Some persons have claimed that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. This claim comes from the Sedevacantists, such as the SSPX, as well as from some traditionalist Catholics. In this article, I will argue that the Novus Ordo Mass and other liturgical rites are necessarily certainly valid and licit, as a dogmatic fact.
The Novus Ordo (new order) is the set of liturgical services, especially holy Mass, formed subsequent to the Second Vatican Council, using the vernacular languages instead of Latin. The Mass in most parishes in the U.S. will be in English, and will use the latest version of the Novus Ordo. The other option for Mass in the Latin Rite of the Church (as opposed to the Eastern Catholic Churches and their rites) is the traditional Latin Mass. The Church continues to permit the Mass in Latin, while decidedly favoring the vernacular languages, in the Novus Ordo form. Other rites, such as funerals, weddings, baptisms, confirmation, etc. have a Novus Ordo vernacular form, which as largely replaced the traditional Latin version of each rite.
The claim is made that these Novus Ordo rites are “invalid”. It is not entirely clear what is meant by the claim, as validity usually refers to the Sacraments.
First, an invalid Sacrament is not a Sacrament and does not have the effect of the Sacrament. An invalid consecration of the Eucharist leaves the species as merely bread and wine. An illicit consecration would still have the effect of transubstantiation, providing the faithful with the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. An illicit administering of a Sacrament is illicit because it is against Church law; an invalid attempted Sacrament is not a Sacrament at all.
Second, a Mass with an invalid attempted consecration of the Eucharist is not a Mass at all. Even the licit service on Good Friday, during with there is not supposed to be any consecration of the Eucharist (as hosts consecrated at a previous Mass are used), is not a Mass.
Third, a Mass might be termed invalid, even with a valid consecration. This might be the case if the Mass is so faulty that it does not constitute a Mass under Church law and liturgical regulations. Making up your own rite for a “Mass”, which is very different from any approved form, is not a valid Mass, even if the consecration were valid. Such a Mass would not fulfill the Church law to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days, nor substantially contribute to the Commandment to keep holy the Sabbath.
But God is merciful and lenient, even though we are fallen sinners with many sins and failings. And so, it is quite difficult for a Mass to be invalid, in this third sense (i.e. still with a valid Eucharist). When a priest — or the lay persons given too much influence over the form of the Mass by the priest — introduce various errors into the form of the Mass, it does not easily become invalid. I’ve seen many imprudent novelties in Masses over my many years of being a practicing lifelong Catholic. I can’t think of any example that would have been so bad that it would not be a valid Mass, despite these errors — though this can happen.
The Sacraments themselves and even the rites which contain and express them are not fragile. Since the Sacraments are essential to the plan of Salvation, God wisely made these resilient, not fragile. The Ark of Salvation — the Church — is likewise not a boat made of balsam wood, but of gopher wood, protected with pitch inside and out (i.e. like the Ark of Noah). Many problems occur in the Church, the Sacraments, the disciplines and liturgical rites and all the rest. But such problems do not destroy the essentials, as God did not foolishly make His Church and Her rites to be fragile, so that our salvation would not be easily endangered.
That the Novus Ordo rites are certainly, as a dogmatic fact, valid is clear from several points. First, the Church is indefectible; She cannot lead the faithful astray from the path of salvation. Second, the liturgical rites, which contain and express the Sacraments as well as the life of worship of the faithful, are essential to salvation. Then the Pope has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, which protects his decisions under the Keys of Peter, even when these decisions are on non-infallible teachings or non-infallible decisions of discipline. An invalid Mass, in the form approved by successive Popes and by the body of Bishops, would gravely harm the path of salvation. Since such a harm, if approved by the Church, would lead the faithful astray, it is NOT possible as it is contrary to the dogma of indefectibility. The gates of Hell cannot prevail over the Church by gravely erroneous teachings, nor by gravely erroneous decisions on discipline or liturgical rites. Such a situation is absolutely precluded by the promise of Christ (Mt 16:18). The claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid implies that the Church is leading the faithful astray by this approved and widely used form of the Mass. And that claim implies contradicts Jesus in His teaching on the indefectibility of the Church, which is based on Peter and his successors as the Rock on which the Church is founded.
Therefore, since the Novus Ordo rites are approved by the successive Roman Pontiffs and by the body of Bishops led by each successive Pope, these rites cannot be invalid, nor gravely erroneous, nor harmful to the path of salvation. To say otherwise is to contradict the indefectibility of the Church and the charism of truth and never-failing faith of the Roman Pontiff.
