is on you to show that it is heretical. Without any evidence, I have no reason to think it is heretical…
[/quote]

Dear aridite:

No burden of proof is on me: I asked a question; I made no claim and provided no arguement. Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a Mason?

Is it heretical to be both Catholic and a Modernist? Is it heretical to be both a Protestand and a Catholic? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a homosexual? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a communist, a Marxist?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Kristopher: May I ask you what Rite Peter used? What language, what order of Mass? How familiar are you with the way that Mass-styles are developed and approved?

You are making baseless accusations with very little knowledge of history. The style of Mass that came to be known as Tridentine (which means “from Trent”) was developed around the year 600. It was not the original style of Mass, nor was it the “official” one of the Roman Church until the Council of Trent. Even when it became the normative style of Mass after the Council of Trent, it was normative ONLY for the Roman Church, and did not apply to the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, ect. Furthermore, other Roman Church styles that predate Trent were still allowed to be used with proper permission, such as the Mozarabic Rite in Spain.

All Vatican II did was put forth a new style to be normative, which is the absolute right of the Vatican, as it was at Trent. It no more erased previous styles than Trent did, and the modern Latin Mass is in no way heretical or schismatic.

[quote=Kristopher]I am aware there are many rites in The Catholic Church. I am aware that many of these rights are not only schismatic, materially schismatic by way of history, but also it would appear to me that they are heretical: Accepting the succession of popes since St. Peter is a scripturally based hierarchy and therefore, infallible. This teaching is fundamental to The Roman Catholic Church, and infallible as I understand it.
[/quote]

What?

Kristopher,
You might say you are here only to ask questions and that you do not have to provide any proof as you are only asking questions but your questions are loaded.

Your intent with such questions is to get the answers that you already “know”.

It is a sham,

[quote=Kristopher]Dear aridite:

No burden of proof is on me: I asked a question; I made no claim and provided no arguement. Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a Mason?

[/quote]

Yes, one can not be a Catholic and a Mason but who are you talking about? I know who you are talking about and there is no proof that the Pope you have in mind was ever a mason.

Is it heretical to be both Catholic and a Modernist? Is it heretical to be both a Protestand and a Catholic? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a homosexual? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a communist, a Marxist?

Again, you are correct, those things are incompatable with the Catholic Faith, but who are you accusing of being such things?

You are not here to ask questions, you are here to Deny the Catholic Church. You are the schismatic one and as proof I point to your use of “Concilliar Church”. If you really want to use it then fine, but the Church has been a “Concilliar Church” since the first council in the Book of Acts.

I must say, your agenda is showing.

[quote=Ghosty]Kristopher: May I ask you what Rite Peter used? What language, what order of Mass? How familiar are you with the way that Mass-styles are developed and approved?

You are making baseless accusations with very little knowledge of history. The style of Mass that came to be known as Tridentine (which means “from Trent”) was developed around the year 600. It was not the original style of Mass, nor was it the “official” one of the Roman Church until the Council of Trent. Even when it became the normative style of Mass after the Council of Trent, it was normative ONLY for the Roman Church, and did not apply to the Byzantine Catholic Church, the Maronite Catholic Church, ect. Furthermore, other Roman Church styles that predate Trent were still allowed to be used with proper permission, such as the Mozarabic Rite in Spain.

All Vatican II did was put forth a new style to be normative, which is the absolute right of the Vatican, as it was at Trent. It no more erased previous styles than Trent did, and the modern Latin Mass is in no way heretical or schismatic.
[/quote]

Good answer Ghosty and lets not forget the fact that while the Tridentine Mass did become the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church the Church still granted indults for the Tridentine Mass to be done in the vernacular in certain places.

As for the other Rites, I think Kristopher responded to this at the end of his reply in post #15 where he said…

He seems to think that the other Catholic Churches are not in communion with Rome.

He not only shows a woeful knowledge of Church History but he is also lacking in any basic understanding of how the Church is set up.

The Catholic Church is made up of 22 sui iuris Churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is just one.

The Church I belong to, the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church is just as much Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. We us the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom not the Mass. We are not schismatic, we are in communion with Rome.

I think it is time we leave the troll bait alone.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.