Why do some claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?

I hesitate to post this question, because one of the last things I want to read on this board is another pointless dogfight about the TLM vesus the NOM.

I would like to know, however, what exactly is the basis on which some people object to the Novus Ordo Mass? In what, specifically, is its alleged invalidity supposed to consist?

Hmmm…It would seem that if you’ve seen the dogfights that you’d know the objections. Can I respond when somebody posts their reasons why they think it’s invalid? :wink:

[quote=bear06]Hmmm…It would seem that if you’ve seen the dogfights that you’d know the objections.
[/quote]

I lose sight of them in the fog of war. I’m hoping for a simple numbered list. :rolleyes:

[quote=Scullinius]I lose sight of them in the fog of war. I’m hoping for a simple numbered list. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Scullinius:

I am like you. I have been in a flame war with a member of a certain schismatic group for the past 5 years. Whenever he starts to lose on one attack, he starts a new attack. Over the course of time, he seems to come back to the same attacks only under slightly different verbage.

Basically his attacks center on the Quo Primum of St. Pius V.

You got to remember one thing. The Radical Traditionalist tend to raise disciplines to the level of dogmas.

PF

[quote=Scullinius]I lose sight of them in the fog of war. I’m hoping for a simple numbered list. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Well, I’m guessing my good buddies on this forum will not tell you that that the “Novus Ordo” Mass is invalid. You might be able to get them to tell you their objections though. I’m guessing, that if your specifically limiting your question to

In what, specifically, is its alleged invalidity supposed to consist?

that this thread will be dead in the water. Even if some think it, they won’t say it. :wink:

Of coarse it’s valid if it has all elements needed for it to be valid. But that’s not the point many Traditionaists are making since scandal may takes place during a Novus Ordo masses which seems to be the main issue.

I have an SSPX friend (well, I hope we are still friends after some of our heated disagreements) who insists that the Latin Mass was instituted to be the only one ever to be used anywhere on Earth again, ever, and that anytime a Mass occurs that is not in that form, it is invalid, illicit, and evil. He calls the Novus Ordo Mass a “black Mass”. It is disturbing to hear him go on. We haven’t spoken since mid summer, because I always argue that safety is in obedience whether what he thinks is true is true or not – but we part ways there. I do know from what he has told me that the SSPX inspires people to consider the Novus Ordo Mass as invalid, even though he claims his priest insists it is valid. He says they are told it would be better to stay home and pray the Rosary alone than to attend a Novus Ordo Mass.

I think those that claim it is invalid argue that the changing of “for many” (pro multis) to “for all” makes the consecration invalid. Likewise, the “mystery of faith” (MYSTERIUM FIDEI) now comes afterward. This is basically the only concrete thing I’ve read. The consecration is what makes the Mass valid or invalid so any argument about invalidity has to focus on it.

You will find reasons if you read the Ottavani intervention which can be found by doing a google search.
I no longer voice an opinion on this subject, if you have questions do the research.

God Bless,

Fogny

I have been in a flame war with a member of a certain schismatic group for the past 5 years. Whenever he starts to lose on one attack, he starts a new attack. Over the course of time, he seems to come back to the same attacks only under slightly different verbage.

Basically his attacks center on the Quo Primum of St. Pius V.

You got to remember one thing. The Radical Traditionalist tend to raise disciplines to the level of dogmas.

Doesn’t it kinda make one wonder why the “trads” don’t raise hell (so to speak) over the way Jesus conducted the first Mass?

I mean:

  1. Women were not present;
  2. Everyone “reclined” in lieu of kneeling;
  3. Jesus didn’t say all the words contained in the consecration of the wine;
  4. They all drank from the chalice;
  5. He didn’t say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Confeteor, the Introit; etc., etc., etc.
  6. He didn’t were a Chasuble.
  7. Everyone received Communion in (ugh!!!) the hand.

Doesn’t it make one think that the First Mass couldn’t have been a “true and proper sacrifice”?

I’m joshing, of course, but, the “trads” (of whom I was one for over 23 years) have a lot to learn in terms of obedience to the “power of the keys.”

Seems like the church created the Mass and has continued to direct its evolution throughout the centuries.

Rich

[quote=Scullinius]I lose sight of them in the fog of war. I’m hoping for a simple numbered list. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

1.) Ignorance.

2.) Arrogance.

3.) More ignorance.

[quote=Sean O L]Doesn’t it kinda make one wonder why the “trads” don’t raise hell (so to speak) over the way Jesus conducted the first Mass?

I mean:

  1. Women were not present;
  2. Everyone “reclined” in lieu of kneeling;
  3. Jesus didn’t say all the words contained in the consecration of the wine;
  4. They all drank from the chalice;
  5. He didn’t say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Confeteor, the Introit; etc., etc., etc.
  6. He didn’t were a Chasuble.
  7. Everyone received Communion in (ugh!!!) the hand.

Doesn’t it make one think that the First Mass couldn’t have been a “true and proper sacrifice”?

I’m joshing, of course, but, the “trads” (of whom I was one for over 23 years) have a lot to learn in terms of obedience to the “power of the keys.”
[/quote]

It’s also difficult to believe that Jesus Christ turned His back to His Apostles seated at table so he could face east…

[quote=Fogny]You will find reasons if you read the Ottavani intervention which can be found by doing a google search.
I no longer voice an opinion on this subject, if you have questions do the research.