Ronald L Conte Jr
the reproach of Christ 
Ron,
I was referring to the following:
Pope Paul VI promulgated the May 28, 1969 Instruction Memori ale Domine.
Pope John Paul II, Domincae Cenae of February 24, 1980.
Again, I thank you for giving me an insight and knowledge on this matter.
OK, thanks.
Ron,
Sorry but I have one last thought as a layman.
It appears to me that the body of bishops and priests ignored and/or rejected the requests of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. The collective body of bishops and priests may have done so in the favor of “Ecumenism”. As a layman, I have a hard time in understanding why. I believe if Jesus Christ made a request to his apostles, it would have been carried out and since the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, I would have thought the body of bishops and priests would adhere to their requests. I don’t think this is hypothetical but a truism.
As for your example of a woman demanding communion on tongue while kneeling, I am happy to say here in the Philippines it is still optional. Although I can]t kneel due to my age (never would be able to get back up), the tongue is permissible in receiving communion.
Again, I thank you for your insight.
I don’t know of any “requests” from Popes ignored by the Body of Bishops. I don’t know what you are referring to.
Ron,
As always thank you for your response. I could be missing something in your response
though. I still have questions on this subject:
Has there been a pope since Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II issuing a document for allowing communion by hand and the usage of Extraordinary Ministers?
Why didn’t the bishops carry through on the urging of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II?
I know its not dogma to receive communion by tongue but at the same time, I would think the body of bishops would carry through on their requests.
I could be wrong but it appears to me this topic could be a catalyst in a church schism.
I think that is why regardless of the urging of the said two popes, the church would like this subject to be buried.
This is not a question of a request. The Apostolic See has a dicastery (congregation) on Divine Worship and the Sacraments, which governs liturgical matters. Then the dicastery delegates authority to the Bishops’ Conferences on matters such as how one may receive Communion. IN the U.S., the ordinary manner of receiving Communion is standing, on the hand or on the tongue. I don’t know all the details of liturgical regulations, but the Holy See has permitted lay extraordinary ministers of holy communion as well as altar girls.
Ron,
I wonder if you have a definitive answer on the following:
I am perplexed on the receiving of the eucharist by hand versus tongue. I was taught by nuns and brothers in the late 1950s’ and early 1960s’ that the touching of the host with unconsecrated hands was sacrilegious. In addition, kneeling was paramount in receiving the host. The kneeling was to show reverence to our Lord, Jesus Christ.
In my research as limited to my knowledge, I know Saint Thomas Aquinas affirmed —
“The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
“First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.
“Second, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.
“Third, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.” (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)
Pope Paul VI promulgated the May 28, 1969 Instruction Memori ale Domine. In summary, the document states:
The bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against Communion in the hand.
“This manner of distributing Holy Communion (that is, the priest placing the Host on the tongue of the communicants) must be observed.”
Communion on the tongue in no way detracts from the dignity of the communicant.
There was a warning that “any innovation could lead to irreverence and profanation of the Eucharist, as well as gradual erosion of correct doctrine.”
The document further says “the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the Faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests and people to observe zealously this law.”
It appears to me, the receiving of communion in hand has happened due to these possibilities:
Although, Vatican II does not mention receiving communion by hand, it has been said by scholars that the canonization of “Ecumenism” is partly at fault.
After Vatican II, some ecumenically-minded priests in Holland started giving Communion in the hand, in a monkey-see, monkey-do imitation of Protestant practice. But the bishops, rather than do their duty and condemn the abuse, tolerated it.
Because Church leaders allowed the abuse to go unchecked, the practice then spread to Germany, Belgium and France. But if the bishops seemed indifferent to this scandal, the laity were outraged. It was the indignation of large numbers of the Faithful which prompted Pope Paul VI to take some action. He polled the bishops of the world on this issue, and they voted overwhelmingly to retain the traditional practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. And it must be noted that at this time, the abuse was limited to a few European countries. It had not yet started in the United States.
Though there is no hard proof that the loose wording of Immensae Caritatis was done on purpose, there is ample proof that the ambiguity in the Vatican II documents was deliberate. Father Edward Schillebeeckx, an influential liberal theologian at Vatican II, admitted that placing deliberate ambiguity in the Council documents was a key strategy of the progressives. He said, “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we (the liberal theologians) know how we shall interpret them after.”
I have also read that the compromise by Canadian bishops of Humanae Vitae with the wording of “norms for licit dissent” has given credence to the possibility of receiving communion by hand.
While all of the above was researched on the internet, I trully do not know with certainty if it is all true.
My final question is — When did Extraordinary Ministers become the norm?
This unlawful abuse is so well established as local custom that even Pope John Paul II, who made at least a paper attempt to curb the abuse, was completely unsuccessful. In his letter Domincae Cenae of February 24, 1980, the Pope restated the Church’s teaching that “to touch the sacred species and to administer them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”
On September 21, 1987, a letter was sent from the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Sacraments through the proper channels to a number of Episcopal Conferences, including the American Bishops, on the subject of Extraordinary Ministers. In summary, the letters (which can be found in Michael Davies’ Privilege of the Ordained) stated that Rome has received many complaints of abuses regarding Extraordinary Ministers. As a result, the Pontifical Commission officially ruled that “when Ordinary Ministers (bishops, priests) are present at the Eucharist, whether celebrating or not, and are in sufficient number and are not prevented from doing so by other ministries, the Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist are not allowed to distribute Communion either to themselves or to the Faithful.”
Thanks-in-Advance
The Pope has full supreme authority over discipline, including Communion in the hand and whether to stand or kneel. Arguments against the decisions of Church authority tend towards schism. I recall a news story of a woman who switched Communion lines so that she would be receiving from a Bishop who required communicants to stand and receive in the hand. She kneeled with her tongue out and refused to take communion standing or in the hand. This was an act of willful disobedience and an expression of rejection of Church authority over the sacred liturgy.
When Jesus told John to baptize Him, John argued that it was not the right thing to do. But John relented and baptized Jesus in the Jordan. We must do whatever Jesus tells us to do through the Church. Recall that Jesus touched the leper and next healed him. Jesus ate with sinners. He does not object if sinners touch Him in the Eucharist. And there can be one set of reasons for one discipline, but another discipline can also be faithful and reasonable, with its own reasons.
John the Baptist fasted and lived a very ascetic lifestyle. Jesus ate with sinners and drank wine. Wisdom is proved right by all her children.
Dear Ron,
This article criticizing Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s recent letter seems to come from a Sede Vacantist perspective:https://novusordowatch.org/2023/06/athanasius-schneider-overrules-traditionis-custodes/ Even though the article is incorrect about Vatican II and the post-conciliar popes, its arguments against Bishop Schneider’s position are convincing in terms of Catholic doctrine on papal authority. I just thought I would mention this article in case you have not seen it.
I just posted my article on Bishop Schneider’s position moments before I saw your comment. I’ll take a look at the article anyway.
Dear Ron,
Your response to the letter of Bishop Athanasius Schneider is truly excellent. It is much better than the reply given by the “Novus Ordo Watch” because it is not infected by the “sede vacantist” position. The Novus Ordo Watch article, though, does show that Bishop Schnedier’s position cannot be harmonized with traditional Catholic doctrine on papal authority. That is why I shared it.
Hi Ron,
Great article. I tried to post a fairly long reply, but it did not seem to go. So a second try with just a quick comment regarding the SSPX, the Society of Saint Pius X, although very similar to sede groups in terms of being extreme rad trad groups with neither having any canonical status with the Church or any legitimate purposes for existing, they do differ in that sedes go with the no-pope theory while SSPX is a “recognize and resist” group – they believe Pope Francis is the Pope, but he is wrong about Vatican 2 and the Paul VI Missal so they are not required to actually follow him.
God Bless
I think SSPX is sedevacantist. There may be some members of that group with a different view than the organization.
On Recognize and Resist, it is patent schism to say that a person is the true Pope, and that you will resist him. If you wanted to sum up schism in three words, those three words would work just fine. It is the heart of schism to admit that someone is the true successor of Peter and also state that you will resist his authority over doctrine and discipline.
All of these groups are motivated by pride. They wish to be the ones to decide all questions on doctrine and discipline, and if a Pope or Council decides otherwise, in contradiction to their views, they reject that Pope or Council. How would they have behaved if they lived in the time when Jesus walked this earth? Would they have said that He can’t be the Messiah because He teaches something different from their own judgments and understanding? That is not faith.
Hi Ron, Thanks for another great article. My family has left the Church and joined a sedevacantist group, and the invalidity of the Sacraments when using the Pope St. Paul VI Missal is the foundational and central tenant of their entire belief system. For it is from this claim that they conclude that the “chair is empty”, i.e. that there is currently no pope, which is how they get their very namesake of sedevacantism – chair vacant.
The sede “priest” proclaims this at every “mass” announcing that, “due to the “substantial” changes made by the false Vatican 2 council, anyone previously attending a “non-traditional” parish (i.e. a diocesan parish in union with the local Bishop) who is new to a “traditional parish”, (there never is) needs to speak with me before approaching the communion rail or the confessional”.
