Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!njin!paul.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Novus Ordo" Mass Message-ID: Date: 8 May 91 08:20:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 104 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: [regarding the Novus Ordo Missae, or "new order of Mass"] My question is this: Martin gives no ideas as to why such a modern mass might be invalid. Any Catholics out there have a clue? Are there Catholic groups besides the Society of St. Pius X which are concerned about it? Is Martin a member or sympathizer with this? The validity of the new Mass is a many-sided issue. Part of the problem is that there are a number of different forms of the new Mass. There's the official rite of Mass as found in Paul VI's Missale Romanum, in Latin. Then there's the official ICEL English (mis)translation, as used in this country. In talking about validity, one has to be precise about what one is talking about the validity of. A couple of the major points that I recall that bear on this subject are: 1. The words of consecration have been changed in a number of translations of the New Mass. 2. The changes made in the prayers of the Mass through the introduction of the New Mass parallel those of the Reformers: a shift from a sacrifical rite to a Holy Communion service. The first point bears directly on the validity of the Sacrament. To have a valid Sacrament, you have to have 3 things: matter, form, intention. The words of consecration are the form, in this case. There is some historical argument by Catholic theologians as to how far one can go in changes to the words without invalidating the Sacrament of the altar. In view of this, some men are defending the idea that the changes that have been made to the words of consecration in the commonly used English translation are sufficient to invalidate the Sacrament. Usually of particular concern is the mistranslation of "pro multis" as "for all" in the words of consecration: Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeternae testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Literally: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, the mystery of faith, which is being shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. (From memory, pardon mistakes.) The point of such a mistranslation being that it suggests that all will be saved. Some are saying that this is of such a nature that it invalidates the Sacrament. The second point, the shift in meaning of the rite taken as a whole, seems to me to be a more valid point. The idea here is that the mindset of the priests is being altered through the use of the new liturgy. This is especially the case for young priests who have never said the traditional Mass (or perhaps even seen it). Do they intend to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, or are they engaged in a fraternal meal? The new Mass is not a translation of the old one. It's a new liturgy. As an example, consider a commonly used acclamation after the consecration: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again! In my eyes, at least, this is an implicit denial of transubstantiation. For one, the mystery of faith is the Blessed Sacrament, as one can see by reading the words of consecration for the wine in the old Mass (quoted above, more of less) or reading Paul VI's encyclical letter on transubstantiation, most appropriately named "The Mystery of Faith". There is also the problem that the consecration just happened. Why is everyone saying that Christ *will* come again when He just *came* again? The gist of point #2 is then not so much that the new rite of Mass is invalid in itself, but that, because it is a defective presentation of the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, it fosters an attitude on the part of the celebrant that brings his intention into doubt. An English author named Michael Davies covers the New Mass fairly well in "Cranmer's Godly Order" and "Pope Paul's New Mass", among others. Legally, there is no obligation for a priest to say the New Mass. Priests who know this and make use of the law are generally persecuted by their bishops. There are numerous groups besides the Society of St. Pius X concerned with the preservation of the traditional liturgy. For example, there are about 200 priests in this country offering the old Mass, most of them not associated with the Society. The SSPX group (whom I sympathize with in a BIG way) does not harp on the issue of the validity of the New Mass. It is only one problem amidst a sea of such in an overall disintegration of the Catholic Church in the late 20th C. Malachi Martin sympathizes with the Society of St. Pius X. He was a Jesuit priest who left the Jesuits with the Pope's permission (I forget which Pope) when they started disintegrating after Vatican II. His field of study was handwriting at the time of Abraham, if I recall right. I've heard him speak. He is a most scholarly man with a very strong Faith. I am unaware of what his opinion is regarding the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae.