Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?

[jonkknox]

A picture

I hope you don't mind I didn't repost that picture. Once was enough!!!

I think we can call that reprehensible to God, but that does not prove that the Novus Ordo is inherently evil. It doesn't even prove that this particular Mass was inherently evil. The treatment given to the Eucharistic Lord- reprehensible and evil, yes. But for that moment that the Sacred Host was in the priest's hands, I don't think so.

[Catholicmilkman]

Is it not the teaching of the Catholic Church that good cannot come from evil? If the Novus Ordo has a valid consecration, it means that Our Lord is brought to the altar- the miracle of transubstantiation happens and the Sacrifice is offered to the Blessed Trinity.

How can something that is inherently evil bring about the greatest good? And I don't particularly care about the "Satanic Black Mass" deal. When was the last time a validly ordained priest celebrated a Satanic Mass??

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe objective evil would be a better way of saying it. A Eastern schismatic priest's Mass is objectively evil in it's human element. The Novus Ordo is the same way but it has to do with the form itself and not the priest saying the form. It's the same thing if a valid Catholic priest were to say Cramner's heretical form, yes it's a valid Mass but it's illicit and evil. Second, it is Church teaching and even in the Bible that God brings good out of evil. This is the Almighty Power of God. He will even come down to be touched by an evil servant of His, even a sinful priest. He will even come down by an evil deficient form for the Holy Mass as long as there is proper and essential matter, form, and intention/minister. I read that Eastern priests in persecuted countries even have an indult to offer Mass with one little piece of bread and a drop of wine only saying the Words of Consecration.

[neel]

Oh, it's easy. Church discipline is NEVER dogmatic.

But it is certainly protected from error.  Read these quotes carefully and ponder the implications involved:

P. Hermann (1908)

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments, such as Communion under one species....
The Church in her general discipline, however, is said to be infallible in this sense: that nothing can be found in her disciplinary laws which is against the faith or good morals, or which can tend [vergere] either to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful.
That the Church is infallible in her discipline follows from her very mission. The Church's mission is to preserve the integral faith and to lead people to salvation by teaching them to preserve whatever Christ commanded. But if she were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith or morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, the Church would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258.


A Dorsch (1928)

"The Church is also rightfully held to be infallible in her disciplinary decrees....
By disciplinary decrees are understood all those things which pertain to the ruling of the Church,, insofar as it is distinguished from the magisterium. Referred to here, then, are ecclesiastical laws which the Church laid down for the Universal Church in order to regulate divine worship or to direct the Christian life."
Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis. Innsbruck: Rauch 1928. 2:409.


R.M. Schultes (1931)

"The infallibility of the Church in Enacting Disciplinary Laws. Disciplinary laws are defined as 'ecclesiastical laws laid down to direct Christian life and worship'.....
The question of whether the Church is infallible in establishing a disciplinary law concerns the substance of universal disciplinary laws - that is, whether such laws can be contrary to a teaching of faith or morals, and so work to the spiritual harm of the faithful....
Thesis. The Church, in establishing universal laws, is infallible as regards their substance.
The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Through disciplinary laws, the Church teaches about matters of faith and morals, not doctrinally or theoretically, put practically and effectively. A disciplinary law therefore involves a doctrinal judgement....
The reason, therefore, and foundation for the Church's infallibility in her general discipline is the intimate connection between truths of faith or morals and disciplinary laws.
The principal matter of disciplinary laws is as follows: a) worship...."
De Ecclesia Catholica. Paris: Lethielleux 1931. 314-7.


Valentino Zubizarreta (1948)

" Corollary II. In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way that she would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals.
Church discipline is defined as 'that legislation or collection of laws which direct men how to worship God rightly and how to live a good Christian life.'....
Proof of the Corollary. It has been shown above that the Church enjoys infallibility in those things which concern faith and morals, or which are necessarily required for their preservation. Disciplinary laws, prescribed for the universal Church in order to worship God and rightly promote a good Christian life, are implicitly revealed in matters of morals, and are necessary to preserve faith and good morals. Therefore, the Corollary is proved."
Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica. 4th ed. Vitoria: El Carmen 1948. 1:486.


Serapius Iragui (1959)

"Outside those truths revealed in themselves, the object of the magisterium's infallibility includes other truths which, while not revealed, are nevertheless necessary to integrally preserve the deposit of the faith, correctly explain it, and effectively define it....
D) Disciplinary Decrees. These decrees are universal ecclesiastical laws which govern man's Christian life and divine worship. Even though the faculty of establishing laws pertains to the power of jurisdiction, nevertheless the power of the magisterium is considered in these laws under another special aspect, insofar as there must be nothing in these laws opposed to the natural or positive law. In this respect, we say that the judgement of the Church is infallible....
1o) This is required by the nature and purpose of infallibility, for the infallible Church must lead her subjects to sanctification through a correct exposition of doctrine. Indeed, if the Church in her universally binding decrees would impose false doctrine, by that very fact men would be turned away from salvation, and the very nature of the true Church would be placed in peril.
All this, however, is repugnant to the prerogative of infallibility with which Christ endowed His Church. Therefore, when the Church establishes disciplinary laws, she must be infallible."
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Stadium 1959. 1:436, 447.