So help me understand, this guy can set up shop in an illicit make-shift “chapel”, in a commercial small business office space rental complex, call it a “traditional catholic church parish”, preach this absurd, schismatic, and heretical teaching, illicitly offer the “sacraments”, and operate in all other capacities as a lawful priest with NO BISHOP, or any other authorization whatsoever, independent, autonomous, and that’s all fine, no “substantial” changes there, but speaking English, facing the people, Communion in the hand (I thought on the tongue is allowed?), and whatever else, those are substantial, the sacrament invalid, and the whole mass is an evil man-centered invention of the free masons?
What exactly these changes are he never says, and no one seems to be curious about it, but regardless of what they are, what’s important is that they do not transfer grace as the Church says they do, for what else would being invalid mean?
The way I reasoned it – First, for a Sacrament you need Matter and Form. Changes to either, then no sacrament, no grace given, i.e. a substantial change. So if the Matter and the Form can never change, then they would have to be of Divine Law, i.e. taught directly by Jesus, recorded in the Gospels, confirmed by the Church as Dogma, and can never be changed, as opposed to Church Law, which are things the Church has decided, and thus She can change, such as any liturgical rules or practices around the ceremony of celebrating the Sacrament. For I would think that any change that could result in the entire faithful of the church not receiving grace when they think they are, that would be a huge fail, a total defection in what God gave us in order to save our souls, not possible for Christ’s Church, so it must be Divine Law.
So what is Divine Law about the Matter and the Form of the Sacraments? Well, first, is it Divine Law that you must have Matter and Form? I don’t recall any Gospel passages that record Jesus as saying so. But putting that aside, it appears Jesus only explicitly spoke of Baptism and Communion. On the Form for both, He Himself spoke the words explicitly, so that must be Divine Law, therefore those words can never change, and indeed those words have never been changed. On the Matter, He only said water, and bread and wine are to be used. Rather vague – seems today we have quite a bit more specifics than that – in which case the Church would have come up with those details, making them a matter of Church Law, and so the Church could change those if She wanted to.
Of the other five Sacraments, Jesus did not speak about the Matter or the Form. Therefore, those have all been decided by the Church, and can be changed by the Church.
So it seems that the Form of Baptism and Communion is the only item that is truly a matter of Divine Law that can never change, and indeed those words have never changed. The Matter of Baptism and Communion is generally Divine Law, so while the use of water and bread and wine can never change, which they have not, it seems the Church has provided further details on the water, and bread and wine, and so those details can be changed.
So bottom line, the only items of Divine Law in terms of the Sacraments and all the liturgical practices is the Matter and Form for Baptism and Communion, and those have never changed. So what can this guy be talking about “substantial” changes and invalid sacraments?
Would love to get your feedback
What you said about the Sacraments and matter and form is not correct. Jesus instituted all Seven Sacraments, and even if He did not specify matter and form, when the Church decides correct doctrine on matter and form, it is unchangeable. So all 7 Sacraments have a matter and form that are essential to validity, which the Church cannot change. But no one can say to the Church that She is mistaken in that teaching, as it is dogma.
The Church can add or change requirements to Sacraments, such as adding or changing an age limit form marriage or changing the exact wording of the consecration of the Eucharist. But the essentials of the Sacraments cannot change.
As for sedevacantists, they have no way to elect a Pope, validly, and so they have no way to claim to be the true Church, which Jesus said is founded on Peter and his successors. Then Vatican One taught that the Church will always have successors of Peter, as this is the plan chosen by Christ. So while the See can be vacant for a limited period of time, it cannot be perpetually vacant.
The sedevacantists can’t even agree among themselves on anything, so we should not listen to them when they claim to have the authority to judge Popes and Councils. But the way to know with certitude that they are wrong is that the Church is Apostolic and indefectible. So the body of Bishops, successors to the Apostles, and the Pope, successor to Peter, cannot go astray or lead astray from the true Faith. So if a Pope is accepted as Pope by the body of Bishops, he is the valid Pope. To say otherwise is to deny the dogmas of indefectibility and the apostolic character of the Church. Then the valid Pope and the body of Bishops cannot err gravely or lead the faithful astray, by a false or gravely erroneous Council, nor by a gravely disordered or invalid Mass, because then the Church would not be Apostolic and indefectible, if the successors of the Apostles defected in any grave way.
