Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on December 02, 2014, 08:32:55 AM
-
Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?
A beautiful Catholic Church looks like it was sold to a protestant sect and remodeled to accommodate a completely different religion!
Even the pews were replaced with chairs.
Something isn't Catholic here.
Here is the caption that went with the picture:
Before and After Cupich. Believe it or not...this is the same building....the seminary chapel of St. Turibius at the Pontifical Josephinum in Ohio. The photo on the left is what the chapel used to look like BEFORE Cupich became the president-rector of the seminary. The photo on the right is Cupich's horrible wreckovation that destroyed the same chapel. The beautiful mural was painted over, under Cupich's orders, detailed the steps of becoming an ordained priest.
-
Matthew said:
"Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?"
You can't say it is evil. But certainly protestanised.
But that doesn't mean it is invalid or illicit to attend if one cannot attend a Latin Mass or if a good-willed person, who knows not about tradition.
-
Matthew said:
"Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?"
You can't say it is evil. But certainly protestanised.
But that doesn't mean it is invalid or illicit to attend if one cannot attend a Latin Mass or if a good-willed person, who knows not about tradition.
A thing is either good, evil, or morally indifferent. It cannot be a "combination of the above." If the protestantization of our churches is not evil, then it must be good or morally neutral. If it is good, it must be embraced. If it is morally neutral, then to oppose it almost certainly brings about the evil of unnecessary contention and strife within the Church, along with the serious problems of disobedience.
I do find it interesting that you make the logical connection/conclusion and automatically leap from Matthew's criticism of the destruction of a Church to the question of the validity/liceity of the New Mass.
By their fruits you shall know them. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.
-
One thought that just entered my head -- perhaps it's significant here.
This iconoclastic (statue-breaking) protestant tendency towards minimalism in church decor, denuding the sanctuary, etc. tends to make the church surroundings very neutral (letting you be), rather than actively "good" (pulling you up to thoughts of God, heaven, the Saints, angels, etc).
In this way, the only attractive feature of the church is the CONGREGATION -- the people. You are going to notice only them, rather than the church around you. It "helps you" to focus on the people!
Could you imagine trying to stay in each of these churches (before and after) to pray and meditate outside normal Mass times, when no one else is present?
In the former, the decor would help to raise our puny human minds to thoughts of heaven, the presence of God, angels adoring God in the tabernacle, etc.
In the latter (wreckovated church), it would be bare and almost depressing. You would be psychologically encouraged to consider the church an "empty shell" when the "people of God" are not present.
-
"Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?"
You can't say it is evil.
I swear that I have not heard a more false statement on this forum. You get the golden turkey award for this one.
-
I've been to the Novus Ordo in the chapel pictured. Not only is it ugly, they put extra ingredients into their homemade communion bread. I can't remember if it was just honey or some kind of leavening agent, as it has been so long. They were little puffy squares and they explained whatever they did to it before the service. There was a mostly untouched side chapel that was gorgeous. One of the things that surprised me is that women taken classes there sometimes, and that some seminarians dated. It was such a sad trip, I mostly remember the boys who went with us putting their hats on the statuary but also that wonderful "old church" smell of incense that gets into the wood. I should see if I have any old pictures, if I find one, I will post it.
-
It only makes sense that art follows theology.
Since they've done away with the Minor Orders and, arguably, have invalidated even the ones that remain, there's no reason to keep those pictures up there as a reminder.
-
ihsv said:
"I do find it interesting that you make the logical connection/conclusion and automatically leap from Matthew's criticism of the destruction of a Church to the question of the validity/liceity of the New Mass. "
Matthew said "Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil"
The validity of the Mass is absolutely central to denying this conclusion, because being that the sacrifice of Christ is made (subject to the standard requirements), it cannot be described as evil. It can be described as being degraded without being subject to moral judgement; even as a King's robe richly woven and jewelled is of finer form than a plain one.
-
Ladislaus said:
"I swear that I have not heard a more false statement on this forum. You get the golden turkey award for this one."
Mocking and abuse are not argument. You should substantiate your statement.
-
ihsv said:
"I do find it interesting that you make the logical connection/conclusion and automatically leap from Matthew's criticism of the destruction of a Church to the question of the validity/liceity of the New Mass. "
Matthew said "Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil"
The validity of the Mass is absolutely central to denying this conclusion, because being that the sacrifice of Christ is made (subject to the standard requirements), it cannot be described as evil. It can be described as being degraded without being subject to moral judgement; even as a King's robe richly woven and jewelled is of finer form than a plain one.
I don't have an opinion on whether the new Mass is valid or not. I hope it's invalid, as it lessens the offense to God each time it is "celebrated."
Validity isn't the issue here. A black Mass is valid. A Greek Orthodox Mass is valid. Those events become sacrilegious because they are violations of God's Law and the standing law of the Church. The same is true of the New Mass. It simply is not Catholic. It is a blasphemous parody and mockery of the true Mass, and ought not to be tolerated for a moment.
It can absolutely be described as evil. If it is not evil, then it is either good or morally indifferent. If morally indifferent, then it is not a Mass. If it is good, then it must be embraced, and the fruit of it must also be good.
Those who accept or make excuses for the New Mass have no idea what the Mass itself truly is.
-
ihsv said of the NO:
"It can absolutely be described as evil."
As measured by what criteria?
