Does Novus Ordo fulfill Sunday Obligation?

[Donna]

Phat, specifically (I hope I'm putting this forth correctly) the argument hinges on the difference between Christ's redemption ("for all") vs who shall be saved ("for many"). His sacrifice *has* redeemed all. But not all will be saved.

So further this regards the Mass...In the Latin language consecration of the wine the translation is: For this is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: **the mystery of faith** which will be shed for you and for many..." etc;

This "mystery of faith" part (mysterium fidei) may therefore be part of the argument, because that phrase specifically puts forth the theology/reality of the Mass - the wine - being sacrfice, the Precious Blood. I hope that helps some about the specifics.

But, is this even an issue now? Isn't the new English (vernacular) translation "for many"? Have they not brought back the original offetory language (making clear the sacrificial act that the Mass is)?

And it's way too mind boggling to even consider that any post 1960-whenever are not ordained. I have enough problems. But this has been proferred before, especially in The Remnant, which is NOT an SSPX paper (so to speak), but an Indult one (so to speak). Solange Strong Hertz (a briliant intellect) was long one of its writers and Mr. Matatics thinks very much of her (as he has said in talks), selling her wares and books along with his own, don't know if he still does this. This ordination thing freaked me way more out than the arguments about the consecration.

But you really have to be careful, esp. if reading Solange, which I don't, and I hate to say it because I once met her (long ago) and she was very kind and sweet. But some of the stuff sounds like Jansenism, it's terrible, and downright poison for the scrupulous. And one must note when she is quoting others and when she is giving her own opinion. Interesting theories on some things, but she won't make it clear that it is her opinion of history at all! It took awhile to realize (because she is a very good writer) to see "oh, there is no documentation here...this is pure opinion."

I have said here before that I've seen many bold and outrageous things, in fact some of *the* most extreme things, from certain Indulters, and the Remnant is pretty big.

I don't look at sede stuff at all, what is the point I ask you? And I don't believe Mel is one by any means, btw.

And I don't read any of the newspapers anymore, it's basically a re-hash and I think I know the points by now and don't need to go over them again.

[Donna]

Well, it double posted and y'all sure don't need to see it again.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Donna

[Donna]

Holy cow. Triple posted. Don't mean to muck up yer house, dUSt.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Donna

[son_of_angels]

Personally, as someone who attends the Tridentine Mass, I find the antics of such sedevacantists and radicals (like the SSPX) to be shocking. Such people don't really care about the future of the Traditional Mass, but their own egos. They claim to be truly Catholic, yet they are behaving like Protestants, disrespecting the God-given authority of the Magisterium and Papacy as though THEY have the the right to define authority. It is Protestantism at its worst, a Protestantism that doesn't even have new doctrines to show for itself, being left only with Protestantism's inherent pride and selfishness. After all, what is the Traditional Roman Mass without Rome? It is nothing more than a stagnant whisper of nostalgics.

The Tridentine Mass is wonderful, but its appreciation grows when those who support don't get so full of themselves and condemning of other Catholics who attend a different rite.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:59 AM']Personally, as someone who attends the Tridentine Mass, I find the antics of such sedevacantists and radicals (like the SSPX) to be shocking.  Such people don't really care about the future of the Traditional Mass, but their own egos.  They claim to be truly Catholic, yet they are behaving like Protestants, disrespecting the God-given authority of the Magisterium and Papacy as though THEY have the the right to define authority.  It is Protestantism at its worst, a Protestantism that doesn't even have new doctrines to show for itself, being left only with Protestantism's inherent pride and selfishness.  After all, what is the Traditional Roman Mass without Rome?  It is nothing more than a stagnant whisper of nostalgics.

The Tridentine Mass is wonderful, but its appreciation grows when those who support don't get so full of themselves and condemning of other Catholics who attend a different rite.
[right][snapback]641912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Very nicely put.

[homeschoolmom]

But just to clarify... The "Novus Ordo" and the "Tridentine" are not different rites.

[son_of_angels]

Well, not different "rites" in the "Church sui juris" since of the word, but different rites in the sense of being different liturgies (not that I think a clear hierarchy, like a personal prelature, to control the use of the Missal of 1962 and promote its unique benefits would be entirely unhelpful).

[phatcatholic]

how does the "for many / for all" thing invalidate the mass? what else do they think invalidates it?