Hi Ron, thanks for responding to my long post regarding the Matter and Form of the Sacraments. If I may ask a follow up – in your examples:
“The Church can add or change requirements to Sacraments, such as adding or changing an age limit for marriage, or…”
Requirement to participate such as age are not Matter or Form, so those would not be a “substantial” change that could make the Sacrament invalid. However,
“… changing the exact wording of the consecration of the Eucharist. But the essentials of the Sacraments cannot change.”
The exact wording of the consecration of the Eucharist can be changed? That is the Form, that is one of the “essentials of the Sacraments”. And further, this particular Form was explicitly given by Christ, which immediately makes it Divine Law. So the wording for the consecration of the Eucharist cannot change full stop. Did I misunderstand something?
Consider the Matter for the Eucharist – Christ only said it has to be bread and wine, but He did not give the specific recipe to be used, so that was determined by the Church. Can the Church change the recipe? Or has it been determined definitively, and “Church Law” raised to a level of “Divine Law”, to never be changed?
As for the other five Sacraments, Christ gave no info on Form or Matter, so the Church decided – all are therefore a matter of “Church Law”. Are the Matter and Form still “Church Law” and changes allowed, or have they been determined definitively, no changes allowed?
Finally, have any changes been made to a Matter or Form after being defined as a definitive unchangeable? would this be a “substantial” change making the Sacrament invalid?
It is wrong to say that if the Church “decided” matter and form, then the Church can change it. The Church often decides on a subject of dogma, and this includes dogma on the matter and form for valid Sacraments. As for the wording used, what matters most in the meaning. Thus, the formula of Mormon baptism is exactly the same wording and actions (baptizing with water), but the meaning — what they mean by Father, Son and Holy Spirit — is substantially different and so Mormon baptism is invalid. Then the consecration for the Eucharist has changed, e.g. “cup” was changed to “chalice” in the Novus Ordo Mass. So the form does not require one only exact wording. And the Church determines what the limits are for what constitutes “wheat” and “wine” and what wording is acceptable or not.
Hi Ron, Thanks for your very helpful reply. So, as in the case of Mormon Baptism, using the same words, but those words do not mean the same thing as what the Church says they need to mean, results in the Sacrament is invalid? Then using different words, but that do convey the same meaning, and that would be a valid sacrament?
I just watched a video of a sede priest explaining how the words used to confect the Sacrament of Holy Orders in the Paul VI Missal, which are different from the words that were previously used by the Church, do not have the same meaning, thus the Sacrament is invalid when using Paul VI, and the only thing that can be said is the Church said it’s ok, She has the authority, and She is indefectible, which is probably not going to be very convincing to a sede.
The baptism of Mormons is invalid due to the different meaning of the words. The Church can use different words that mean the same thing. This naturally happens when the approved rites are translated into different languages. The Church with the help of the Holy Spirit is indefectible, and so Her approved rites cannot be invalid. Sedevacantists make themselves judges over the Church, usurping the role of Christ, the Son of God. Different words with slightly different meanings may still be valid; the Church decides and She cannot err gravely in such matters.
Dear Ron,
Thank you for this good and persuasive article. I wonder whether you could comment on a recent letter by Bishop Athanasius Schneider:https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-107-2023-fri-june-30-old-mass/ Although Bishop Schneider is not denying the validity or the liceity of the Novus Ordo Mass, he is claiming that the Pope does not have the authority to prohibit or limit the “traditional Latin Mass.” Placing such a limitation on the Roman Pontiff’s authority seems to be in direct contradiction to the canon following chapter 3 of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus (Denz.-H 3064). Moreover, Bishop Schneider’s letter would mean that St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II did not have the authority to restrict the use of the 1962 Missal. I also am concerned about Bishop Schnedier’s claim that it is permitted to disobey the Roman Pontiff’s instructions given in “Traditiones Custodes.”
Bishop Schneider claims: “Noncompliance with the prohibitions of the traditional Mass does not make one, by that fact, schismatic, provided one continues to recognize the Pope and the bishops and continues to respect them, and pray for them.”
A Catholic could possibly decline to comply with certain prohibitions regarding the Latin Mass, and yet not be a schismatic. Every failure of obedience, even if grave, is not necessarily schism. But on the other hand, it is not sufficient to avoid schism to merely “recognize”, respect, and pray for the Pope and Bishops. A Protestant can recognize that Francis is the legitimate Pope and also respect and pray for him, but a Protestant is not in full communion with the Apostolic See or the Catholic Church.
I will write an article on this topic.
Thank you, Ron, for taking notice of my concerns. I am glad you will write an article on this topic.