-
ihsv said of the NO:
"It can absolutely be described as evil."
As measured by what criteria?
Bonum est ex integra causa
Malum ex quocuмque defectu.
A thing is good if it is good in ALL its parts.
A thing is evil if it has even one defect.
-
Matthew said:
A thing is good if it is good in ALL its parts.
A thing is evil if it has even one defect.
What is the evil element?
-
Matthew said:
A thing is good if it is good in ALL its parts.
A thing is evil if it has even one defect.
What is the evil element?
Show you a defect in the Novus Ordo? Sorry, I don't have that much time. There are too many to choose from. If you are blind to the evils of the Novus Ordo, I can't help you.
What do you think "evil" is? Something that only exists in Hell? Dark, swirly black clouds? Does evil have to give you chills when you are less than 5 feet from it? Does it always involve killing Jews? Does it involve having a raspy voice?
No.
You're thinking of Evil Personified (usually by Hollywood).
An evil is the privation (lacking) of a good. Nothing more, nothing less.
Above, I quoted the Scholastic definitions of good and evil. Traditional Catholics should have the highest respect for St. Thomas Aquinas, Scholastic philosophy, and Scholastic theology.
The Scholastic definition of evil, for example, is the basis for Bishop Williamson's famous example of an airliner which has a brilliant, shiny exterior, has plush seats, excellent climate control, but the engines don't work. Or a car with a bunch of great points, but it doesn't start. Common sense dictates that you don't focus on, "But it has a great radio!" when a car has just one major problem: a bomb was detonated under the hood.
-
Matthew,
You are incorrectly applying moral criteria to a matter of form.
Like saying, something less beautiful than something else is evil.
-
When did the wreckovation take place? Was it something that happened in the early 1970's? Or was this done recently?
-
Okay, Andy, let's start with the Ottaviani intervention, co-authored in large part by Archbishop Lefebvre. http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
Remember every word of this doctrinal criticism was speaking solely about the New Mass in Latin, ad orientem with biretta and incense etc. And yet almost every word about its prophetic witness has proved true. Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani and others of the "old guard" were not prophets strictly so called, but their great understanding and love of the Catholic Faith and the means the Church has always taken to protect Her children from error and novelty, and what would happen if those safeguards were destroyed, allowed them to predict with perfect prescience what would be the effects of the implementation of the New Mass, including a loss of faith in the Real Presence, in the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice of the Mass, even in the divinity of Christ especially by Communion in the hand etc. All this is beside the many abuses since then which on a day to day basis occur in many parishes throughout the world and which only confirm that the intention of many of the reformers was a complete break from Catholic Tradition. They make urgent and necessary now more than ever (by the way, even Rome has never said the Ottaviani intervention is an unacceptable criticism) the criticisms of the New Mass, and make fighting for the universal restoration of Tradition in every parish and diocese of the universal Church beginning from Rome a duty of every informed Catholic. Lex orandi, Lex credendi. It is impossible to restore doctrinal orthodoxy without a simultaneous restoration of traditional praxis.
Since Our Lady's apparitions in Akita, Japan were approved by Pope Benedict XVI, I'm sure you believe it, Andy. And there She repeated what those informed about their Faith and about Tradition already knew, "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres ; Churches and Altars will be sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of My sadness."
St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either to liturgical worship or to the faith itself, then threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The grave situation fully justified--and even rendered prophetic--the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal. Should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and His holy Apostles Peter and Paul. [54]When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently asserted that conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now are infinitely worse.
It was precisely to repel those snares which in every age threaten the pure Deposit of Faith, [55] that the Church, under divine inspiration, set up dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses. These in turn immediately influenced her worship, which became the most complete monument to her faith. Trying to return this worship to the practices of Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of ancient times is to engage in that "unhealthy archaeologism" Pius XII so roundly condemned. [56] It is, moreover, to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for centuries. [57] And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not the most critical moment--in the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside the Church, but within her as well. [58] The Church's unity is not only threatened, but has already been tragically compromised. [59] Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated, but are--as has been likewise acknowledged--now forcibly imposed through liturgical abuses and aberrations. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, [60] and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division--a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith--is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.
-
Nishant
The Novus Ordo is a degraded form of Mass. But that is not the same as it being evil, as Matthew asserted.
I am a Traditionalist, but there is no issue in going to a NO mass, when one can't get to a traditional Mass.
I post again the revelation given in the 1970's exorcism, which was performed by Traditional priests and was no doubt given by heaven to clear the confusion. Whether you accept the testimony, the commentary is absolutely sound:
http://www.amazon.com/Warnings-Beyond-Bonaventure-Meyer-ebook/dp/B00B56CLP0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417547768&sr=8-1&keywords=bonaventure+meyer
If the people have the opportunity of going to a Mass of Saint Pius V, then Heaven prefers that, very much so. But if there is no other possibility, they may go to another Mass. After the Mass of Saint Pius V in Latin, the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular comes in second place, provided that it comprises the totality of the words of the Tridentine Mass as far as this is possible. Only after these, in third place, comes the New Mass. But those people, if they do not know these things and are of good faith, nevertheless fulfill their duty to the Lord, in so far as that is their intention.
On the other hand, if they know very well that a kilometer further away, they would find a Mass of Saint Pius V, and if they say to themselves: “Bah! That, is too far away for me, I am not going to run over there!”; and if they know very well that that would be better, then we have a different situation. Then, they have lost out enormously through negligence. They should have gone that kilometer. Do you know (in a tearful voice) how far we would go, if we were still able to share in such great graces? Ah! We would travel to the ends of the earth, if we still had a chance! We do not wish to imply by this, that the other Masses are as good. We have already said enough about which Mass Those up there prefer (he points upward).
We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. We are obliged to say that as part of this... and everything we have just said about the Sacraments and other subjects...
And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees.
-
ihsv said of the NO:
"It can absolutely be described as evil."
As measured by what criteria?
The Novus Ordo violates St. Pius V's Quo Primum. The Mass is not supposed to be altered.
-
"The Novus Ordo violates St. Pius V's Quo Primum. The Mass is not supposed to be altered. "
Totally! But it is still valid and not evil. In our times, we must be pragmatic. Thus one may legitimately attend.
1 Thessalonians 4:3
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification."
-
Totally! But it is still valid and not evil. In our times, we must be pragmatic. Thus one may legitimately attend.
The New Mass may be valid. I don't know enough to say that it is or isn't. But I think it should be clear to all members on this traditional Catholic forum that it is evil and should not be attended.
-
No-one has yet defined why the NO mass "is evil" as opposed to a degraded form.
-
The Novus Ordo is a blasphemous mockery of the true Mass suited for Masons and sodomites.
-
How do you measure it as blasphemous in its form?
You would do well to read the last line of the exorcism text, I just posted.
-
Trust the devil then. If the new Mass is not evil, then there is no justification for traditional Catholics to exist. As a witness to many Novus Ordo Masses and many traditional Masses, I know evil when I see it and the Novus Ordo is evil. The Novus Ordo Mass is more evil than rape or murder.
-
You give no objective measure of it being evil.
The NO is a punishment, in that is produces less grace (as St John Paul 2 understood!!)
But it is still valid.
God has preserved tradition for when the restoration comes. But the mistake many "traditionalists" make, is to think they are the special ones. In fact many traditionalists have abused the privilege to look down on their brothers and sisters in the conciliar church. It can be seen that God is punishing Tradition with schism for its pride and anti-charity and no doubt also the (common on CI) horrendous slander and disrespect for the conciliar Popes, who God Himself chose and all are bound to submit to.
God does not work in black and white and He has good and evil in both Tradition and NO:
Matt 22:11-13
"And the king went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment (ie. in mortal sin). And he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. "
Next step is as follows:
“In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.” St Anne Katherine Emmerich
-
ihsv said of the NO:
"It can absolutely be described as evil."
As measured by what criteria?
By the criteria that Christ Himself gave. By their fruits you shall know them. A good tree can not produce evil fruit, and an evil tree cannot produce good fruit.
The fruits of the New Mass are legion.
-
That is not a measure of the Mass itself being evil. That is the measure of the general lukewarmness of the people.
But that does not disallow attendance. In fact, you can pray for others who are not fortunate to have Tradition.
-
Andy,
JPII respected religions that denied Our Lord. He engaged in prayers publicly with faiths that denied Our Lord at Assisi and other places.
Does that make sense to you?
As for punishment, the novus ordo makes it clear that just about everyone is going to Heaven, even those who deny Christ, so what kind of punishment is that?
Andy, the mistake you're making is your mixing your post-Vatican II icons with the saints and popes of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. Something written in the 11th century about "heretics" or "schismatics" would hardly be applicable to today.
-
Paul VI told his friend that he wanted to design the new Mass to resemble the Calvinist worship service. So, in actuality, Paul VI wanted us to follow the Protestants.
So, Andy, why should we get behind the Protestants and reject what Holy Mother Church gave us before?
-
"The Novus Ordo violates St. Pius V's Quo Primum. The Mass is not supposed to be altered. "
Totally! But it is still valid and not evil. In our times, we must be pragmatic. Thus one may legitimately attend.
1 Thessalonians 4:3
"For this is the will of God, your sanctification."
Since, as you seem to admit here, the Novus Ordo violates Quo Primum, its usage is clearly a violation of standing Church law.
While on that note, Quo Primum expressly forbids any priest from using any other missal (except ones 200 years or older from the time of the decree). Read here (http://www.catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/primum.htm) In order to use another missal, a priest must receive express permission from the same authority. I submit that no priest anywhere has ever received permission to use the Novus Ordo Missae. As such, each time it is celebrated it is a sin of a serious nature, causing the act itself to be an act of sacrilege.
As for your "In our times, we must be pragmatic", statement. I say, in our times we must be FAITHFUL. Pragmatism with evil will send you to hell.
-
That is not a measure of the Mass itself being evil. That is the measure of the general lukewarmness of the people.
But that does not disallow attendance. In fact, you can pray for others who are not fortunate to have Tradition.
I never said the Mass was evil. I said the NEW Mass was evil. It is not a Catholic Mass.
And the criteria of Christ stands. The fruits of the New Mass are rotten to the core, and no amount of fork-tongued justification on your part can cause it to be otherwise. The New Mass CAUSES lukewarmness (at best), and the lukewarm will be vomited out of the Mouth of the Lord.
-
Pope John Paul 2 IS A SAINT!! Declared by the infallible church. So he can't have been that bad then!
