Novus Ordo Mass invalid?

I met a man this weekend who claims that the “new” mass is invalid. Primarily, he says, because the concept of the sacrifice is wrong.

I explained that I understood that the one sacrifice of Jesus’ death and the sacrifice of the mass are the same and that the mass re-presents (not symbolically, but literally) that sacrifice today. We offer that once for all sacrifice to God at the mass for sins committed NOW, both appeasing God’s wrath (propitiation) and for remission of sins (through Grace given to us and through Christ’s righteousness).

He disagrees and says that we USED TO believe (pre vatican II?) that Jesus actually died at every mass.

So his argument hinges on an alleged CHANGE between then and now. Is there any substance to this claim? Has the understanding of what happens in the sacrifice of the mass caused Catholicism to change?

I understand how we regard the mass today, but is there someone who can say that it is doctrinally different than before?

He also quotes Quo Primum wherein it states that the changes that were made to the Mass then are unchangeable in perpetuity. Insights?

[quote=jpusateri]I met a man this weekend who claims that the “new” mass is invalid. Primarily, he says, because the concept of the sacrifice is wrong.

I explained that I understood that the one sacrifice of Jesus’ death and the sacrifice of the mass are the same and that the mass re-presents (not symbolically, but literally) that sacrifice today. We offer that once for all sacrifice to God at the mass for sins committed NOW, both appeasing God’s wrath (propitiation) and for remission of sins (through Grace given to us and through Christ’s righteousness).

He disagrees and says that we USED TO believe (pre vatican II?) that Jesus actually died at every mass.

So his argument hinges on an alleged CHANGE between then and now. Is there any substance to this claim? Has the understanding of what happens in the sacrifice of the mass caused Catholicism to change?

I understand how we regard the mass today, but is there someone who can say that it is doctrinally different than before?

He also quotes Quo Primum wherein it states that the changes that were made to the Mass then are unchangeable in perpetuity. Insights?
[/quote]

Well, it’s clear that his understanding of Catholic theology is seriously defective. He’s been listening to too many Protestant anti-Catholics because that was precisely the claim they made to prove that Catholics were not scriptural people. The Mass is a re-presentation of the death of Jesus on the cross made in the context of His resurrection. This is, and was, the Catholic understanding. In fact, the Council of Trent makes this quite clear:

Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,–that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,–declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.

This is from the 22nd Session. The emphasis is mine and shows that what you stated is quite correct.

As for Quo Primum – it is a disciplinary document based upon internal evidence that was in force “in perpetuity” which is pope-speak meaning “for an indeterminate period of time.” It certainly doesn’t mean “forever” because no pope can bind another in matters of discipline.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

To whom are you referring when you said this?

[quote=Deacon Ed]that was precisely the claim they made to prove that Catholics were not scriptural people.
[/quote]

Also, what evidence can I present in order to support that “in perpetuity” is “pope speak”. I have indeed heard that before, but I’d like to have some examples.

Thanks!

[quote=jpusateri]Deacon Ed,

To whom are you referring when you said this?

Also, what evidence can I present in order to support that “in perpetuity” is “pope speak”. I have indeed heard that before, but I’d like to have some examples.

Thanks!
[/quote]

I was referring to the Protestants who made the claim that Catholics believed that Jesus died at every Mass. This, of course, is contrary to Scripture (specifically Hebrews) where it says that Christ died once.

You’ll find some examples where “in perpetuity” did not mean “forever” at jloughnan.tripod.com/sec1_17.htm where the author examines the use of this term with regard to the question of China and evangelization by the Jesuits.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

Thanks again. I have been searching the Internet for arguments that could be made against the new Mass.

Here’s one:

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/nmissa.htm

In short it says the new mass is “valid” arguing using St. Thomas Aquinas’ criteria (and citing that minor changes in wording do not invalidate other Orthodox masses), but it is not “pleasing to God” because of the change of verbiage changes the intent of the Mass.

Can you direct me to refutations of this?

Or is it self-refuting in some way?

jpusateri,

You might want to try an article I wrote several years ago entitled On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI. I think it addresses most of the questions in the citation you gave.

Deacon Ed

[quote=Deacon Ed]He’s been listening to too many Protestant anti-Catholics because that was precisely the claim they made to prove that Catholics were not scriptural people.
Deacon Ed
[/quote]

Interesting. I’ve never heard of a protestant arguing against the “validity” of the Mass. Arguing against sacrifice, yes; validity, no.

The only people that I have heard argue against the validity of the Mass of Paul VI are the “rad-trads”.

[quote=BrianDay]Interesting. I’ve never heard of a protestant arguing against the “validity” of the Mass. Arguing against sacrifice, yes; validity, no.

The only people that I have heard argue against the validity of the Mass of Paul VI are the “rad-trads”.
[/quote]

Brian,

I was specifically referring to the idea that we crucify Jesus again and again at each and every Mass. This concept is not Catholic at all.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

Thanks

It isn’t true that Quo Primum absolutely prohibits any changes on the missal. This is a misinterpretation promoted by Integrists(schismatic traditionalists) to bolster their claims that the New Mass instituted by Paul VI after Vatican II is invalid. The fact that Quo Primum granted exceptions to the use of the codified Roman missal to priests and bishops who use liturgical missals more than two hundred years old at the time of the declaration of Quo Primum, simply means that the declaration does not apply to **every **Catholic priest. Hence it cannot be a dogmatic declaration but rather it is disciplinary in nature, intended for the good ordering of the Church. A mere discipline hence, can be changed, unlike a dogmatic declaration which applies to the entire Church and unchangeable in nature.

Gerry :slight_smile:

Another example would suffice. The Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix(1568) stated the following concerning changes to the Roman Breviary:

***“Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” ***

It appears from the aforementioned that the Breviary, like St. Pius V’s Roman Missal is said to be unchangeable. Yet subsequent Popes, most notably St. Pius X himself made revisions to the Breviary, through his own apostolic constitution Divino Afflatu. If subsequent Popes can change the Breviary, then so does the missal. Therefore, canonically, succeeding Popes do have such authority.

Gerry :slight_smile:

Deacon Ed,

It sure looks like I came to the right place!

Thanks!

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.