Posted on 10/18/2002 5:01:00 PM PDT by ultima ratio
BlackElk, I'm not sure about thee.
(Actually, this is a really good one. I have to remember this.)
See #35. I was quite clear.
Is it obstinate adherence to a false doctrine to believe that the New Mass is "not Catholic." Personally, I don't think so. Pope Paul VI's addresses which introduced the Novus Ordo are far from being considered infallible statements. And the promulgation of the New Mass itself is equally questionable.
Up to the point it was promulgated, it could have been called "questionable."
But the promulgation of the New Mass itself is equally questionable is just not defensible. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline over which the Church does have authority. As long as proper form and matter are present, the mass is valid.
The mass was promulgated by the Church, proper form and matter are present, therefore it is valid by its very nature.
There is nothing questionable about it now.
Its the mass, its valid, and its questionable promulgation is, in the end, a mute point.
To question the validity of the NO is ... I have no formal theological training whatsoever, so I do not know if the proper term is schismatic or heretical or what.
Its scandalous, I know that. And it undermines the faith of the average Catholic, leading to a questioning of our entire Faith.
And it sure as heck does not belong on this public forum.
Well, OK, maybe this statement isn't schismatic but its certainly schizophrenic.
If you want to discuss the inferior terminology and catechesis of the formulation of the NO, especially the vernacular translations, I'd be happy to do so.
Frankly we'd mostly be in agreement.
But if its valid, if its licit, it is by its very nature Catholic.
Your choice of language is confusing, at best.
Rule #1: The pope is right.
Rule #2: If the pope ever seems wrong, go back to Rule #1.
Very simple really, once you get your ego (or more likely your id) out of the way.
Where you are wrong is in ignoring the injunction: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." Do you actually think that you are going to convince anyone who is actually Catholic to join your schism? You can deny until the cows come home that you are in schism but, in following Lefebvre, you ARE in schism.
From what do you get the impression that the little schismatic SSPX group has some sort of monopoly on the Baltimore Catechism or on chaste teenagers, on inspiring Masses, Tridentine or otherwise, or on reading St. Francis de Sales or de Caussade? You've been away so long, you don't even know what you are fighting against.
When you brush the foam off the beer, it is evident that your cultural tastes have been offended by Novus Ordo Masses so you flee to a little sanctuary of grumpy schismatics similarly offended served by disobedient and rebellious priests and who spin remarkable fantasies about how they and you, legends in your own minds and a scandal to others, are the REAL Church and JP II is not.
Well then, since JP II is sooooo objectionable and falls so far short of your standards, then he must not be pope, right? Since, as ever, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, is someone else pope or is the Holy See vacant?
You are quite correct. They had the authority, and they did it. But that doesn't mean that the authority wasn't misused.
For example, President Bush has the authority to launch a nuclear strike. If he pushes the button, he is acting within his authority. But that doesn't make it a good decision. He could be making a horrendous decision which will unnecessarily end the lives of millions of people. But he was still acting within his authority.
The mass was promulgated by the Church, proper form and matter are present, therefore it is valid by its very nature.
Not quite. First of all, 3 elements are required: form, matter and intention. Let's look at each:
1. Matter. My sister-in-law only realized recently that during her 4 years at Notre Dame she never attended a valid Mass. They used invalid matter every time. Notre Dame is not the only place where this is happening.
2. Intention. This is often overlooked because of the doctrine that "ecclessia supplet." In other words, as long as the priest intends to say the words the Church tells him to say, then the Church will supply for any lack in his understanding or intention.
This was clearly true for the Latin Mass because the words themselves expressed the intention. So as long as the priest said the words, the intention was expressed despite whatever private doubts or misunderstanding he might have. But that is no longer the case with the New Mass. Because the Offertory has been removed and has been replaced with the "Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts," the prayers which expressed the purpose of the Mass no longer exist in the New Mass. If the priest has the right intention, then he can still consecrate validly. But if he does not personally have the right intention, it is debatable whether "ecclessia supplet" because the words expressing the intention are no longer said by the priest in the Mass.
3. Lastly there is the issue of form. The "form" of the Mass has been defined as the essential words of consecration. The Latin version of the New Mass retains words of consecration very similar to the Latin Mass. There are some slight changes, but one could argue that they are not sufficient to invalidate the "form" of the Mass.
The English translation is another case entirely. The words of consecration are changed considerably, and they are changed to such an extent that they mean something different.
You didn't answer my question about the Holy Spirit protecting the ICEL. The Vatican has answered the question however, by condemning the ICEL translations in the encyclical "Liturgiam Authenticam," and by squashing the ICEL and replacing it with a new translation agency, "Vox Clara."
Now that the encyclical "Authentic Liturgy" affirms that for 30 years we've suffered from "In-Authentic Liturgy," what does the Catholic layperson do until the new translations are approved some years in the future?
(Is it incorrect to have a personal devotion to him, as he has not been even suggested for canonization? I consider him one of my favorite or patron "saints.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.