Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?

[Parmandur]

But because a rite of Mass is valid does not make it Catholic and does not make it O.K. to attend. 

Actually, yes, yes it does.

[Parmandur]

Do you actually think Trent made the infallible declaration to be in force in perpetuity or only temporary?

I think you don't understand what the words of the Canon mean, and frankly see no reason to suspect that you do.  You have again and again misinterpreted the words of Scripture and Church documents, either through ignorance or malice.

[Parmandur]

Well, like I said there are multiple question at hand here, and we can draw multiple conclusions. One set of questions relates to the rite itself, and one set relates to the people instituting and acting out the rite. As for the rite of New Mass, taken for granted a valid and licit celebration, intrinsically it is infinitely pleasing to God because Christ is offered in sacrifice. Extrinsically the New Mass is inferior in its formation and rubrics to the traditional Mass. In this case we can say it is deficient. We can't say it is displeasing, because that is an adjective related to acts. We can say that the acts of changing the Mass in the time up to 1969 were displeasing to God. Then we can look at the New Mass on its own merits without reference to the traditional Mass. In this case we can also say that it is deficient, as was pointed out by Ottaviani et al. Now as for human acts related to offering the Mass and participating, we can speak of pleasing and displeasing acts. Internally anyone who is not properly disposed by lacking faith, being in a state of mortal sin, irreverent, and things like this, would qualify as displeasing to God. If they were faithful, reverent, etc., then they would please God, even if they participated in the New Mass, provided what I said before, which would preclude liturgical abuses. Now externally such things as even standing during the consecration can be pleasing to God IF the participant is properly disposed internally. We know from history that standing has been a normal posture at Mass, so such a posture is not irreverent in itself. But in light of other questions, such a rubric can be deficient, as it would be include in the nature of the rite. This is just touching on the questions. But even now we can see a sort of prudential hierarchy of Masses you'd avail yourself of.


Traditional Mass, pious priest and reverent congregation
New Mass, pious priest and reverent congregation
Traditional Mass, pious priest and irreverent congregation
New Mass, pious priest and irreverent congregation
Traditional Mass, impious priest and reverent congregation
New Mass, impious priest and reverent congregation
Traditional Mass, impious priest and irreverent congregation
New Mass, impious priest and irreverent congregation

You'd probably all out avoid the bottom four.

This

[Stubborn]

But because a rite of Mass is valid does not make it Catholic and does not make it O.K. to attend. 

Actually, yes, yes it does.

"Valid" is not by any means synonymous with "acceptable" no matter how badly you want the definitions to be the same.

[Stubborn]

Do you actually think Trent made the infallible declaration to be in force in perpetuity or only temporary?

I think you don't understand what the words of the Canon mean, and frankly see no reason to suspect that you do.  You have again and again misinterpreted the words of Scripture and Church documents, either through ignorance or malice.

Post your reasoning behind your insinuations and accusations and put your thoughts about the issue out there. Your ad hominems are already beyond immature. 





 

[Nic]

But because a rite of Mass is valid does not make it Catholic and does not make it O.K. to attend. 

Actually, yes, yes it does.

So the Eastern Orthodox Mass is a Catholic Mass?  So Satanic Black Masses are Catholic Masses?  What foolishness!  In both of those examples the Masses are valid but they are not Catholic because they don't teach and represent the Catholic Faith.  We are told by the Church to avoid such Masses for this reason alone.

[Nic]

Trent anathematizes the NO and says it is sinful - just in case you missed it in the link in the OP................
 
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

As has been pointed out, Trent predates the NO and as such ahs nothing to say about it.  But just to emphasize, the Canon you mention says "the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church."   The Missal of Paul VI is approved by the Church (in Paul VI himself), and received by the Church.  Abuses happen against this Canon, but as such the Pope has every right to approve and promulgate a new Mass text.  He is not bound by this Canon, parish pastors are.  That the TLM is more fitting and appropriate is certain.  That the NO is valid and licit, and as such pleasing to God, is equally certain by Catholic Faith.

