In about mid-March 2003, on one of the many talk-fest forums, a Radical Traditionalist [who I here call "Peter"] made the following statements:

• "And there sure as Hell have been no saints made yet through the Novus Ordo mass."
  
  
• "If anyone has gotten into heaven recently, it is in spite of the new mass. All the good values that Mother Teresa had were formed way before the new mass. All the elderly people I know and respect who have excellent Catholic values learned them before the new mass too and have followed practices like saying the rosary or wearing the scapular in these wretched modern times.
  
  
• "Name me one virgin martyr like St. Maria Goretti, or one holy priest in the last 30 years who has been formed by the Novus Ordo. That will be about as easy as me finding a good looking 20 year old virgin Novus Ordo bride!
  
  
• "I do not disagree that a Novus Ordo mass can be valid, but I do think many are invalid due to the wrong intentions of the priest. And even if it is celebrated validly, it still does not change the fact that there are inherent flaws within the Novus Ordo mass that give Catholics Protestant notions about faith.
  
  As far as the grace given in the Novus Ordo, if there is any, it is merely a trickle and fundamentally connected with the intentions of the person receiving it, in comparison to the flood of grace given by the perfect expression of Catholicism in the Latin mass."

Before treating with the main thrust of the claims, I will quote from one of the responses relative to any "20 year old virgin Novus Ordo bride."

"INSHMO, anyone who sees a causal relationship between the Novus Ordo Mass and the sexual revolution (the latter of which really began with the invention of 'The Pill' in the early 60s) has a few shingles loose on his or her roof.

Moreover, to argue that one was caused by the other merely because one preceded the other is like arguing that World War II was caused by Mickey Mouse because Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse 20 years before WWII began.

This sloppy kind of 'reasoning' is what is known in Logic as the informal fallacy of 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc': 'A' came before 'B', therefore 'A' was the cause of 'B'.

Almost all such conspiracy thinking is rooted in this fallacy."

As Pharaoh (Yul Brunner) allegedly said to Moses (Charlton Heston): "So let it be written - so let it be!"

The parameters that Peter has set, upon which he rationalizes his claims, is the period from the promulgation of the Paul VI's Missale Romanum in 1969 to the present year - a period of 34 years. His statements are absolute: "no saints" - by which he means, I presume, no persons identifiable as saints, that is, no canonized saints.

In excluding the likes of Mother Theresa, it seems that only those persons who have been "over the age of reason" as at 1970 AND who have died any time between 1970 and 2003, and who have been "formed by the new mass" qualify.

It is illuminating and interesting to apply Peter's standards to the same 34 years after the promulgation of Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St Pius V in 1570. I have extracted the details of all Saints who are in the General Calendar of Saints in "The New Marian Missal for Daily Mass," published 1957. It is valuable to have the hindsight to see precisely what saints WERE acknowledged as saints from this period.

First of all, I will state the names and post 1570 death dates of those saints listed in the missal. Their relevant Date of Birth will follow:

1. NONE of the above was canonized within Peter's 34 year span - that is before 1604. In fact, the earliest canonization was that of Charles Borromeo in 1610 - 40 years after Quo Primum Tempore.

2. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume the age of reason to be 5 years of age. According to Peter's "logic" we are then limited to persons born from 1565 onwards That eliminates all except Aloysius Gonzaga who was born in 1568. Yet, still using Peter's own standard, he (St. Aloysius) should also be eliminated - for he was canonized outside Peter's parameter: St Aloysius was not canonized until 1726.

3. "Name me one ... in the last 30 years who has been formed by the Novus Ordo," asks Peter.

Well, inasmuch as no-one in 1604 would have been able to satisfy Peter's standard - so, too, is the matter a non-question to-day. However, one may read of Seven Holy Martyrs of the Catholic Church who died in 1996 for the Faith of the normative Mass of the Roman Rite at  The Cistercian Martyrs of Atlas

However, as Our Divine Lord has promised to be with the institution entrusted to St Peter (and ALL his successors) until the end of time; and as it is a Dogma of the Catholic Faith that the pope will be the Bishop of Rome until the end of time - then, I am sure that faithful Catholics will continue to number themselves among the flock of the shepherd appointed by Jesus Christ and whose Church has been guaranteed the oversight of the Holy Spirit - again until the end of time.

May God bless our holy father, Pope John Paul II.

One could expect such statements made by Peter to come from a protestant from times past concerning the Tridentine Mass.

The facts are that the very FIRST Rite of Mass consisted solely in Our Lord, Jesus Christ, giving a normal Jewish Blessing over the bread; then breaking the "bread", and then giving it into the hands of His Apostles. He then said a Jewish blessing over a cup of wine, and gave it to His Disciples. He said: Do this (or these things = bless, break, eat; bless, give, drink) as a commemoration of Me.

There are now some 36 variations of that first Rite which are approved by the Catholic Church. There are numerous Orthodox and other Eastern Rites which are not in communion with the Holy See which are also recognized as being valid.

The Masses of all the Rites, which are conducted by persons who have the power given by Apostolic Succession - ALL of them have the parameters of:

1. valid orders
2. valid matter
3. the intention of "doing what the church does."

The Savior gave to His Church the perpetual power to determine the form of Consecration. What He required to be done was to "do these things in commemoration of Me." Most certainly, the Pope exercised his office on the matters of Faith and Morals in promulgating the Novus Ordo - yet, we see "traditionalists" like Peter acting as if they are the possessors of the infallibility normally granted to the Vicar of Christ!!! They cede a "Novus Ordo mass can be valid, but I do think many are valid due to the wrong intentions of the priest."

The question of "Intention" was once addressed by Fr. Joe Horn, O.Praem. on Catholic PRS Forum (now defunct.) It is worth repeating the Q & A here:

____________________________________________

Internal Intention and Sacramental Validity

Enquirer:

Hello Padre,

On another board, I have been arguing with some others about the validity of sacraments. The issue came up because someone said they would doubt the validity of a sacrament performed by a pedophile priest (seemingly a Donatist statement, but couched on the premise that such a priest might lack the intention to perform the sacrament, meaning the sacrament would be invalid).

I quoted from the Summa Theologica the following:

Quote:

"Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament."

Which would seem to imply that if the priest decides to use proper form and matter in the sacrament, that the faithful can be assured that the sacrament was valid.

Is it that cut and dry? Can we be 100% certain that any sacrament is valid? And when I say 100% I really mean 100%. Is there any way that, when I go to Mass, that there is the possibility of Christ not being present on the altar without my knowing it (if I am a Catholic who pays particular attention to the Mass)?

Is it possible that the priest can will himself to not internally intend to perform a sacrament while on the exterior follow the proper form and thereby dupe the entire congregation, thereby making the entire sacrament invalid?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fr. Joe replies:

Re: Internal Intention and Sacramental Validity

Heavy, heavy questions!

Quote:

"... Which would seem to imply that if the priest decides to use proper form and matter in the sacrament, that the faithful can be assured that the sacrament was valid. Is it that cut and dry?"

Yes. That's one of the things that make sacraments unique: they work "ex opere operato", that is, they work simply by being done, whereas other things (such as private devotions) work "ex opere operantis", that is, they work according to the disposition of the person doing them. A novena won't bestow any grace if done without reverence, but the Eucharist bestows the grace of union with the Real Presence of Jesus even if the recipient is totally daydreaming.

This may shock the "traditionalists" out there, but it is the Church's constant and reliable teaching that the Eucharist is not invalidated if the priest is in the state of mortal sin (in which case his own reception is a sacrilege but the Eucharist is still valid) or even if he has totally lost his faith! That's why even atheists can validly baptise; it's a sacrament and so it works by being done, and does not depend on the person's holiness or understanding or emotional state or income bracket or hairdo.

Extreme scenario: A priest has totally lost his faith, and considers religion to be just a lot of hocus pocus designed to keep people happy. But he fears telling anybody this, because then he'd lose his "job" and have to start doing some real work. So he keeps saying Mass, without ANY intention of confecting the Eucharist, but merely going through the motions "because it makes 'em happy and puts food on my plate."

Would his Masses be valid?

Yes! Unutterably sad for him, but valid!

There IS one way that a priest can render it invalid through intention alone, but I'll get to that after your final question below.

Quote:

"Can we be 100% certain that any sacrament is valid?"

All else being equal, yes. Trouble is, all else is never 100% guaranteed to be equal. An example follows your next question.

Quote:

"Is there any way that, when I go to Mass, that there is the possibility of Christ not being present on the altar without my knowing it (if I am a Catholic who pays particular attention to the Mass)?"

Yes, it's possible (though highly unlikely!).

Example: Imagine this scenario. The priest says exactly the right words, using the right rite, with proper intention, etc. He and all those participating in the Mass are 100% certain that all's well, and they have no reason whatsoever to doubt the validity of the Eucharist. However, unbeknownst to them, a Bad Person snuck into the sacristy before Mass and replaced all of the hosts with tiny rice cakes that look and taste exactly the same as the hosts, and replaced the altar wine with apple wine that looks and tastes exactly the same as the altar wine. In this (admittedly silly) case, the sacrament would NOT be valid, since improper "matter" is being used.

Needless to say (I hope), the priest and the faithful would receive the same graces that they would have received had it been a valid Eucharist, since "God never withholds His grace from those who do what they can." They'd get the same grace AS IF they had received a valid sacrament... without actually receiving a valid sacrament.

God is not limited to the sacraments.

The sacraments are guarantees, not limitations.

Quote:

"Is it possible that the priest can will himself to not internally intend to perform a sacrament while on the exterior follow the proper form and thereby dupe the entire congregation, thereby making the entire sacrament invalid?"

Oh boy, I hate to even talk about this, because it's so nightmarish, but you asked for it, so here goes.

Saint Catherine of Sienna discusses exactly the case you mention here. She was dealing with a priest who was in the state of mortal sin, and didn't want to receive the Eucharist sacrilegiously, so he secretly INTENDED for the transubstantiation NOT to occur, thinking that he thus personally avoided sacrilege while the congregation would be none the wiser nor denied grace (see above).

St Catherine concluded (and the Church teaches, and Canon Law states) that such an abominable act is morally FAR WORSE than receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

Bottom line: YES, a priest CAN render the Eucharist invalid by specifically INTENDING for the transubstantiation NOT to occur. This is called "simulating the sacrament" but (unless revealed by the priest) cannot be known to anybody else, since it is done in secret. Since it is not only a horrible sin but also a violation of strict Church law, it carries severe ecclesiastical penalties. Therefore, no priest should EVER be accused of such a thing without positive proof.

Oof! Even writing about that subject wrings me out emotionally! I hope the above proves helpful to you.

-Fr Joe-

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Enquirer:

Thank you Padre, just one more clarification...

Quote:

"Oof! Even writing about that subject wrings me out emotionally! I hope the above proves helpful to you."

You're telling me Father! I even hated talking about this subject because of the very reason that it might cause people to become overly scrupulous when receiving the Sacraments (yet here I am bringing it up over here), but I just had to have a bona fide explanation from a priest, rather than rely on the "armchair lay theologians" which seemingly dominate the internet world. So thank you!

With that said, I have one last question to ask, more of seeking a reference on what you said, if that is possible...

Quote:

"Needless to say (I hope), the priest and the faithful would receive the same graces that they would have received had it been a valid Eucharist, since 'God never withholds His grace from those who do what they can.' They'd get the same grace AS IF they had received a valid sacrament... without actually receiving a valid sacrament."

So, in the case of the 'really bad priest' who didn't intend to confect the sacrament (the last example you gave), the laity WOULD receive the graces of the sacraments?

Could you point me in the direction of a source for this? I just hope it's in English!

Once again, thanks Father. My greatest concern concerned whether or not the priest could somehow frustrate the graces of God... glad to know that is not possible! Actually, it's common sense but needed to hear it from someone else!

***************************************************

Fr. Joe replies:

Re: Thank you Padre, just one more clarification...

Quote:

"So, in the case of the 'really bad priest' who didn't intend to confect the sacrament (the last example you gave), the laity WOULD receive the graces of the sacraments?"

Whoa Nellie, let's be absolutely clear on this. There's a difference between NOT INTENDING TO and INTENDING NOT TO.

If a priest spends all night making house calls anointing the sick and dying, and then gets 30 minutes of sleep before he has to get up for the 6:30 AM Mass (not a rare scenario!) and then sort of says Mass on "auto pilot" and afterwards goes right back to bed... it's VERY possible (probable?) that at the moment of consecration he will not have any CONSCIOUS intention to do anything; even an EEG might reveal no brain activity. HA HA HA! Ha! ha. hmmm. *cough* He doesn't consciously intend to consecrate the bread and wine... but he most certainly doesn't actively intend NOT to consecrate them. See the difference? Just making sure.

By the way, the Mass would be valid in the case of the drowsy priest, due to what the Church calls "habitual intention". Since the priest has the proper intention at Mass after Mass after Mass, he soon develops a "habit" of having that intention. That good habit is what carries him through moments of drowsiness, daydreaming, and the like. It suffices for validity.

Here's a fun thought: If you ever meet a priest after Mass, and he looks absolutely exhausted, pat him on the back and wink and say, "Thank goodness for the validity of habitual intentions, huh, Father?" He'll get a good laugh out of that, unless his brain is already back in bed.

Ok, back to your question, which I assume is referring to the evil act of INTENDING NOT TO confect the Eucharist. Yes, you are quite right: the faithful who go to communion at that Mass would receive all the grace of the sacrament even though (unbeknownst to them) the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus are NOT sacramentally present in that case. Never forget this basic theological principle:

God does not withhold His grace from those who do what they can.

Frame this and hang it in a conspicuous place. Sort of like Benito Mussolini. HA HA HA!!! Ok, ok, sick joke. Sorry. This topic has warped my brain.

Quote:

"Could you point me in the direction of a source for this? "

The best source is the one you pointed out yourself:

Quote:

"Actually, it's common sense but needed to hear it from someone else!"

"Glad to help!" -- Petunia

-Fr Joe-

__________________________________________________________

Finally, Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. wrote in "Nervous with the Novus - is the New Rite alright?":

"If a Catholic really loves the Church and desires a return to the Traditional Mass, he must do so with a respect for the truth. He must respect the integrity of the Catholic Faith of those who do not share his insights, and are satisfied with the current liturgy. 'Traditionalist' literature which attacks the validity of the New Mass, or which holds it to be 'intrinsically evil,' never mentions the texts offered here. Thus, such critiques are irresponsible and doctrinally unsound. They are an example of the old logical principle, "He who proves too much, proves nothing."

Unfortunately, we often see hatred - such as Peter's - blind the logic AND faith of so many "traditionalists," who have an agenda that is more than a simple love of the Latin Mass. It is so sad.

F. John Loughnan
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
June 12, 2003