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

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Which one is responsible for emptying entire dioceses, seminaries, convents, schools etc?

Thus, those who have promulgated it and use it etc. are responsible as well.

Which again raises the question: Can the Church promote, use, and even defend as the "ordinary form" of worship for the majority of Catholics that which is a disincentive to piety? All you've been able to say is that Paul VI "incorrectly promulgated" the Novus Ordo. I personally find your argument weak, almost like those people who say that the Sixteenth Amendment really didn't legalize income tax.

[Parmandur]

Of your own arm chair authority

 

Stubborn, that is hilarious.  Thanks.

[Parmandur]

Who is clueless?  I will break the news to you that "pro multis" means "for many", not "for all" as the NOM has used for 50 years. There's your "they changed the translation, to better represent the Latin original, 2+2=4 all right.

Yeah, that was my point, thanks.  The "for all" business was mostly an English language problem, though I gather a few other languages had similar issues, none were as bad as the English.  The current English is a pretty good translation, though the underlying Latin still has many issues, though of a lesser nature than touching upon validity.  It still remains, in English or Latin, that valid words of consecration (2) said (+) by a valid priest (2) is (=) the Eucharistic sacrifice (4), whether you like it or not.  You need to logically show otherwise, or question the premises.  Saying that the words of consecration are compromised because they reflect the Bible is not really undermining the premises, at all.  2 + 2 = 4.

[Parmandur]

I know don't whether this is useful, but it seems relevant:

“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore [our Lord] said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, “And for many,” He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”

Excellent and true.  This is why the translation was fixed to reflect Church teaching rather than Modernist innovation.  But even when this was wrongly translated, it doesn't seem enough to break the validity of the words of consecration.

[Parmandur]

What matters here is not validity, but if it's a Catholic rite. I do not see how one can claim that the Novus Ordo is not a Catholic rite while still recognizing that those who promulgate, promote, and use it have true authority. Arguments that Paul VI invalidly or incorrectly promulgated it seem pathetically weak to me.

Forget about Pope Paul VI.

Look at the NOM in parishes all over the world.

Compare it to that which it replaced.

Which one is responsible for emptying entire dioceses, seminaries, convents, schools etc?

Compare it to that which it replaced.

Which one is responsible for spiritual starvation of her children for the last 50 years?

Compare it to that which it replaced.

Thanks to the NO, Ex-Catholic (if that were a religion) would now be the third largest religion in America.
Compare it to that which it replaced.
Which one is Catholic?

You are right, invalidity is only one miniscule part of the overall scheme.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a major logical fallacy.  The Church was in a bad place before the NO, and even before the Council.  This stuff didn't come out of nowhere all of a sudden, and the Council was called to attempt to address many of the factors you point to here which were already in an advanced stage in the 1950's and earlier.  It is impossible to make a strong causal link between the NO and any of these problems, though frankly I will agree it didn't exactly help anything.

The fact is, the Pope has the legitimate authority to change discipline, and is not bound by previous Popes or Councils.  The practice of the TLM in all of its specificity is a discipline.  No document from a previous Pope or Council prevents it from being changed by a legitimate Pope, even if it ought not to be done.  So if the NO is actually a valid sacrificial liturgy (2) and (+) the Pope is the Pope (2), he can (=) change the Mass validly and licitly (4).  This does not mean that it is the right thing to do, or the prudent thing, or the just thing, but the Pope is not bound.  He is the Pope, and the Mass is the Mass.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

If your above premises hold, then your conclusions do as well.

[Parmandur]

If your above premises hold, then your conclusions do as well.

Tis a fair cop, guv. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x-MX7jmsrs" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x-MX7jmsrs</a>

[Nic]

Which one is responsible for emptying entire dioceses, seminaries, convents, schools etc?

Thus, those who have promulgated it and use it etc. are responsible as well.

Which again raises the question: Can the Church promote, use, and even defend as the "ordinary form" of worship for the majority of Catholics that which is a disincentive to piety? All you've been able to say is that Paul VI "incorrectly promulgated" the Novus Ordo. I personally find your argument weak, almost like those people who say that the Sixteenth Amendment really didn't legalize income tax.

There are really only two plausible options:  either Pope Paul VI "incorrectly promulgated" or failed to promulgate regularly the New Mass - or he apparently promulgated it, which would mean that the sedevacantist position is correct because there is just no way that the New Mass is truly Catholic concerning what it has caused.  That case is most definitely NOT weak - the evidence is insurmountable.

[INPEFESS]

I know don't whether this is useful, but it seems relevant:

“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore [our Lord] said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, “And for many,” He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.”

Excellent and true.  This is why the translation was fixed to reflect Church teaching rather than Modernist innovation.  But even when this was wrongly translated, it doesn't seem enough to break the validity of the words of consecration.

Well, before any hasty generaralization are made, I think this analysis, which to my knowledge has yet to be refuted, deserves some attention.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Well, before any hasty generaralization are made, I think this analysis, which to my knowledge has yet to be refuted, deserves some attention.

Is there a condensed version of this argument on the web? Thanks.