But because a rite of Mass is valid does not make it Catholic and does not make it O.K. to attend.  I believe that most N.O. Masses are indeed valid Masses, but that is not the issue and has never been the issue.  The issue is the simple fact that it doesn't teach and represent the Catholic Faith, and that it is loaded with sacrilege and abuse that is promoted within the rite.  Satanic Black Masses can be valid Masses with valid consecrations, so validity means little here.  The Eastern Orthodox Mass is a valid Mass, therefore it can be said to be "pleasing to God."  But is it Catholic?  Nope.  Should we attend it.  No, we shouldn't.  What we must concede is that we are in a time of crisis - the worst of all crises. 

Just because the Novus Ordo Mass is called the "Ordinary Form" does NOT make it right to attend it.  The nature of the crisis is internal - the Church has been infiltrated and subdued.  The proof is all around us, more proof than we need.  The only thing that we need is to quit burying our heads in the sand and concede that we are in a horrid crisis of ecclesiastical leadership - and in such crises we must use the scale of Tradition to weigh everything on our own because, for the most part, we cannot trust our leaders because many are leading us astray, either willfully or not.

That is private opinion and the Church does not teach what you said here.

Whatever dude.  You see sane arguments and you immediately give your little one-liners to try and feebly discredit without any back-up.  It is pathetic.

The modern, post-conciliar Church isn't going to "teach" that we are in the worst crisis in Church history because it is the infiltrators at high levels within it that have manufactured the crisis.

[Stubborn]

That is private opinion and the Church does not teach what you said here.

Whatever dude.  You see sane arguments and you immediately give your little one-liners to try and feebly discredit without any back-up.  It is pathetic.

The modern, post-conciliar Church isn't going to "teach" that we are in the worst crisis in Church history because it is the infiltrators at high levels within it that have manufactured the crisis.

Yes, this!

It seems to me that these trads? haven't the vaguest idea that Holy Mother the Church has been infiltrated, really and literally - and with more enemies within than anyone wants to believe. Even when the occasional disguise comes off, most still scratch their head.

I came across this interview where someone from RCTV was being interviewed that spells it out clearly, well, far as I'm concerned it spells it out clearly...............

“The Novus Ordo is as spiritually enriching as the TLM............. If it was really spiritually enriching, then would it be so susceptible to abuse? If it was spiritually enriching, then would it have caused so many Catholics to stop going to Confession, stop believing in the Real Presence, stop living their Catholic identity (a point which Michael repeatedly raises in his videos)? If it was spiritually enriching, would it have caused so many priests to lose sight of their vocation as alter christus? If it was spiritually enriching, would its armor be so porous as to practically allow the arrows of the enemy free entry? And finally, if it is so spiritually enriching, then why is it constantly being revised and tinkered with?

The elephant in the room. You didn’t address this in your note, but the inescapable fact is that the Novus Ordo is the creation of progressives – the very progressives about which RCTV warns us against with so much zeal. It was the progressives who hijacked the Council; it was the progressives who trashed the original schema of the Commissions; it was the progressives who re-populated the Commissions themselves with fellow progressives; it was the progressives who produced Council documents filled with vague and even heretical language; and it was the progressives who, after the Council, introduced the “spirit of Vatican II,” i.e. their progressive interpretation of their deliberately vague language, including the Novus Ordo. So, to my way of thinking, any expose of “progressives” should begin with these very things. Yet, your videos did not even touch on them. To me, it boils down to this non sequitur: progressives are poisoning the faith and the faithful, says RCTV rightfully, but the Novus Ordo they created is spiritually enriching! Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense.


 

[Scriptorium]

Hey guys. what do you think of the post I gave? Can we have a substantive conversation? How about we take it point by point and actually try to have a dialog?

Point One:

The same divine victim, Jesus Christ, is offered in the traditional Mass and the New Mass.

Can we agree on this statement?

Don't wishy-wash this and write ten evasive pages. Just say yes or no. We're actually going to try to engage in lines of reasoning here and come to conclusions.

[Stubborn]

Hey guys. what do you think of the post I gave? Can we have a substantive conversation? How about we take it point by point and actually try to have a dialog?

Point One:

The same divine victim, Jesus Christ, is offered in the traditional Mass and the New Mass.

Can we agree on this statement?

Don't wishy-wash this and write ten evasive pages. Just say yes or no. We're actually going to try to engage in lines of reasoning here and come to conclusions.

No, sorry, we cannot agree on this statement, not as a whole.

As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. - The Ottaviani Intervention