Have you listened to Fr Malachi martin on St J P 2? His reasoning is sound and you can see that God gave him much wisdom, so he knew what was the best approach for the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hyaUx5Zqg
(1hr - 1hr 1o mins if you are rushed)
Simply stated, the Church is a broken and listing ship, that cannot be fixed until Our Lady's comes with the necessary grace (or in symbol below - money) and people oncemore find God's "book of the law":
4 Kings 22:1-8
"Josias was eight years old when he began to reign: he reigned one and thirty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Idida, the daughter of Hadaia, of Besecath. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father: he turned not aside to the right hand, or to the left. And in the eighteenth year of king Josias, the king sent Saphan the son of Assia, the son of Messulam, the scribe of the temple of the Lord, saying to him: Go to Helcias the high priest, that the money may be put together which is brought into the temple of the Lord, which the doorkeepers of the temple have gathered of the people. And let it be given to the workmen by the overseers of the house of the Lord: and lot them distribute it to those that work in the temple of the Lord, to repair the temple:
That is, to carpenters and masons, and to such as mend breaches: and that timber may be bought, and stones out of the quarries, to repair the temple of the Lord. But let there be no reckoning made with them of the money which they receive, but let them have it in their power, and in their trust. And Helcias the high priest said to Saphan the scribe: I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord:"
-
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg)
-
To ihsv:
The NO is illegal according to Church law, but still valid. Grace is still available and one receives according to individual disposition.
Calling me fork-tongued and posting mocking pictures are signatures of why the Holy Ghost deprives you and many in tradition of full understanding, You should read the exorcism testimony again
"We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor.
Love of neighbour is very much what is lacking in many puffed up traditionalists.
Irrespective of Quo Primum, if a priest is saying the NO mass with the right intention, in obedience to the Church as he sees it, it does not invalidate it and make it as you say "an act of sacrilege". It is a messy situation for sure, but the protest of many traditionalists against the NO is not founded on fealty to Catholic integrity, but rather:
Luke 18:11
"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."
-
To Capt McQuigg
I don't know whether Pope Paul 6 said what you say he said. If you have any certain verification, do please furnish it. I quote from the aforementioned exorcism in his regard.
SITUATION OF POPE PAUL VI
J: The Pope, the Pope...he is a martyr. In a kind of way, he has been laid low - he would like to die. He would prefer not to go on living under these circuмstances. He is tormented by the thought that what he says is not being published throughout the world, and it is precisely what he would not want which is published by the cardinals. At all events, many cardinals, not all, but many, are involved in it. He has been deceived terribly. He is in a prison, harsher than any actual prison. We demons exert great pressure on him, we are doing everything we can. We have already done a lot.
E: Continue, tell the truth,... and nothing but the truth!
J: He is deprived of his freedom... so he can no longer do anything important. That is why we speak of him as a slow-worm who can only move without pain by creeping across the ground. He has nothing to say, neither to the right nor to the left, neither to the front nor to the rear. They are responsible for this - those false men who would like to see him gone.
E: Continue, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin! Continue to say what you must say on Heaven's behalf!
HE IS A GREAT POPE BUT HIS HANDS AND FEET ARE TIED
J: You must pray for the Pope. He is in a worse plight than a martyr. He would rather be stoned like Stephen. He is a great Pope although he is forced to remain silent. He carries a cross. Few achieve his eminence, although he appears to be small and powerless. In the beginning, he made some mistakes, which he realised a long time ago, and now his hands and feet are tied, even his tongue. He cries out to Heaven that he would like to restore the old liturgy, the Tridentine Mass: he would like...but his hands and feet are tied. He can do nothing.
E: Speak only the truth, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin! Tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, about the Church and about Pope Paul VI!
J: You can be sure that Pope, Paul VI would like to re-introduce the Tridentine Mass. Whenever you see on television, or have to see or read any part of these novelties, you can be certain that this does not come from him.
E: Tell the truth, in the name...!
-
To ihsv:
The NO is illegal according to Church law, but still valid. Grace is still available and one receives according to individual disposition.
Calling me fork-tongued and posting mocking pictures are signatures of why the Holy Ghost deprives you and many in tradition of full understanding, You should read the exorcism testimony again
"We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor.
Love of neighbour is very much what is lacking in many puffed up traditionalists.
Irrespective of Quo Primum, if a priest is saying the NO mass with the right intention, in obedience to the Church as he sees it, it does not invalidate it and make it as you say "an act of sacrilege". It is a messy situation for sure, but the protest of many traditionalists against the NO is not founded on fealty to Catholic integrity, but rather:
Luke 18:11
"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."
Since the NO is illegal, its usage is objectively sinful. A Catholic who attends an illicit "mass" has to confess that. And making the excuse that "grace is still available" is never a justification for attending an illicit, sinful, sacrilegious "mass." One corresponds with grace by avoiding the foul thing altogether.
I call you forked-tongue because you are forked-tongue. You seek to serve two masters, God and mammon; you seek to hold two opposing religions, the new religion and the old; you seek to serve God with the sacrifice of Cain and that of Able. You attempt to justify fellowship with light and darkness, and your concord with Christ and Belial.
If a priest says the Novus Ordo with "the right intention", in obedience to the Church "as he sees it", and it doesn't make it "an act of sacrilege", then quite frankly the laws of Christ and His Church are useless. There are no consequences, as one can do as he pleases irrespective of the truth. It no longer matters what the Church binds upon us, so long as we have "good intentions". Objectivity is no longer important. Revelation, positive Divine Law, ecclesiastical law, etc., are now subject to the whimsical, clouded notion of "intention". This is Modernism.
If an act is against the law, it is against the law. Our job is to correspond with the law, not make the law correspond with us. The world must conform to Christ, not He to it.
-
So the Novus Ordo is not evil because demons say it is not evil. Trust in devils, they never lie. Lol.
-
The Novus Ordo is a sacrilege because it violates Quo Primum. The Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be changed by anyone. Paul VI is a blasphemer, heretic and antipope for daring to do just that.
The Novus Ordo Church deserves the wrath of Almighty God for taking the first steps to declare that man a "saint".
-
On the wreckovation:
Intrinsic to the very idea of the "New Mass" is that the people are more important than Christ the Savior, than His Sacrifice to His Heavenly Father, than the Church, His Bride. In the "New Religion" THE PEOPLE IS BAAL! Is it not they who must be entertained, accommodated, and emoted over? In the incessantly repeated phrase, "The People of God," it is the people who, in Marxist fashion, are being acclaimed - not God. They are misled who, in attempting to criticize the "New Mass," complain that the people have been made equal to the priest, or that the priest has been brought down to the level of the people. Oh no; rather, they have both been given the place of God!
Not until you accept this incredible fact will you be able to see the whole matter, clearly, as shocking and ghastly as it is. Again, its sheer incredibility blinds us to what is right before us. Only this fact explains why the "New Liturgy" requires the complete riddance of the True Mass, and all that pertains to it. It could never coexist with the True Mass since it is diametrically opposite. Consider, for instance, how it has been necessary to purge completely even the architecture and adornment of all the appointments of our churches. For they bespeak the nature of the True Mass, so different from the "New Mass." Step by step, the altar was dismantled, the tabernacle was relegated, the statues were removed, the stations were taken down, the communion rail was hauled out. Everything symbolic of the mysteries and the glories of the Faith had to be cleared away. In their fanaticism and ignorance, they who accomplished this pleaded that these things were either old-fashioned or poor art, or some such nonsense. This is not to defend cheap or manufactured or soulless art-pieces. Nor is it a condemnation of all art that is contemporary. It is, rather, the exposure of this Revolutionary belligerence towards all things Catholic. - The Great Sacrilege (1971) by Fr. Wathen
-
Matto said:
"So the Novus Ordo is not evil because demons say it is not evil. Trust in devils, they never lie. Lol."
The devils can be forced to tell the truth according to the power of the Most High/Our Lady:
True devotion to Mary - St Father Montfort
"One is recorded in the chronicles of St. Francis. The saint saw in ecstasy an immense ladder reaching to heaven, at the top of which stood the Blessed Virgin. This is the ladder, he was told, by which we must all go to heaven.
Here is another related in the Chronicles of St. Dominic. Near Carcassonne, where St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary, there was an unfortunate heretic who was possessed by a multitude of devils. These evil spirits to their confusion were compelled at the command of our Lady to confess many great and consoling truths concerning devotion to her. They did this so clearly and forcibly that, however weak our devotion to our Lady may be, we cannot read this authentic story containing such an unwilling tribute paid by the devils to devotion to our Lady without shedding tears of joy.
Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments."
Moreover:
"The prophets of the demons do not always speak from the demons' revelation, but sometimes by Divine inspiration. This was evidently the case with Balaam, of whom we read that the Lord spoke to him (Numbers 22:12), though he was a prophet of the demons, because God makes use even of the wicked for the profit of the good. Hence He foretells certain truths even by the demons' prophets, both that the truth may be rendered more credible, Wherefore also the Sibyls foretold many true things about Christ.
Yet even when the demons' prophets are instructed by the demons, they foretell the truth, sometimes by virtue of their own nature, the author of which is the Holy Ghost, and sometimes by revelation of the good spirits, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19): so that even then this truth which the demons proclaim is from the Holy Ghost." St Thomas - Summa Theologica
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3172.htm#article5
(Article 6 - reply objection 1)
Maybe Matto you should by the book detailing the exorcism and ask Our Lady to give you the grace to know if it is authentic
http://www.amazon.com/Warnings-Beyond-Bonaventure-Meyer-ebook/dp/B00B56CLP0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417602617&sr=8-1&keywords=warning+from+beyond
The book essentially exposes the remarks and gestures made by a possessed woman in Switzerland during 1975‑1978. Speaking through the possessed woman, the demons were forced to tell the truth by Our Lady under the Solemn Church Exorcism, which was witnessed by the following priests who have all expressed their conviction of the authenticity of the revelations made by the demons upon the order of the Blessed Virgin.
1. Abbot Albert‑l`Arx, Niederbuchorten
2. Abbot Arnold Elig, Ramiswil
3. Abbot Ernest Fischer, Missionary, Gossau (St.‑Gall).
4. Rev. Father Pius Gervasi, O.S.B., Disentis
5. Abbot Karl Holdener, Ried
6. Rev. Father Gregoire Meyer, ‑ Trimbach
7. Rev. Father Robert Rinderer, C.P.P.S., Auw
8. Abbot Louis Veillard, Cerneux‑Pequignot
All eight priests are Swiss, except Father E. Fischer, a German. All participated in the exorcisms except Father G. Meyer who was spiritual director of the possessed woman. Two other French priests also participated in the exorcisms.