Joachim Salaverri (1962)

"3) Regarding disciplinary decrees in general which are by their purpose [finaliter] connected with things which God has revealed.
A. The purpose of the infallible Magisterium requires infallibility for decrees of this kind....
Specifically, that the Church claims infallibility for herself in liturgical decrees is established by the law of the Councils of Constance and Trent solemnly enacted regarding Eucharistic Communion under one species.
This can also be abundantly proved from other decrees, by which the Council of Trent solemnly confirmed the rites and ceremonies used in the administration of the sacraments and the celebration of the Mass."
Sacrae Theologiae Summa. 5th ed. Madrid: BAC 1962. 1:722,723.

[Catholicmilkman]

Oh, it's easy. Church discipline is NEVER dogmatic.

But it is certainly protected from error. Read these quotes carefully and ponder the implications involved:

P. Hermann (1908)
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments, such as Communion under one species....
The Church in her general discipline, however, is said to be infallible in this sense: that nothing can be found in her disciplinary laws which is against the faith or good morals, or which can tend [vergere] either to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful.
Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258.


A Dorsch (1928)
Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis. Innsbruck: Rauch 1928. 2:409.


R.M. Schultes (1931)
"The infallibility of the Church in Enacting Disciplinary Laws. Disciplinary laws are defined as 'ecclesiastical laws laid down to direct Christian life and worship'.....
The question of whether the Church is infallible in establishing a disciplinary law concerns the substance of universal disciplinary laws - that is, whether such laws can be contrary to a teaching of faith or morals, and so work to the spiritual harm of the faithful....
Thesis. The Church, in establishing universal laws, is infallible as regards their substance.
De Ecclesia Catholica. Paris: Lethielleux 1931. 314-7.


Valentino Zubizarreta (1948)

"Corollary II. In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible, in such a way that she would never legislate something which would contradict true faith or good morals.
Church discipline is defined as 'that legislation or collection of laws which direct men how to worship God rightly and how to live a good Christian life.'....
Proof of the Corollary. It has been shown above that the Church enjoys infallibility in those things which concern faith and morals, or which are necessarily required for their preservation. Disciplinary laws, prescribed for the universal Church in order to worship God and rightly promote a good Christian life, are implicitly revealed in matters of morals, and are necessary to preserve faith and good morals. Therefore, the Corollary is proved."
Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica. 4th ed. Vitoria: El Carmen 1948. 1:486.


Serapius Iragui (1959)
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Stadium 1959. 1:436, 447.

First, the missal "of Paul VI" was clearly not promulgated as a universal disciplinary law and our present Holy Father Benedict XVI has repeated this fact and now made it the law of the Church by his motu proprio Summorum Pontificium. If the NOM did not abrogate the previous Missal as our Holy Father clearly proclaimed in the accompanying letter of his motu proprio then clearly the previous Missal still holds the legal right in the Roman Rite. (1) Pope Paul VI clearly never promulgated the Missal universally as its name clearly implied Roman Missal hence it is not for the Eastern rites. That's one mark against its universality. (1) Pope Paul VI and now H.H. Pope Benedict XVI have both made it clear that the form or missal is not even 'universal' just for the Roman Church. It is two marks against it's universality as a law.

Joachim Salaverri (1962)
"3) Regarding disciplinary decrees in general which are by their purpose [finaliter] connected with things which God has revealed.
A. The purpose of the infallible Magisterium requires infallibility for decrees of this kind....
Specifically, that the Church claims infallibility for herself in liturgical decrees is established by the law of the Councils of Constance and Trent solemnly enacted regarding Eucharistic Communion under one species.
This can also be abundantly proved from other decrees, by which the Council of Trent solemnly confirmed the rites and ceremonies used in the administration of the sacraments and the celebration of the Mass."
Sacrae Theologiae Summa. 5th ed. Madrid: BAC 1962. 1:722,723.

I don't even understand why you used this because the law of receiving only under the Species of the Bread is not something that can be infallibility in the sense of irreversable anyway, it was a prudential decision for the Roman Church alone, not for the whole Catholic Church, to suppress the heresy of Hus and his sect. Sure, it was infallible in that it wasn't wrong to promulgate such a law but as a law it's certainly something that can be changed and it was.

Finally, I will say that these references are not 100% guaranteed to be infallibility themselves. So it is possible that they could be wrong or missing much point or some way in which a liturgical law is fallible, such as, that the law or decree is only particular or even only optional and neither general nor universal. In any event your interpretation is neither infallible nor authoritative.

[StevusMagnus]

Neel,

You've just made an excellent case for why the NO Mass can not be intrinsically evil.

Thanks!

[Catholicmilkman]

Neel,

You've just made an excellent case for why the NO Mass can not be intrinsically evil.

Thanks!

But it's null and void because the NOM is not a general discipline or law even for the Roman Church Herself. This is clear from the fact that Tridentine Mass has been offered in practice even since the NOM's supposed promulgation and that it was a right of priests and faithful alike. I've had this same discussion before with another sedevacantist. The NO is not an universal law.

