Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: funerals novus order and non catholics  (Read 4741 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Conspiracy_Factist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 598
  • Reputation: +157/-19
  • Gender: Male
funerals novus order and non catholics
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2013, 07:53:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    I think I'm with Parents for truth on this one..I just can't see myself attending a novus order mass.  is there anything from popes supporting the attend but don't participate stance? here's some interesting  quotes..let me know your thoughts

    Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

     

    Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”



    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”



    This is more about respecting the dead and having an ordered relationship with your family than it is about respecting the novus ordo liturgy.  Furthermore, according to the conciliar church, the doctrine has not changed, only the pastoral mission and the liturgy.  Liturgy is not the same as doctrine, but we shun the new liturgy because it encourages a false interpretation of the doctrine.  So this does not really fit the examples above.  The new liturgy is dangerous, but they insist on interpreting it in accordance with the old doctrine.  So continue professing the old doctrine and they cannot put up an argument against it.  Quote all of the old popes and they can't argue with you.  On the other hand, protestants openly uphold doctrinal differences with us.  I don't have time to get more into this at the moment, but I will later on tonight when I get home if you want a deeper explanation of what I'm saying.


     


    I'm not totally understanding, I'll need a deeper explanation
    thanks


    Ok here goes.  The first quote is speaking of heretics and schismatics.  Do you have any heresies to hold against your parents' novus ordo pastor?  You obviously can't accuse him of schism because he has not relinquished devotion to the papacy (I'm assuming).  Now I don't know exactly where you stand on Pope Francis et al, but schism occurs when you renounce the papacy itself.  Heresy occurs when you speak doctrine contrary to tradition.

    As far as doctrine is concerned, saying the novus ordo mass, does not a heretic make.  Saying that the dead can get out of hell by repenting after they've been sent there, is a heresy.  Saying that Our Lord was not one with The Father, and was not divine, that's a heresy.  Saying an erroneous mass which you've been misguided enough to believe is ok, by other misguided people, does not make you a heretic.  You can't in all honesty tell me that every single novus ordo priest and bishop is a heretic.  If that's the statement that you want to make, please provide the heresies as example.

    I would say every no priest is a heretic because they believe people from false religions can be saved, if they weren't ordained in the trad rite they are  basically useless as I don't believe they are real priests...do you disagree?


    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 641
    • Reputation: +423/-31
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #16 on: May 22, 2013, 08:31:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    I think I'm with Parents for truth on this one..I just can't see myself attending a novus order mass.  is there anything from popes supporting the attend but don't participate stance? here's some interesting  quotes..let me know your thoughts

    Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

     

    Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”



    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”



    This is more about respecting the dead and having an ordered relationship with your family than it is about respecting the novus ordo liturgy.  Furthermore, according to the conciliar church, the doctrine has not changed, only the pastoral mission and the liturgy.  Liturgy is not the same as doctrine, but we shun the new liturgy because it encourages a false interpretation of the doctrine.  So this does not really fit the examples above.  The new liturgy is dangerous, but they insist on interpreting it in accordance with the old doctrine.  So continue professing the old doctrine and they cannot put up an argument against it.  Quote all of the old popes and they can't argue with you.  On the other hand, protestants openly uphold doctrinal differences with us.  I don't have time to get more into this at the moment, but I will later on tonight when I get home if you want a deeper explanation of what I'm saying.


     


    I'm not totally understanding, I'll need a deeper explanation
    thanks


    Ok here goes.  The first quote is speaking of heretics and schismatics.  Do you have any heresies to hold against your parents' novus ordo pastor?  You obviously can't accuse him of schism because he has not relinquished devotion to the papacy (I'm assuming).  Now I don't know exactly where you stand on Pope Francis et al, but schism occurs when you renounce the papacy itself.  Heresy occurs when you speak doctrine contrary to tradition.

