Infinite Merits of Mass

[James02]

Defenders of the N.O. are quick to say, "well, there could be improvements, but the Mass has infinite merit, so in the end, it doesn't matter".  This "infinite merit" is the topic I'd like to debate.

First, it is a lie.  Go out and commit a mortal sin.  Then go to Mass.  Guess what?  When you walk out of Mass, you are still damned.  The merits of Mass are therefore "limited".  This is also biblical:

For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, [27] But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. [28] A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: [29] How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

  So indeed, for the sinner the Mass does not have infinite merit, and the Confessional becomes of utmost importance.

There is another problem with the "infinite merit" argument.  If the Mass has "infinite merit" then does not a sacrilege become an "infinite sacrilege"?  Or, for that matter, if the priest messes up in the slightest way, if his pronunciation of the Latin is not absolutely perfect, is this not an "infinite offense"?

So this whole "infinite merit" argument is a non sequitur.  Yes, the sacrifice, properly re-presented, is infinite it its abilities to propitiate our God, when STANDARDS are followed.  And yes, the power of the Confessional does indeed arise from the infinite sacrifice of Calvary, but it is governed by STANDARDS.  Which Standards dictate that a sinner can not neglect to confess his sins in order to be forgiven, and which standards hold that a priest standing showing his @$$ to the Lord in His Tabernacle is an offence that needs to cease.

[Scriptorium]

The Mass as such has infinite merit.
In its human action it has finite merit. (This is where quality of vestments, singing, ritual, etc. come into play)
And in its human reception is can have finite or infinite merit, based on the disposition of the person to grace.

The problem often in the debate is people mixing these factors up.

[Ray M Facere]

The merits of Mass are therefore "limited".

No, the merits aren't limited, the application of those merits are limited.

If the Mass has "infinite merit" then does not a sacrilege become an "infinite sacrilege"?

Any mortal sin is infinitely offensive to God, sacrilege included.

Or, for that matter, if the priest messes up in the slightest way, if his pronunciation of the Latin is not absolutely perfect, is this not an "infinite offense"?

No, because the priest is merely the agent of the action at Mass, not the one performing it. A small failure on his part does not affect the operation of the action in question.

Yes, the sacrifice, properly re-presented, is infinite it its abilities to propitiate our God, when STANDARDS are followed.

Absolutely -- and who governs those standards? The Church, who also has the ability to change what the standards are (within the bounds of the divine mandates). I don't think this line of reasoning is very effective answer to the proposition.

I don't know that I have a good answer to this either -- perhaps an appeal to history to show that the Old Rites are more pleasing to God, which should be the focus of our standards, because they contributed to a great growth in the Church, whereas the modern rites have not prevented the secularist decline in both the stature of the Church and number of the faithful.

[Scriptorium]

I don't know that I have a good answer to this either -- perhaps an appeal to history to show that the Old Rites are more pleasing to God, which should be the focus of our standards, because they contributed to a great growth in the Church, whereas the modern rites have not prevented the secularist decline in both the stature of the Church and number of the faithful.

If one takes the New Mass to be valid as promulgated, that is, there is not internal defect in its strict formulation, then the area of action in the field to improve the Mass would be the externals, the bells and whistles, as they say. This would include also the texts in those parts which are not essential, which would be the vast majority according to most churchmen's dispositions. And down the line, in relation to this, people's dispositions would be improved, and educated. But already the formulation of the New Mass saw the matters which are of finite import as changeable, and so there was some other standard -- history, pastoral concern, social circumstances, etc. There are many arguments in favor of the Old Mass from societal influence, but I really wonder if we'll get anywhere if we don't make an appeal to immemorial tradition. I think immemorial tradition needs to be restored as an aspect of something that must remain unchanged, with relation to the importance of the text to the faith and morals of the Church (Lex orandi, lex credendi). Those items which have the most importance and relation to the dogmas and morals of the Church are unchangeable. Those things less are more open to change. Change here means actual change of it. But I imagine that much of this literature will not be produced until there is a bit of hindsight after what history would call a restoration, which may ourselves take time to recognize as we go through it. It's hard to even say if we are in that period yet.

[Ray M Facere]

There are many arguments in favor of the Old Mass from societal influence, but I really wonder if we'll get anywhere if we don't make an appeal to immemorial tradition. I think immemorial tradition needs to be restored as an aspect of something that must remain unchanged, with relation to the importance of the text to the faith and morals of the Church (Lex orandi, lex credendi).

I think you're right about that in some respects, but also if you acknowledge that the New Mass is valid, was validly promulgated, etc. -- then doesn't that assume that it is in conformity with the immemorial tradition? And if it is, we're back to externals as you mentioned. So as I said, I struggle with this. Clearly the offering of the Son is acceptable to the Father. Yet I think it is empirically clear, using the standards of success that Christ gave us (by their fruits, etc.), the Old Mass is objectively better than the New. So what do we point to to explain why?

I posted one of the Anglican writings of Blessed John Henry Newman in another thread that I think may provide some answers. Even if we are only talking about the non-essentials that have changed, there remains the temptation of substantive change. In the minds of general laity, the sacred rites are no longer untouchable. Psychologically, this opens the door and invites in heresy. So then, even if the substance of the changes to the Mass were completely legitimate since they were changing non-essentials, the action of changing the Mass invited in the error that plagues us.

Of course that is not a proscriptive narrative, because it implies that once the evils are out of Pandora's jar, there is no getting them back in.

[Scriptorium]

I think you're right about that in some respects, but also if you acknowledge that the New Mass is valid, was validly promulgated, etc. -- then doesn't that assume that it is in conformity with the immemorial tradition? And if it is, we're back to externals as you mentioned. So as I said, I struggle with this. Clearly the offering of the Son is acceptable to the Father. Yet I think it is empirically clear, using the standards of success that Christ gave us (by their fruits, etc.), the Old Mass is objectively better than the New. So what do we point to to explain why?

I think that the New Mass is valid because of a few sentences in the canon, as with tradition. That leaves open a lot of text around and outside that which are open. But a collect being reformulated to excise a phrase like "despise the world" would be judged by the traditional formulas teaching on faith and morals, and how the new text reflects that teaching.

Example, 2nd Sun of Advent, the ancient postcommunion text:

Repleti cibo spiritualis alimoniae,
supplices te, Domine, deprecamur:
ut, huius participatione mysterii,
doceas nos terrena despicere,
et amare caelestia.

The new text:
 
Repleti cibo spiritalis alimoniae,
supplices te, Domine, deprecamur,
ut, huius participatione mysterii,
doceas nos terrena sapienter perpendere,
et caelestibus inhaerere.

So in the context of a penitential season, right after communion, a prayer is changed from "despise [value very little] earthly things, and to love those of heaven" to "ponder earthly things wisely, and to cleave to heavenly things".

Is despise and wisely ponder the same? Is love and cleave to the same? Do they express the same truths of faith? If they do not, and they detract from the expression of faith, then the traditional is protected. If they are equivalent, or even improved base don true development of doctrine (ex. the clarifications concerning Mary), then they may be altered, it would seem.

But even before this, there is the debate of even why we would need to look at reform.