Author Topic: Faithful Novus Ordo Catholics (Read 8071 times)

songbird · « **Reply #45 on:** April 01, 2013, 06:25:30 PM »

That is right! The disciples were the priest, so as to take communion in the hand. They were not ordinary laymen. Less children can also be a sign of the times, more taxes, programs, etc. Makes both couples have to work.

Nishant · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2013, 06:59:38 PM »

Stubborn, actually that "idea" of indefectibility is based essentially and substantially on Mediator Dei, Mystici Corporis Christi, Auctorum Fidei and indeed Vatican I and Trent, as upheld by all pre-Vatican II theologians. At any rate, this isn't even about indefectibility per se, it's about what is the best approach going forward to overcoming some of the problems in the mainstream Church, it seems to me some people still prefer idealistic and utterly unrealistic scenarios to practical and doable ones.

I must say I have every respect for the people like yourself of the older generation who, I imagine, must have endured very much to attend the traditional Mass at a time of great upheaval. I think the authorities made many mistakes in their human capacity. But, for all that, I don't think that therefore every suspicion you have of the authorities becomes therefore necessarily correct. In forming a true judgment on the situation, what the faith says and what indefectibility requires, as bare minimum, in my opinion cannot just be set aside or ignored, otherwise we will make a mistake somewhere.

SSS, I think you are confused. Who mentioned the new Code or Vatican II here? We're talking about two different things, I think you misunderstood my post. This isn't even about canonical regularization of the Society, which is related but distinct. Bishop Fellay proposed among other things the addition and reintroduction of some of the prayers in the traditional Mass that find no equivalent or replacement in the new, saying this would be a big improvement, a step in the right direction. The difference is one of feasibility, it can easily be done, it will easily be accepted, it has already met with favorable reception on the part of some Roman authorities. All this while nothing necessarily changes on the Society's part and things continue as they are.

Bishop Fellay is not the only one, even in the Society, to speak favorably of such an idea, nor is he the first. Priests are thinking men, they don't rely on rote or stale answers as new challenges present themselves, they apply their knowledge and judgment to find reasonable ways to resolve them. Don't take my word for it of course, but don't expect all Society priests to agree with you about what is the best way forward, I daresay even now a large majority would disagree with you. At the end, time will tell and the fruits will bear out which is the best approach to overcoming the crisis in the Church.

Stubborn · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2013, 07:04:22 PM »

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I can only speak for myself. As per my from signature, I don't assign any labels. It saddens me that people are dividend into Traditionalist versus NO camps. This only serves to advance Satan's ultimate desire to rend God's flock into pieces and thereby destroy the Church.

You *should* use labels, the Church has always assigned labels, usually to those who are not of the faith, She calls them heretics, apostates, schismatics Protestants, modernists, false prophets, Pharisees, and the list goes on.

Then there are labels within labels, ie baptists, methodists, lutherans and etc.

Since the disunity caused by the new religion of V2, Catholics now have labels.

Basically, those who reject the new faith and remain faithful to the true faith are traditional Catholics. Those compromising Catholics who accept the new religion are NO catholics.

The very reason there are labels, are precisely because there are differences in beliefs between the new faith and the true faith. To deny this truth is to fool only one's self.

Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I attend both Tridentine and NO Masses. I have no problem with the NO Mass as long as it is celebrated reverently. Personally I have never observed any grave abuses at any NO Masses. The worst being people holding hands during the "Our Father" and at times excessive use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers. Both of these practices do not diminish my faith in the least.

I mean no insult to you but you need to thank those faithful Catholics of 45 years ago who labored in great hardship and preserved the true faith and Mass for you to compromise today.

If the true faith is to be preserved, it is up to us, today, now, like those before us, it is now we who are responsible for what happens tomorrow.

What will you leave for the next generations - the true faith or the new faith?..............fyi, a mixture of the two = the new faith.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2013, 07:58:26 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Bishop Fellay is not the only one, even in the Society, to speak favorably of such an idea, nor is he the first. Priests are thinking men, they don't rely on rote or stale answers as new challenges present themselves, they apply their knowledge and judgment to find reasonable ways to resolve them. Don't take my word for it of course, but don't expect all Society priests to agree with you about what is the best way forward, I daresay even now a large majority would disagree with you. At the end, time will tell and the fruits will bear out which is the best approach to overcoming the crisis in the Church.

Oh, I wouldn't doubt if many SSPX priests disagree. The Society has become liberal under Bishop Fellay's leadership.

Stubborn · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2013, 08:56:54 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Stubborn, actually that "idea" of indefectibility is based essentially and substantially on Mediator Dei, Mystici Corporis Christi, Auctorum Fidei and indeed Vatican I and Trent, as upheld by all pre-Vatican II theologians. At any rate, this isn't even about indefectibility per se, it's about what is the best approach going forward to overcoming some of the problems in the mainstream Church, it seems to me some people still prefer idealistic and utterly unrealistic scenarios to practical and doable ones.

The mainstream Church has been taken over by modernists who gained control and promulgated the New Faith of V2 and they made no error in promulgating the NO to accomplish what it set out to do, namely to destroy the Church from within.

Further, it is utterly unrealistic, unpractical and completely undoable to expect this or any enemy to negotiate a truce, or to negotiate them to surrender their apostasy while they are clearly the ones who hold the position of uncontested and all but unchallenged supremacy of authority. Indeed, they have managed to gain favor from the majority of those who are supposed to oppose them!

In any battle ever fought, the enemy has never even considered surrendering or compromising while they were winning, never negotiated while they were not out numbered, never weakened when they were not hurting for ammunition or supplies - - - on the contrary, under those conditions, the enemy goes in for the kill, right for the juggler vein - and that is the condition of the Church today. There is no such hope for any practical solution to this crisis because the enemy is winning at the moment.

Any practical or doable conclusion while the enemy is in charge can only result in even more compromise of the true faith in favor of the new faith.

Do you understand that?

Quote from: Nishant

I must say I have every respect for the people like yourself of the older generation who, I imagine, must have endured very much to attend the traditional Mass at a time of great upheaval. I think the authorities made many mistakes in their human capacity. But, for all that, I don't think that therefore every suspicion you have of the authorities becomes therefore necessarily correct. In forming a true judgment on the situation, what the faith says and what indefectibility requires, as bare minimum, in my opinion cannot just be set aside or ignored, otherwise we will make a mistake somewhere.

Again, this is where you err. The authorities made no mistakes because it was the authorities who perpetrated the destruction of the true faith and replaced it with the new faith *on purpose*. This is what enemies of the Church do. This is not what the learned Catholic hierarchy did by mistake.

To even consider that this crisis happened due to some mistakes means these mistakes were due to the incompetency of the authorities, (most of whom presumably had 30 years experience in the hierarchy at the time of V2, not to mention were born and raised Catholic and had probably 10 or more years in Catholic theological schooling) and makes a complete joke and utter waste of time out of the faith, their whole formation and education!

I mean, if you hold to that line of reasoning, then all being raised a Catholic, going through 12 years of Catholic schooling in the 1940s(?), attending college, seminary and being a member of the clergy for 10 to 40 years made them all completely and utterly stupid!
Considering the gravity of how screwed up the new faith is, your reasoning makes the whole magisterium since V2 out to be a bunch of back wood yahoos.