[confiteor1]

Neel,

You've just made an excellent case for why the NO Mass can not be intrinsically evil.

Thanks!

But it's null and void because the NOM is not a general discipline or law even for the Roman Church Herself. This is clear from the fact that Tridentine Mass has been offered in practice even since the NOM's supposed promulgation and that it was a right of priests and faithful alike. I've had this same discussion before with another sedevacantist. The NO is not an universal law.

You are absolutely wrong.  The NOM is law because it was promulgated by the Supreme Lawgiver of the visible Church, the Pope.

Is it a just law?  Should the NOM have been promulgated?  That is another question altogether.  However, the NOM is a valid rite promulgated by a Pope and thus has the force of law, and we are obliged as Roman Catholics to recognize it as such.  That doesn't mean that we have to embrace or even "accept" its unworthy composition, nor does it mean that we can be forced by Rome to celebrate it.

[neel]

Neel,

You've just made an excellent case for why the NO Mass can not be intrinsically evil.

Thanks!

Or I said that if you have a real problem with the NO, you have no choice but to be a sede

Either way, at least you're consistent.  

[neel]

Neel,

You've just made an excellent case for why the NO Mass can not be intrinsically evil.

Thanks!

But it's null and void because the NOM is not a general discipline or law even for the Roman Church Herself. This is clear from the fact that Tridentine Mass has been offered in practice even since the NOM's supposed promulgation and that it was a right of priests and faithful alike. I've had this same discussion before with another sedevacantist. The NO is not an universal law.

Oi.  This is yet another cop out.

Q.  I have seen you contend in an article that the obvious evil of the Novus Ordo on one hand, and the Church’s infallibility in her universal disciplinary laws on the other, seen together, point toward a juridical loss of office on the part of the Paul VI and his successors. This, you say, proves the correctness of the sede vacante position.

      However, did not Paul VI issue the Novus Ordo only in his capacity as Patriarch of the West (rather than as Supreme Pontiff), and then only for the Latin Rite? Could one say, then, that the Novus Ordo would not be a truly universal law, and hence not protected by infallibility?

 

A. While yours is indeed an intriguing question, the claim that a pope who promulgates liturgical legislation for the Latin Rite acts solely in his capacity as Patriarch of the West (rather than as Supreme Pontiff) appears to be entirely gratuitous. I could find no dogmatic tract or commentary on the Code, at any rate, which supported or even mentioned such a notion.

      The term “universal,” moreover, as applied to a church law, does not refer to the “rite” where a law has force, but rather to the territory where it has force. A standard pre-Vatican II commentary on the Code gives the following division for law:

III. By reason of its extension [ambitus] into: a) universal, which applies in the whole Catholic world; b) particular which has force in a certain limited territory only. (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum 1:50.)

      The same commentary speaks of disciplinary laws which it terms “universal,” even though Eastern Rites are automatically exempt from observing them:

Although Greek Catholics are indeed bound by definitions of Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals, they are nevertheless not bound by disciplinary laws, even universal ones, unless something is laid down for them [the Greeks], or express mention is made of them, or unless the law for the matter regulated is implicitly extended to them also. (1:148. My emphasis.)

      Further, in discussing the secondary object of the Church’s infallibility, the authors treat liturgical laws for the Latin Rite as protected by infallibility, without any further qualification.

      It would thus appear one could not “save” Paul VI by dismissing the errors and evils of his Novus Ordo as some sort of local aberration approved by him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West.

      The “Patriarch of the West” argument, moreover — like other arguments traditionalists use in an attempt to defend Paul VI as a legitimate pope while simultaneously denouncing his Mass — run up against the anathema decreed by the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. (Denziger 954.)

      He who maintains that Paul VI and his successors were indeed true popes should not dare to criticize the Novus Ordo — for the Catholic Church through her head on earth does not institute ceremonies and outward signs for celebrating Mass which are “incentives to impiety.” Indeed, the Church solemnly anathematizes those who say otherwise.

[neel]

I don't even understand why you used this because the law of receiving only under the Species of the Bread is not something that can be infallibility in the sense of irreversable anyway, it was a prudential decision for the Roman Church alone, not for the whole Catholic Church, to suppress the heresy of Hus and his sect. Sure, it was infallible in that it wasn't wrong to promulgate such a law but as a law it's certainly something that can be changed and it was.

Finally, I will say that these references are not 100% guaranteed to be infallibility themselves. So it is possible that they could be wrong or missing much point or some way in which a liturgical law is fallible, such as, that the law or decree is only particular or even only optional and neither general nor universal. In any event your interpretation is neither infallible nor authoritative.

Milkman, its becoming quite obvious that you don't understand the way the Church's infallibility works.  You need to sit down with some pre-Vatican II sources and try to get a grip on the reality of the situation.  You're making a million and one arguments as to why you can think the NO is evil but still not become a sede.  For the sake of being consistent, you just can't hold this position.  All the evidence suggests otherwise.