    As far as doctrine is concerned, saying the novus ordo mass, does not a heretic make.  Saying that the dead can get out of hell by repenting after they've been sent there, is a heresy.  Saying that Our Lord was not one with The Father, and was not divine, that's a heresy.  Saying an erroneous mass which you've been misguided enough to believe is ok, by other misguided people, does not make you a heretic.  You can't in all honesty tell me that every single novus ordo priest and bishop is a heretic.  If that's the statement that you want to make, please provide the heresies as example.

    I would say every no priest is a heretic because they believe people from false religions can be saved, if they weren't ordained in the trad rite they are  basically useless as I don't believe they are real priests...do you disagree?


    Yes I disagree.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not proclaim all priests ordained in the new rite to be invalid priests.  He simply questioned the efficacy and validity of the rite.  That's not the same thing as declaring it invalid.  I also disagree that all novus ordo priests believe that people from false religions can be saved.  I haven't interviewed all of them and I have no statements from them to the contrary.  What I find is that they like to duck the issue and not answer the question.  Why?  Because they don't want to speak heresy.  Unless your priest gets up and says that people from other religions can be saved, then I don't see how you can accuse them of holding that statement to be true.  As far as the validity of the rite of ordination.  I would much more trust the statements of an exorcist like Fr. Chad Ripperger who casts demons into hell in the name of Jesus Christ, who maintains that he received efficacious faculties from a heretic bishop and that possessed people recoil whether you show them a host consecrated in the traditional Latin rite or in the novus ordo rite, as it's not the validity of the consecration which makes the new mass bad.  It's the sacrilegious nature of the entire rite and the replacement of mental prayer with community spoken prayer.


    Offline Napoli

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 716
    • Reputation: +707/-0
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #17 on: May 22, 2013, 08:45:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think you make more of a statement when you go but don't participate.

    Last wedding I went to somebody said to me "wasn't that the most beautiful Mass you have ever been to?". I looked her straight in the eye and said "No, any Mass at my traditional parish is better". She was annoyed but another man heard and asked which parish. I let him know and he showed up this week and was blown away. He couldn't believe the difference. The music, the reverence etc.

    So, to make a long story short, we should all go. It's extremely difficult, but well worth it if we can save one soul.

    Pax
    Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 598
    • Reputation: +157/-19
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #18 on: May 25, 2013, 09:52:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    I think I'm with Parents for truth on this one..I just can't see myself attending a novus order mass.  is there anything from popes supporting the attend but don't participate stance? here's some interesting  quotes..let me know your thoughts

    Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

     

    Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”



    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”



    This is more about respecting the dead and having an ordered relationship with your family than it is about respecting the novus ordo liturgy.  Furthermore, according to the conciliar church, the doctrine has not changed, only the pastoral mission and the liturgy.  Liturgy is not the same as doctrine, but we shun the new liturgy because it encourages a false interpretation of the doctrine.  So this does not really fit the examples above.  The new liturgy is dangerous, but they insist on interpreting it in accordance with the old doctrine.  So continue professing the old doctrine and they cannot put up an argument against it.  Quote all of the old popes and they can't argue with you.  On the other hand, protestants openly uphold doctrinal differences with us.  I don't have time to get more into this at the moment, but I will later on tonight when I get home if you want a deeper explanation of what I'm saying.


     


    I'm not totally understanding, I'll need a deeper explanation
    thanks


    Ok here goes.  The first quote is speaking of heretics and schismatics.  Do you have any heresies to hold against your parents' novus ordo pastor?  You obviously can't accuse him of schism because he has not relinquished devotion to the papacy (I'm assuming).  Now I don't know exactly where you stand on Pope Francis et al, but schism occurs when you renounce the papacy itself.  Heresy occurs when you speak doctrine contrary to tradition.

    As far as doctrine is concerned, saying the novus ordo mass, does not a heretic make.  Saying that the dead can get out of hell by repenting after they've been sent there, is a heresy.  Saying that Our Lord was not one with The Father, and was not divine, that's a heresy.  Saying an erroneous mass which you've been misguided enough to believe is ok, by other misguided people, does not make you a heretic.  You can't in all honesty tell me that every single novus ordo priest and bishop is a heretic.  If that's the statement that you want to make, please provide the heresies as example.