DECLARATION
Some of the shepherds of the Church who ought to be protectors of the Faith and of the Truth are that no longer. That is why the Blessed Virgin Mary forces Satan -the father of lies - to tell the truth and to teach the pure doctrine of the Church, even while he fulminates against these Warnings. It is a question of waking the shepherds up and bringing about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Mother of the Holy Church.
It must be understood that all these communications should be compared with the authentic doctrine of the Church and with its present situation. But it is certain, here and now, that the contents of this book show the way towards a profound renewal of the Church.
Reverend Father Arnold Renz.
-
Jezus said:
"The Novus Ordo is a sacrilege because it violates Quo Primum. The Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be changed by anyone. "
It doesn't make it a sacrilege; rather a breach of a Papal ordinance. When the sacrifice of Christ is made according to the words of consecration, it is always acceptable to God the Father.
-
To Stubborn;
Without doubt the NO is a diluted and degraded form of mass. But one can still licitly attend and indeed there are pious Novus Ordo people, (more so than some traditionalists it should be noted).
The perspective is exactly as outlined in the confession of the demon as posted earlier.
Ask Our Lady if it is true.
-
ihsv said:
"Since the NO is illegal, its usage is objectively sinful."
No, because that is a matter of church law and God will judge those guilty in this regard. The Mass is essentially the sacrifice of Christ offered to God the Father and this occurs. Thus, one may piously and licitly attend and receive the fruits of this sacrifice, although one should always go to a Latin Mass if available.
We must use our common-sense:
Luke 6:1-4
And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him: How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests?
I go to both the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo. I suffer no loss. I love God and He loves me.
-
To Stubborn;
Without doubt the NO is a diluted and degraded form of mass. But one can still licitly attend and indeed there are pious Novus Ordo people, (more so than some traditionalists it should be noted).
The perspective is exactly as outlined in the confession of the demon as posted earlier.
Ask Our Lady if it is true.
It is the sacrifice of Cain, displeasing to God. The new "mass" *is* the abuse of the True Mass.
It is a mockery, a charade of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of Calvary, whether "the Narrative" is valid or not.
"Some may say, you are identifying the abuses with the "New Mass" itself. I am saying that the "New Mass" IS the abuse of the True Mass! I am saying that, with the jettisoning of both the law and the spirit of Quo Primum, by that very Act, the Pope has not only substituted something totally different from the Mass, but that it is of the very essence of the "New Mass" to permit every form of profanation, because the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy." - The Great Sacrilege (1971) by Fr. Wathen
-
Stubborn said:
"It is the sacrifice of Cain, displeasing to God."
Christ is made present in the Novus Ordo and offered to God the Father. How therefore, can it be a "sacrifice of Cain"? The offering of the sacrifice of His Son is never displeasing to God and can not be rejected by Him, even in prayer.
-
Stubborn said:
"It is the sacrifice of Cain, displeasing to God."
Christ is made present in the Novus Ordo and offered to God the Father. How therefore, can it be a "sacrifice of Cain"? The offering of the sacrifice of His Son is never displeasing to God and can not be rejected by Him, even in prayer.
How could the sacrifice of Cain be displeasing to God? It was not the best Cain could have offered - that's how.
Even you say the new jazz is "diluted and degraded" but you don't see how that is in and of itself a sacrilege?
The new mass is a sacrilege because it is a desecration ("diluted and degraded") of something sacred - the True Mass. If you choose to assist at the desecration of the True Mass, you do so at the peril of your own soul, but take some good advice and don't come here and try to convince those of us who've spent a lifetime fighting the evil influences of that evil thing that the horrid thing is acceptable or in any way, shape or form not displeasing to God.
When the wrath of God comes, if we're still alive, do not be found within one of their temples or named among them.
-
To Stubborn:
You reasoning is faulty. You say it is a sacrilege, yet it is the offering of Christ to the Father.
That is not a sacrilege.
The degrading of the form of the Mass is not in itself displeasing to God absolutely, but its form is certainly less pleasing than the solemnity and richness of the Latin Mass.
Take the test - ask Our Lady with an open heart whether the exorcism testimony was authentic.
-
To Stubborn:
You reasoning is faulty. You say it is a sacrilege, yet it is the offering of Christ to the Father.
That is not a sacrilege.
The degrading of the form of the Mass is not in itself displeasing to God absolutely, but its form is certainly less pleasing than the solemnity and richness of the Latin Mass.
Take the test - ask Our Lady with an open heart whether the exorcism testimony was authentic.
They took a sacred thing, the True Mass, and purposely replaced it with a mockery of it's former self. You call this mockery, a "mass" that is now "diluted and degraded". Your therefore admit, rightfully so, that the new "mass" is a sacrilege.
A sin is anything which offends God. A sacrilege is a sin which offends God on purpose. The purpose of the new "mass" is to offend God and to get others to offend God by their participation with the sacrilege. If in fact a valid "Narrative" is possible during the "diluted and degraded" performance, that only means the sacrilege is a valid sacrilege, which is much worse than an invalid sacrilege.
These (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) recordings are downloadable, give them a listen.
-
"They took a sacred thing, the True Mass, and purposely replaced it with a mockery of it's former self. You call this mockery, a "mass" that is now "diluted and degraded". Your therefore admit, rightfully so, that the new "mass" is a sacrilege."
When did I admit the new mass was a sacrilege? I have stated the exact opposite.
The Sacrifice of Christ cannot be a "valid sacrilege".
Sacrilege is defined:
"Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things."
There are good NO people and priests who come to mass to offer up the sacrifice of Christ, adore God, receive the sacraments, pray their rosaries etc.
The Novus Ordo in its defined form is not a sacrilege by any definition, but is a degraded form of Mass. Degraded meaning less rich, but still acceptable to God. I myself have been to 1000's of NO masses and I have the love of God in my heart as I write now.
The exorcism I have referred to was performed by Traditional priests. Ask Our Lady if it is true. It is a great gift from heaven and clears up a lot of the confusion people have these days.
-
"They took a sacred thing, the True Mass, and purposely replaced it with a mockery of it's former self. You call this mockery, a "mass" that is now "diluted and degraded". Your therefore admit, rightfully so, that the new "mass" is a sacrilege."
When did I admit the new mass was a sacrilege? I have stated the exact opposite.
When you admitted: "Without doubt the NO is a diluted and degraded form of mass."
To dilute and degrade a sacred thing is to commit sacrilege.
The Sacrifice of Christ cannot be a "valid sacrilege".
True, the sacrifice of Christ is sacred, not sacrilegious. The new "mass", by making a mockery of the Holy Sacrifice is a sacrilege ipso facto.
Sacrilege is defined:
"Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things."
Thank you. The new "mass" is at least injurious to the most sacred thing on earth, the True Mass.
There are good NO people and priests who come to mass to offer up the sacrifice of Christ, adore God, receive the sacraments, pray their rosaries etc.
The Novus Ordo in its defined form is not a sacrilege by any definition, but is a degraded form of Mass. Degraded meaning less rich, but still acceptable to God. I myself have been to 1000's of NO masses and I have the love of God in my heart as I write now.
The new "mass" in any form is sacrilegious since it is at least a diluted and degraded form of the True Mass. It was perpetrated on purpose, not by mistake. They took the True Mass and replaced it on purpose with the new "mass" - they purposely took what was pleasing and acceptable to God and replaced it with a horrid charade that makes the devil happy.
You can claim it pleases God all you want, you can also claim the loss of the faith of the entire world since the new "mass" was perpetrated is only coincidence too. But that will not change the fact of what it is - a sacrilege. You post as if good people and priests are incapable of sacrilege - that is something taught and embraced within the NO.
You are one of these people Fr. Wathen describes below:
One can analyze the "New Mass" properly only by comparing it with that which its creators claim it is, the Mass of the Roman Rite. When Catholics now go to "mass," their habit is to see what is not there. The reason is, they have all but forgotten what the True Mass, and what they see is a resemblance of it. They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say. In this way, the real objectives of the "vernacular movement" are realized. It does not occur to the faithful that their children, not having the mental background they do, are better able to see the thing as it is, for they see only what is there, and hear only the words which are spoken. The people do not wish to awaken to what has happened (and is still happening). They live in a fictitious world, and they resent any effort to jolt them out of it. Such an awakening would cause them a great problem, a great host of problems, every kind of friction, inconvenience, and readjustment. And it would impose such noisome burdens.
-
As I said earlier:
"The degrading of the form of the Mass is not in itself displeasing to God absolutely, but its form is certainly less pleasing than the solemnity and richness of the Latin Mass."
You say:
"To dilute and degrade a sacred thing is to commit sacrilege. "
No; for example, the prayers in the Novus Ordo are still prayers, even if they are of less solemnity and weight than the Trad Mass. That is not a sacrilege.
Overall, your error rests in that you maintain that because the NO is not the Traditional Mass, it is a sacrilege. You say:
"The new "mass" in any form is sacrilegious since it is at least a diluted and degraded form of the True Mass"
That is to fail to understand what sacrilege means. You falsely measure any deviation in form from the Latin Mass as a sacrilege.
I hardly think that Fr Walthen's words apply to myself, as is clear from what I have said through the thread. I am a traditionalist and know well what has happened. The fact that the NO was perpetrated on purpose is irrelevant to the discussion.
The truth is Stubborn, like so many traditionalists, your arguments against the acceptability of the NO are not based on objectivity; rather in your secret heart, you delight in your supposed status that your are superior to other Catholics who don't subscribe to tradition and you cut your argument to suit. You permit yourself to be deceived by satan.
Thus did the demon say in the exorcism
"We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. In these circuмstances there are modernists who have love of neighbor, who are sometimes better than such “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above others. "
-
As I said earlier:
"The degrading of the form of the Mass is not in itself displeasing to God absolutely, but its form is certainly less pleasing than the solemnity and richness of the Latin Mass."
You say:
"To dilute and degrade a sacred thing is to commit sacrilege. "
No; for example, the prayers in the Novus Ordo are still prayers, even if they are of less solemnity and weight than the Trad Mass. That is not a sacrilege.
Yes, they are a sacrilege because they took what was the most pleasing thing on earth to God, the most acceptable to God and sacred, and replaced that with that which "is of less solemnity and weight".