[Dave]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 13 2005, 06:31 PM']how does the "for many / for all" thing invalidate the mass? what else do they think invalidates it?
[right][snapback]642458[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The original Latin says "pro multis" (for many) rather than "pro omnibus" (for all). Thus, according to radical traditionalists, using "for all" rather than "for many" changes the words of the consecration and thus invalidates it. The other reason why these people claim that "for all" invalidates the Mass is because they insist it means the heresy of universal salvation. However, they fail to see that in using "for all," the Church isn't buying into a heresy (although "for many" is indeed a much better translation of the original Latin) -- that Jesus shed His Blood for all people without exception. Of course, that doesn't mean that all people will take advantage of His gift of redemption that He wrought by His Blood, but these radical traditionalists either can't or won't see that.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Dave

[IcePrincessKRS]

I agree with you Dave, I was going to say something about how I thought Jesus DID shed his blood for all and why would is be problematic to use the term in Mass, but in light of Donna's post it makes sense why "for many" is a much better translation. I don't think it makes Mass invalid, or that its a horrid tragedy to use "for all" but I do think "for many" is the proper term to use.

[Noel's angel]

it happens on Phatmass too

[Apotheoun]

While I personally think that some of the changes made to the Roman Rite after the close of the Second Vatican Council were imprudent, nothing was done that effected the validity of the Mass. Certainly the 1970s ICEL "translation"of the Roman Missal was poor, but even that did not invalidate the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI.

It is my hope that the new translation of the Roman Missal will correct some of the poorly phrased texts of the older ICEL paraphrase; but that being said, the new translation of the Mass may not satisfy the SSPX and Sedevacantists, because their schism has move on from simply being a schism based upon the ritual of the Roman Rite, to a schism based upon theological issues of authority in the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 14 2005, 01:42 PM']While I personally think that some of the changes made to the Roman Rite after the close of the Second Vatican Council were imprudent, nothing was done that effected the validity of the Mass.  Certainly the 1970s ICEL "translation"of the Roman Missal was poor, but even that did not invalidate the reformed Mass of Pope Paul VI. 

It is my hope that the new translation of the Roman Missal will correct some of the poorly phrased texts of the older ICEL paraphrase; but that being said, the new translation of the Mass may not satisfy the SSPX and Sedevacantists, because their schism has move on from simply being a schism based upon the ritual of the Roman Rite, to a schism based upon theological issues of authority in the Church.
[right][snapback]643357[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I read a recent article in The Wanderer, concerning a debate among Traditionalists. A sedevantacist rad-trad leader was predicting that Benedict XVI would "destroy Traditional Catholicism by aceeding to its every demand" - predicting that the Pope would do much to restore a traditional liturgy with the fiendish purpose of luring Traditionalists into the "false" post-Vat II Church. This nut-job deplored that many young Traditionalists were flocking to the Pope.

This nonsense proves these people's agenda has little to do with restoring a reverent, traditional liturgy, and everything to do with rebellion against Rome.

[son_of_angels]

Personally I think that changing the Roman Mass, a priceless heirloom, the fountain of Western culture, AT ALL during a period of such societal change was a foundation of sand approach to pastoral leadership. When the rains came down it tore apart, in the hearts and minds of many Catholics, the basic doctrinal trust which they held in the holy See.

Compare this with the clarifications made at the First Vatican Council and, if I was still a Protestant, would almost think they were written by two different denominations.

Nonetheless, questioning the validity of a Mass composed by the Roman pontiff borders on heresy itself, not to mention rebelliousness.

[dspen2005]

the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation? it has been promulgated by Holy Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:54 AM']the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation?  it has been promulgated by Holy Church.
[right][snapback]643370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As long as the priest prays the prayers as they are found in the approved liturgical books, and with the proper intention, then the Mass of Paul VI is valid.

Of course I'm sure an SSPXer will find some reason to say that it is not, but who am I to believe, the Magisterium of the Church or some SSPXer?

[photosynthesis]

All the Popes during and since Vatican II have said it counts, so it better count.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 01:54 PM']the question... though, is why would the NO not be fulfill Sunday obligation?  it has been promulgated by Holy Church.
[right][snapback]643370[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Those people claim the Church in Rome is not the "real Church," but an evil imposter. Essentially (though they scream at the suggestion), they're protestants.

[dspen2005]

i thought that sspx contends that the Missa Normativa is valid, just deficient in most aspects

[Socrates]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 14 2005, 03:03 PM']i thought that sspx contends that the Missa Normativa is valid, just deficient in most aspects
[right][snapback]643446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't know about the SSPX. I was referring to other (probably more exterme) groups, such as Matatics' and the fellow in the article.