st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (05/07/91)
I have been reading Malachi Martin's book _The Keys Of This Blood_ The major topic of the book is the geopolitical ambitions of John Paul II. As a whole, the book makes quite interesting reading (and not because it fits any private agenda of mine). In an epilogue, Martin analyzes some other things which he feels are wrong with the Catholic Church, which John Paul has to some extent ignored whilst building his geopolitical ambitions. He claims that the "Novus Ordo" mass which has been translated into the vernacular since Vatican II is not in general a valid sacrament unless special care is taken which is not noted in the instruction to the priest. He further claims that although the traditional Roman rite was never repudiated, many clerics have claimed it was and tried to eliminate it, citing a mandate from Vatican II which they did not have. 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? Steve Timm
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (05/08/91)
In article <May.7.00.17.57.1991.13997@athos.rutgers.edu> 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.conan@jif.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (05/08/91)
In article <May.7.00.17.57.1991.13997@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >I have been reading Malachi Martin's book _The Keys Of This Blood_ > >He claims that the "Novus Ordo" mass which has been translated into the >vernacular since Vatican II is not in general a valid sacrament unless >special care is taken which is not noted in the instruction to the >priest. He further claims that although the traditional Roman rite was >never repudiated, many clerics have claimed it was and tried to eliminate >it, citing a mandate from Vatican II which they did not have. > >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? I am unable to comment about Martin's concern directly. I do know that many arch-conservatives say that the Novus Ordo is invalid since the encyclical instituting it seems to repudiate the encyclical by Pius V (?) instituting the Tridentine Mass. Though not speaking from direct knowledge, people I trust tell me that,in general, Malachi Martin is one of those amazing conspiracy theorists who starts out sounding perfectly rationale, and, as his argument evolves, he wanders off into the twilight zone. (In that respect, he is alot like Lyndon LaRouche.) Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO