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

[INPEFESS]

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.

Not of which I am aware. Unfortunately, simplifying arguments is dangerous because such simplifications usually omit important details or compromise the integrity of the argument. This argument has been presented here many times before, but I have never seen anyone refute it. I suggest printing it out, pouring yourself a cup of hot coffee, and then giving it an objective, unbiased, and sincere read.

You'll please take note of the date of this was written. Fr. Wathen even references this very article in his book, The Great Sacrilege, recalling even then that Mr. Omlar's argument had gone unaddressed.

[Stubborn]

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.

I never said Pope Paul VI incorrectly promulgated anything - I said "Forget about Pope Paul VI."

All anyone need do is walk into a NO Church and open their eyeballs - they will see a prot service with Catholic window dressings going on. How it got there, even if the pope did it purposely, does not change the fact - - -  it is still a prot service and is still wrong. 

Then people say, "but the Church cannot promulgate a prot service" - - - - - - to which I reply - "allrighty then".

Then you walk back into the same NO Church and the prot service is still there! Which is why I started that post with  "Forget about Pope Paul VI."

[Stubborn]

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.

Always remember that during a vernacular "mass," it makes no difference what the Latin has.

You can attempt to justify your opinion against the defined formula all you want,  perhaps one day you will compare the Institution Narrative to that which it replaced. Until then, you have nothing to base your opinion on.

[Stubborn]

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.

Impossible to make the link between the NO and the fallout? Thats the silliest thing you've posted yet.
You shoulda been around back then and you'da seen the fallout with your own eyes if they were open.

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.

Who cares if the pope can do this or that or not?

[Nic]

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.

Seriously!?  I cannot see a more open and shut case than the Novus Ordo Mass being the primary factor in the destruction of the Faith of millions.  The evidence is right there for all of us to see in black and white.  Neo-cons can deny it all they want, it just shows how stubborn and purposely blinded they truly are. The New Mass came along - usurped the title of "ordinary form," then the statistics show very clearly what happened in a steady progression from that exact point onward.  People were being presented and taught a different religion with the New Mass.  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi isn't BS, you know.  That law proves in spades that the New Mass cannot be Catholic.  Before the New Mass we didn't have well over half of professed "Catholics" not believing in the Real Presence, but we do now (actually I would dare to say that before the New Mass probably 99% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence). This is for no other reason than the New Mass and what it teaches and represents - which is most definitely not Catholicism.  If it taught and represented Catholicism properly we wouldn't have such dreadful statistics. 

This is what matters with the New Mass - this is what can be proven right now.  The apparent validity doesn't really matter at all.  As I have stated before, EO Masses are valid and even Satanic Black Masses can be valid Masses, but we shouldn't attend those because they're not Catholic.  If validity was all that mattered I could go to any valid Mass I so pleased, which is of course ridiculous.  This opens a gaping wound in the neo-con platform of blind obedience and head-in-the-sand mentality.

Also - just because something is labelled as "Catholic" absolutely does not make it so.  The "Charismatic Movement" is labelled as "Catholic" and accepted by the modern, post-conciliar hierarchy as legitimate.  One day the promulgation and perhaps even the total validity of the New Mass will be brought into question, but for now we have to go with the facts - and the fact is that the New Mass is simply not Catholic regardless of apparent validity.

So here is how it is broken down:

- Before the New Mass the overwhelming majority believed in the Real Presence.
-  a new rite of Mass was fabricated with the help of six Protestants and an alleged Freemason - a rite of Mass that is in truth Thomas Cranmer's rite - a rite that was declared heretical.
- This New Mass was somehow worked into the Church through ecclesiastical loopholes and usurped the title of "ordinary form," thus most of those who professed to be Catholics began attending this new rite.
- Over 40 years later, the majority of professed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.

To not see the correlation here is beyond me.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the New Mass is to blame.  One would have to be in some very serious denial to not agree.  Also, this is just showing ONE statistic.  We have many, many more of the downfall of Catholicism which began in the late 60's and early 70's - PRECISELY when these "reforms" were initiated.  This all stems from the New Mass and the spirit that made it possible (Vatican II).

[Crusading Philologist]

I don't think anyone is saying that the NO is great or anything, but wasn't liturgical piety already in pretty bad shape before it was promulgated?

[Stubborn]

I don't think anyone is saying that the NO is great or anything, but wasn't liturgical piety already in pretty bad shape before it was promulgated?

No, at least not compared to today. In fact, the changes were such that the more pious a person was, the more disturbing the changes - as the Pope himself even said: We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most

Either way, even if liturgical piety was in bad shape, which it wasn't, but if it was, it would have been fixable - instead, it was completely banned  and replaced with the NOM. 