    I would say every no priest is a heretic because they believe people from false religions can be saved, if they weren't ordained in the trad rite they are  basically useless as I don't believe they are real priests...do you disagree?


    Yes I disagree.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not proclaim all priests ordained in the new rite to be invalid priests.  He simply questioned the efficacy and validity of the rite.  That's not the same thing as declaring it invalid.  I also disagree that all novus ordo priests believe that people from false religions can be saved.  I haven't interviewed all of them and I have no statements from them to the contrary.  What I find is that they like to duck the issue and not answer the question.  Why?  Because they don't want to speak heresy.  Unless your priest gets up and says that people from other religions can be saved, then I don't see how you can accuse them of holding that statement to be true.  As far as the validity of the rite of ordination.  I would much more trust the statements of an exorcist like Fr. Chad Ripperger who casts demons into hell in the name of Jesus Christ, who maintains that he received efficacious faculties from a heretic bishop and that possessed people recoil whether you show them a host consecrated in the traditional Latin rite or in the novus ordo rite, as it's not the validity of the consecration which makes the new mass bad.  It's the sacrilegious nature of the entire rite and the replacement of mental prayer with community spoken prayer.

    Archbishop Lefebvre while he did a lot of good protecting the trad mass he was an heretic since he believed people in false religions could be saved...so not sure why you are using him as the decider on whether the new rite priests are valid.... as for what the priests believe I have asked my old novus order priest who told me atheists can go to heaven...and my sspx priest who told me there's a chance people in false religions can be saved...I can't say all no priests believe but I'd be surprised if there were many who believed you must be ctholic to be saved...I don't know the priest you mentioned but if he's novus order I wouldn' ttrust him for much......if you like we can get into the specifics of why I believe the new rite is invalid..let me know

    Offline Miseremini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3756
    • Reputation: +2798/-238
    • Gender: Female
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #19 on: May 25, 2013, 12:18:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Napoli
    I think you make more of a statement when you go but don't participate.

    Last wedding I went to somebody said to me "wasn't that the most beautiful Mass you have ever been to?". I looked her straight in the eye and said "No, any Mass at my traditional parish is better". She was annoyed but another man heard and asked which parish. I let him know and he showed up this week and was blown away. He couldn't believe the difference. The music, the reverence etc.

    So, to make a long story short, we should all go. It's extremely difficult, but well worth it if we can save one soul.

    Pax


    Be Careful.......the end never justifies the means when the means could be wrong !  Your presence signifies your approval.  If your sibling converted to the muslin religion would you attend????   No.... so what's the difference?
    "Let God arise, and let His enemies be scattered: and them that hate Him flee from before His Holy Face"  Psalm 67:2[/b]



    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 641
    • Reputation: +423/-31
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #20 on: May 25, 2013, 12:45:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch
    I think I'm with Parents for truth on this one..I just can't see myself attending a novus order mass.  is there anything from popes supporting the attend but don't participate stance? here's some interesting  quotes..let me know your thoughts

    Pope Pius IX’s encyclical, Graves ac diuturnae.  Speaking of the “Old Catholic” heretics and schismatics, Pius IX says:

     

    Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings.  They should shun their writings and all contact with them.  They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.”



    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).”



    This is more about respecting the dead and having an ordered relationship with your family than it is about respecting the novus ordo liturgy.  Furthermore, according to the conciliar church, the doctrine has not changed, only the pastoral mission and the liturgy.  Liturgy is not the same as doctrine, but we shun the new liturgy because it encourages a false interpretation of the doctrine.  So this does not really fit the examples above.  The new liturgy is dangerous, but they insist on interpreting it in accordance with the old doctrine.  So continue professing the old doctrine and they cannot put up an argument against it.  Quote all of the old popes and they can't argue with you.  On the other hand, protestants openly uphold doctrinal differences with us.  I don't have time to get more into this at the moment, but I will later on tonight when I get home if you want a deeper explanation of what I'm saying.


     


    I'm not totally understanding, I'll need a deeper explanation
    thanks


    Ok here goes.  The first quote is speaking of heretics and schismatics.  Do you have any heresies to hold against your parents' novus ordo pastor?  You obviously can't accuse him of schism because he has not relinquished devotion to the papacy (I'm assuming).  Now I don't know exactly where you stand on Pope Francis et al, but schism occurs when you renounce the papacy itself.  Heresy occurs when you speak doctrine contrary to tradition.

    As far as doctrine is concerned, saying the novus ordo mass, does not a heretic make.  Saying that the dead can get out of hell by repenting after they've been sent there, is a heresy.  Saying that Our Lord was not one with The Father, and was not divine, that's a heresy.  Saying an erroneous mass which you've been misguided enough to believe is ok, by other misguided people, does not make you a heretic.  You can't in all honesty tell me that every single novus ordo priest and bishop is a heretic.  If that's the statement that you want to make, please provide the heresies as example.

    I would say every no priest is a heretic because they believe people from false religions can be saved, if they weren't ordained in the trad rite they are  basically useless as I don't believe they are real priests...do you disagree?


    Yes I disagree.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not proclaim all priests ordained in the new rite to be invalid priests.  He simply questioned the efficacy and validity of the rite.  That's not the same thing as declaring it invalid.  I also disagree that all novus ordo priests believe that people from false religions can be saved.  I haven't interviewed all of them and I have no statements from them to the contrary.  What I find is that they like to duck the issue and not answer the question.  Why?  Because they don't want to speak heresy.  Unless your priest gets up and says that people from other religions can be saved, then I don't see how you can accuse them of holding that statement to be true.  As far as the validity of the rite of ordination.  I would much more trust the statements of an exorcist like Fr. Chad Ripperger who casts demons into hell in the name of Jesus Christ, who maintains that he received efficacious faculties from a heretic bishop and that possessed people recoil whether you show them a host consecrated in the traditional Latin rite or in the novus ordo rite, as it's not the validity of the consecration which makes the new mass bad.  It's the sacrilegious nature of the entire rite and the replacement of mental prayer with community spoken prayer.

    Archbishop Lefebvre while he did a lot of good protecting the trad mass he was an heretic since he believed people in false religions could be saved...so not sure why you are using him as the decider on whether the new rite priests are valid.... as for what the priests believe I have asked my old novus order priest who told me atheists can go to heaven...and my sspx priest who told me there's a chance people in false religions can be saved...I can't say all no priests believe but I'd be surprised if there were many who believed you must be ctholic to be saved...I don't know the priest you mentioned but if he's novus order I wouldn' ttrust him for much......if you like we can get into the specifics of why I believe the new rite is invalid..let me know


    Yes, please tell me why it's invalid.  And keep in mind, they've changed the wording back to "for many".

    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 598
    • Reputation: +157/-19
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #21 on: May 25, 2013, 01:02:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • So since they changed the words of consecration back to many  you believe that it wasn't valid before..but now it is?


    The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

     

    Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.

     

    Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecuмenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

     

    Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

     

    A study of the propers and orations of the Traditional Mass versus the New Mass reveals a massacre of the Traditional Faith.  The traditional Missal contains 1182 orations.  About 760 of those were dropped entirely from the New Mass.  Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them before introducing them into the new Missal.  Thus, only some 17% of the orations from the Traditional Mass made it untouched into the New Mass.  What’s also striking is the content of the revisions that were made to the orations.  The Traditional Orations which described the following concepts were specifically abolished from the New Missal: the depravity of sin; the snares of wickedness; the grave offense of sin; the way to perdition; terror in the face of God’s fury; God’s indignation; the blows of His wrath; the burden of evil; temptations; wicked thoughts; dangers to the soul; enemies of soul and body.  Also eliminated were orations which described: the hour of death; the loss of heaven; everlasting death; eternal punishment; the pains of Hell and its fire.  Special emphasis was made to abolish from the New Mass the orations which described detachment from the world; prayers for the departed; the true Faith and the existence of heresy; the references to the Church militant, the merits of the saints, miracles and Hell.[6]  One can see the results of this massacre of the Traditional Faith from the propers of the New Mass.



    In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.

     

    Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:

    “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1439
    • Reputation: +2103/-18
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #22 on: May 25, 2013, 01:11:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • That's not all Montini told Guitton. He also told him on December 7, 1965, the day he officially promulgated VII, "I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse." Guitton was a very close friend of Montini and had absolutely no reason to lie. Sometimes I think God spoke through Montini and others in an attempt to alert the world to what really happened at VII. The "seven trumpets" remark, "smoke of Satan," "auto-demolition," etc. Bugnini called the NOM a "major conquest of the Catholic Church."  
    "This principle is most certain: The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member. Now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others. Therefore, the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." -- St. Robert Bellarmine


    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1439
    • Reputation: +2103/-18
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #23 on: May 25, 2013, 01:22:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ryan


    And keep in mind, they've changed the wording back to "for many".


    I can put a lace dress on my dirty dog, which makes him nothing more than a dirty dog wearing a lace dress.
    "This principle is most certain: The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member. Now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others. Therefore, the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." -- St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Charlemagne

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1439
    • Reputation: +2103/-18
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #24 on: May 25, 2013, 01:24:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • DOUBLE POST. Mea culpa!
    "This principle is most certain: The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member. Now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others. Therefore, the manifest heretic cannot be Pope." -- St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 641
    • Reputation: +423/-31
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #25 on: May 25, 2013, 01:45:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Quote from: gooch

    So since they changed the words of consecration back to many  you believe that it wasn't valid before..but now it is?


    The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

     

    Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.

     

    Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecuмenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

     

    Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

     

    A study of the propers and orations of the Traditional Mass versus the New Mass reveals a massacre of the Traditional Faith.  The traditional Missal contains 1182 orations.  About 760 of those were dropped entirely from the New Mass.  Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them before introducing them into the new Missal.  Thus, only some 17% of the orations from the Traditional Mass made it untouched into the New Mass.  What’s also striking is the content of the revisions that were made to the orations.  The Traditional Orations which described the following concepts were specifically abolished from the New Missal: the depravity of sin; the snares of wickedness; the grave offense of sin; the way to perdition; terror in the face of God’s fury; God’s indignation; the blows of His wrath; the burden of evil; temptations; wicked thoughts; dangers to the soul; enemies of soul and body.  Also eliminated were orations which described: the hour of death; the loss of heaven; everlasting death; eternal punishment; the pains of Hell and its fire.  Special emphasis was made to abolish from the New Mass the orations which described detachment from the world; prayers for the departed; the true Faith and the existence of heresy; the references to the Church militant, the merits of the saints, miracles and Hell.[6]  One can see the results of this massacre of the Traditional Faith from the propers of the New Mass.



    In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.

     

    Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:

    “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[



    Oh boy.  All of this I know.  Let's get on to the consecration.  Why is it invalid?


    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 641
    • Reputation: +423/-31
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #26 on: May 25, 2013, 01:47:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Charlemagne
    Quote from: Ryan


    And keep in mind, they've changed the wording back to "for many".


    I can put a lace dress on my dirty dog, which makes him nothing more than a dirty dog wearing a lace dress.


    Durp dee durp dee durpidy durp

    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 598
    • Reputation: +157/-19
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #27 on: May 25, 2013, 02:29:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ryan


    Quote from: gooch

    So since they changed the words of consecration back to many  you believe that it wasn't valid before..but now it is?


    The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian.

     

    Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.

     

    Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecuмenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.”[5]

     

    Paul VI removed what was too Catholic in the Mass in order to make the Mass a Protestant service.