God Bless,

Fogny
[/quote]

See what I mean? Nobody is willing to answer the question even if they might think the Mass is invalid. They just like to refer people to other people who never said the Pauline Mass is invalid. Very few who doubt that the Pauline Mass is valid will actually take a stand and say so. All you’ll ever see is people alluding, implying, etc.

Remember when you were young and there was that little science experiment where you sprinkled pepper in a bowl of water and when you introduced a bar of soap on one side of the bowl the pepper ran away to the other side of the bowl? I always think of this when a direct question is asked of someone critical of VII and the Pauline Mass. :wink:

[quote=Fogny]You will find reasons if you read the Ottavani intervention which can be found by doing a google search.
I no longer voice an opinion on this subject, if you have questions do the research.

God Bless,

Fogny
[/quote]

Ah yes. The Ottaviani Intervention.

What the RadTrads will not mention, or say that the documents are fake, is that Cardinal Ottaniani retracted his statements on this a few years later.:banghead: I use to have a paper (via another BBs) on this that I got from a Deacon who works with the USCCB. I know who he got the paper from and maybe that person can provide it here. I know he is a frequent poster on the CA Forums.:smiley:

PF

[quote=Cherub]I have an SSPX friend (well, I hope we are still friends after some of our heated disagreements) who insists that the Latin Mass was instituted to be the only one ever to be used anywhere on Earth again, ever, and that anytime a Mass occurs that is not in that form, it is invalid, illicit, and evil. .
[/quote]

Does your SSPX friend know that Pope St. Pius X said the Byzantine Divine Liturgy at least once in his Pontificate, in Greek?

That wasn’t the Latin Mass, but it certainly was a Catholic Eucharist.

There are many reasons why, and many of them valid as to why many people feel not only the mass but the consecration is invalid. If you do a google search with Novus Ordo mass and invalid you would probably get over 100 hits. If you read them with an open mind you will see the objections to the NO Mass. I am reading a book on the history of the Mass-written before vatican II-and it is tough reading as it has many many greek and Latin words incorporated into the book. But if you read as to how many years it took the mass to evolve to the point that it got at the time of Trent (I am not talking about the Eastern rites, as they also went through some but not as much evolution), it has actual translated writings from Popes and Saints going back to the 3rd, 4th, up to the 6th and 7th centuries-and though some words may have been inserted at some points-the Canon was static and was not altered (Pope Gregory I altered the hanc Ignatur and was almost hanged) and was sacred for all within the Latin Rite. So sacred that Pope Pius V codified it-as well as the Mass-as there were some in France and other areas within the Latin rite who still had some of the prayers in different places but was eventually codified. I would suggest picking up a book and reading for yourself and not listen to either the Trad or Liberal point of view.

But as I am half way through this book-and being traditional, I wanted to read a book that was before V2 and not tinged with anti NO mass or a Rad trad point of view. And as I can see so far- I cant for the life of me quite understand how Pope Paul VI, knowing the sacred tradition of the Mass, actually do what he did and change over 75% of the mass. Maybe some words here or there-but to change the canon-and the rest of the mass knowing now how it came down to be -from the first writings of St Justin in the 4th century to 1970- is beyond my understanding. I am sure he had to answer to someone when he died and went up to meet our Lord-and St Pius V for that matter!

[quote=Scullinius]I hesitate to post this question, because one of the last things I want to read on this board is another pointless dogfight about the TLM vesus the NOM.

I would like to know, however, what exactly is the basis on which some people object to the Novus Ordo Mass? In what, specifically, is its alleged invalidity supposed to consist?
[/quote]

BulldogCath wrote:
There are many reasons why, and many of them valid as to why many people feel not only the mass but the consecration is invalid

Anyone who “believes that the (so-called Novus Ordo) Mass is invalid” is NOT a Catholuic in full communion with the Catholic Church.

No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751).

Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.

The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.

Bishop Rifan

Of course EVERYONE has been given Free Will to accept or reject the truths of the Catholic Church, and God is the Final Arbiter of such souls. But, objectively, to hold such an opinion is heterodox.

It’s YOUR soul Ralph!

WanderAimlessly Quote: wrote:

Ah yes. The Ottaviani Intervention.

What the RadTrads will not mention, or say that the documents are fake, is that Cardinal Ottaniani retracted his statements on this a few years later. I use to have a paper (via another BBs) on this that I got

Ahhhh, Yes! The “Ottaviani Intervention”! This old “traditional” bible text was actually authored by Abbé Guerard des Lauriers, O.P. (R.I.P.); Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci merely added a covering note. Lefebvre, of course, was also behind it!

You are right, Cardinal Ottaviani DID retract from the “theories” contained in the document.

You also probably know that des Lauriers:

  1. subsequently taught at Lefebvre’s Econe seminary;
  2. left Econe due to his sedevacantist theories;
  3. had himself “consecrated” a “bishop” by Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc; (the Vatican has put out at least two notifications stating that the Thuc ordinations and consecrations have not and will not be recognized by the vatican!)
  4. prior to his death, des Lauriers was reconciled with Rome.

Deo gratias! Isn’t our God merciful!

If you “Cannon Lawyers” who dabble around the edges of the original question don’t have an answer, then don’t try to impress us who are asking for the ORIGINAL QUESTION to be answered.

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.