[Stubborn]

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.

Seriously!?  I cannot see a more open and shut case than the Novus Ordo Mass being the primary factor in the destruction of the Faith of millions.  The evidence is right there for all of us to see in black and white.  Neo-cons can deny it all they want, it just shows how stubborn and purposely blinded they truly are. The New Mass came along - usurped the title of "ordinary form," then the statistics show very clearly what happened in a steady progression from that exact point onward.  People were being presented and taught a different religion with the New Mass.  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi isn't BS, you know.  That law proves in spades that the New Mass cannot be Catholic.  Before the New Mass we didn't have well over half of professed "Catholics" not believing in the Real Presence, but we do now (actually I would dare to say that before the New Mass probably 99% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence). This is for no other reason than the New Mass and what it teaches and represents - which is most definitely not Catholicism.  If it taught and represented Catholicism properly we wouldn't have such dreadful statistics. 

This is what matters with the New Mass - this is what can be proven right now.  The apparent validity doesn't really matter at all.  As I have stated before, EO Masses are valid and even Satanic Black Masses can be valid Masses, but we shouldn't attend those because they're not Catholic.  If validity was all that mattered I could go to any valid Mass I so pleased, which is of course ridiculous.  This opens a gaping wound in the neo-con platform of blind obedience and head-in-the-sand mentality.

Also - just because something is labelled as "Catholic" absolutely does not make it so.  The "Charismatic Movement" is labelled as "Catholic" and accepted by the modern, post-conciliar hierarchy as legitimate.  One day the promulgation and perhaps even the total validity of the New Mass will be brought into question, but for now we have to go with the facts - and the fact is that the New Mass is simply not Catholic regardless of apparent validity.

So here is how it is broken down:

- Before the New Mass the overwhelming majority believed in the Real Presence.
-  a new rite of Mass was fabricated with the help of six Protestants and an alleged Freemason - a rite of Mass that is in truth Thomas Cranmer's rite - a rite that was declared heretical.
- This New Mass was somehow worked into the Church through ecclesiastical loopholes and usurped the title of "ordinary form," thus most of those who professed to be Catholics began attending this new rite.
- Over 40 years later, the majority of professed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.

To not see the correlation here is beyond me.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the New Mass is to blame.  One would have to be in some very serious denial to not agree.  Also, this is just showing ONE statistic.  We have many, many more of the downfall of Catholicism which began in the late 60's and early 70's - PRECISELY when these "reforms" were initiated.  This all stems from the New Mass and the spirit that made it possible (Vatican II).

Well said Nic!

[Stubborn]

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.

Not of which I am aware. Unfortunately, simplifying arguments is dangerous because such simplifications usually omit important details or compromise the integrity of the argument. This argument has been presented here many times before, but I have never seen anyone refute it. I suggest printing it out, pouring yourself a cup of hot coffee, and then giving it an objective, unbiased, and sincere read.

You'll please take note of the date of this was written. Fr. Wathen even references this very article in his book, The Great Sacrilege, recalling even then that Mr. Omlar's argument had gone unaddressed.

That's a good point INPFESS, particularly when it comes to this subject.

Speaking of Omlor from The Great Sacrilege as regards the "for all" vs "for many" abuse: ....... Since that time [1968], even though the possibility of invalidity has become known around the world (hundreds of priests having steadfastly refused to use the translations, and many Catholics having discontinued attending "masses" where it is recited), no one of sufficiently great authority has taken it seriously enough to dare call for an emendation. The Pope himself has remained deaf to all complaints concerning the matter. And no theologian worthy of the title has ventured either to defend, to explain away, or to refute the argument. I put it this way, because those few who have attempted to refute the invalidity thesis have done it in such a puerile fashion, that either they were not serious theologians, or they were not serious period. Are we then forced to conclude that at present the Church has no theologians worthy of the title?

The colossal irony of the whole affair is that the "reformers," instead of correcting the gross and altogether conspicuous error by making a few uncomplicated corrections, left it as it first erroneously appeared, and thus succeeded in doing less effectively what they obviously have in mind to do, namely, heap as much abuse and sacrilege upon the Head of Christ as one generation might be capable of. Those in power in the Church have waged a persistent, albeit futile, campaign to prove that no error has been made, and that those who let themselves be bothered by such trifles are "sick in the head."

Fast forward 50 years later and it looks like they maybe finally got around to fixing the travesty back to "for many".

[JMartyr]

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.

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.- Cardinal Ratzinger