     

    A study of the propers and orations of the Traditional Mass versus the New Mass reveals a massacre of the Traditional Faith.  The traditional Missal contains 1182 orations.  About 760 of those were dropped entirely from the New Mass.  Of the approximately 36% which remained, the revisers altered over half of them before introducing them into the new Missal.  Thus, only some 17% of the orations from the Traditional Mass made it untouched into the New Mass.  What’s also striking is the content of the revisions that were made to the orations.  The Traditional Orations which described the following concepts were specifically abolished from the New Missal: the depravity of sin; the snares of wickedness; the grave offense of sin; the way to perdition; terror in the face of God’s fury; God’s indignation; the blows of His wrath; the burden of evil; temptations; wicked thoughts; dangers to the soul; enemies of soul and body.  Also eliminated were orations which described: the hour of death; the loss of heaven; everlasting death; eternal punishment; the pains of Hell and its fire.  Special emphasis was made to abolish from the New Mass the orations which described detachment from the world; prayers for the departed; the true Faith and the existence of heresy; the references to the Church militant, the merits of the saints, miracles and Hell.[6]  One can see the results of this massacre of the Traditional Faith from the propers of the New Mass.



    In his famous Bull Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V forbade changing the traditional Latin Mass.

     

    Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570:

    “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us… Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition.  Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”[



    Oh boy.  All of this I know.  Let's get on to the consecration.  Why is it invalid?

    sure thing, can you answer first if you believe the mass was valid when hey had the words " for all" in the form of consecration......that you believe it wasn't valid then but now it is since they changed it back to many?

    Offline SoldierOfChrist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 641
    • Reputation: +423/-31
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #28 on: May 25, 2013, 03:29:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: gooch

    sure thing, can you answer first if you believe the mass was valid when hey had the words " for all" in the form of consecration......that you believe it wasn't valid then but now it is since they changed it back to many?


    Absolutely.  I will answer your first question for you.  Just because.  My reason for reminding you about that change was so that you wouldn't waste any time including it in your argument.  But since you insist, my answer is the following.

    I don't think that it changed the validity for priests who believed they were doing what the Church intends, who had valid matter, and who believed that the words were correct.

    For priests who didn't intend to do what the Church does, ie consecrate the host and effect transubstantiation, it was invalid.  For priests who didn't have valid matter, ie wonder bread or something, it was invalid.  For priests who knew that the words were incorrect, it was possibly invalid, but I'm not actually sure about that one.

    Since this topic started off as you coming to the group and asking advice about your family, I thought that I'd throw my two cents in.  But at the moment, it appears that your actual intentions are to argue.  I'm not interested.  Sounds like you've already got it all figured out for yourself.  So go ahead and tell your family members that you won't attend their funerals.  I really don't care.  Good luck.

    Offline Conspiracy_Factist

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 598
    • Reputation: +157/-19
    • Gender: Male
    funerals novus order and non catholics
    « Reply #29 on: May 25, 2013, 04:11:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ryan
    Quote from: gooch

    sure thing, can you answer first if you believe the mass was valid when hey had the words " for all" in the form of consecration......that you believe it wasn't valid then but now it is since they changed it back to many?


    Absolutely.  I will answer your first question for you.  Just because.  My reason for reminding you about that change was so that you wouldn't waste any time including it in your argument.  But since you insist, my answer is the following.

    I don't think that it changed the validity for priests who believed they were doing what the Church intends, who had valid matter, and who believed that the words were correct.

    For priests who didn't intend to do what the Church does, ie consecrate the host and effect transubstantiation, it was invalid.  For priests who didn't have valid matter, ie wonder bread or something, it was invalid.  For priests who knew that the words were incorrect, it was possibly invalid, but I'm not actually sure about that one.

    Since this topic started off as you coming to the group and asking advice about your family, I thought that I'd throw my two cents in.  But at the moment, it appears that your actual intentions are to argue.  I'm not interested.  Sounds like you've already got it all figured out for yourself.  So go ahead and tell your family members that you won't attend their funerals.  I really don't care.  Good luck.

    I don't have the funerals all figured out, you threw your 2 cents in and said that the new mass was valid, or something to that effect,  because I disagree with you you write my intentions are to argue....you do realize you're in a traditional catholic forum? where the majority go to traditional latin mass yet you seem puzzled I want to "argue" your assertion that the new mass maybe valid....strange to say the least......go ahead and go to your new mass , you'll need a lot more than luck