FYI, *that* is a sacrilege because they took that which was sacred and purposely lessened it's solemnity and weight, IOW, they profaned that which was sacred. Again, *that* is a sacrilege no matter how gentle and how lightly you choose to describe the filthy atrocity that the new "mass" is.
Overall, your error rests in that you maintain that because the NO is not the Traditional Mass, it is a sacrilege. You say:
"The new "mass" in any form is sacrilegious since it is at least a diluted and degraded form of the True Mass"
That is to fail to understand what sacrilege means. You falsely measure any deviation in form from the Latin Mass as a sacrilege.
All anyone need to do is compare the two - they are two completely different things, with two completely different lex orandi's hence two completely different lex credendi's.
The lex credendi of the new "mass" promotes and fosters the loss of faith as it spiritually starves all those who eat at it's table.
The True Mass' lex credendi OTOH has helped grow the faith, make millions of saints and has fed the spiritual needs of the world for the prior 500 years.
You've been to 1000s of sacrileges so you won't see the forest because all those dang trees are in the way. Next time you go to your charade, remember the words below - if you can get yourself to "see the forest", you will find the below words ring true.
It is best to never go to the modernist mockery of Calvary, not ever, not for any reason, but since you won't take my advice, please know that the below words absolutely apply to you.
When Catholics now go to "mass," their habit is to see what is not there. . . . . .They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say.
-
As I said earlier, your objectivity is skewed by your consideration of being above others.
The preference is always the traditional Mass, but one can go to a NO if is there is no alternative.
You would do well to investigate and pray about the exorcism revelations. The reason why you have studiously avoided referring to them in our discussions is because you fear to be wrong, because of the offence to your pride.
Ephesians 5:13
"But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light."
I don't fear to be wrong, because in the Holy Ghost, I know it is acceptable, else He would show me otherwise.
John 16:13
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth."
2 Tim 1:14
"Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us."
By maintaining the vain-glorious stance you do, you are party to error. And for those who cannot get to a traditional Mass, by dismissing the NO, they miss an opportunity to glorify God and receive grace for themselves and others.
-
As I said earlier, your objectivity is skewed by your consideration of being above others.
The preference is always the traditional Mass, but one can go to a NO if is there is no alternative.
No, my objectivity is skewed by what the new "mass" is, your lack of accepting the truth is common among those who are presented the facts yet reject them because they are told "The preference is always the traditional Mass, but one can go to a NO if is there is no alternative."
Your indifference in the matter is bred in the NO.
-
Matthew said:
"Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?"
You can't say it is evil. But certainly protestanised.
But that doesn't mean it is invalid or illicit to attend if one cannot attend a Latin Mass or if a good-willed person, who knows not about tradition.
It is not Catholic, it is not a work of the Catholic Church, and it is always a sacrilege. That is enough to reject it, and keep one from attending it.
-
<snip>
... I go to both the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo...
This is the heart of the problem. This is precisely why andysloan will not be convinced of the wretched nature of the New Mass or anything produced, packaged and peddled by the new religion. And this is precisely why it is a waste of time trying to convince him otherwise.
He is part of the new religion and he likes it.
-
Stubborn said:
"Your indifference in the matter is bred in the NO. "
It is not a matter of indifference, it is about understanding and common-sense; your manner of approach has been seen before:
Luke 6:1-4
"And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days? And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him: How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests? "
Mark 7:5-6
"And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?
But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
ie: hypocritical formalism
-
ihsv said:
"He is part of the new religion and he likes it."
See the reply to Stubborn above. Here is your spirit:
Luke 15:1-2
"And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."
-
<snip>
... I go to both the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo...
This is the heart of the problem. This is precisely why andysloan will not be convinced of the wretched nature of the New Mass or anything produced, packaged and peddled by the new religion. And this is precisely why it is a waste of time trying to convince him otherwise.
He is part of the new religion and he likes it.
Yes, that is the heart of the problem. Well stated.
He has been bred to compromise, a trait handed down by other compromisers.
-
Stubborn said:
"Your indifference in the matter is bred in the NO. "
It is not a matter of indifference, it is about understanding and common-sense; your manner of approach has been seen before:
Yes, it is about understanding and common sense that the new "mass" mocks the True Mass - all anyone need do is compare the two and they cannot fail to see this. .
It is as Fr. Wathen said, "When you go to the new "mass," your habit is to see what is not there, you read meanings into words which the words you hear do not say, while you fail to advert to what the words do say."
-
Stubborn - it is quite clear from my writings I understand the situation.
Yours is merely an effort to deflect that your holding to this false perspective, is nothing to do with Catholic integrity, but simply a matter of pride, for you use being a member of tradition as a badge of self-exaltation and fight tooth and nail to defend your fortress of vanity.
As the demon said:
"Never does such a condemnation of the New Mass have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees."
Your "catholicism" is not true Catholicism, which is based on love of God and neighbour through penance and the cross. Like so many, it is based on hypocritical formalism.
"Excluded, then, from the company of the Friends of the Cross are those who take pride in their sufferings; the worldly-wise, the intellectuals and the sceptics who are attached to their own ideas and puffed up with their own talents. Away from you those endless talkers who make a great show but produce nothing but vanity. Away from you those so- called devout Catholics who in their pride display the self- sufficiency of proud Lucifer wherever they go, saying, "I am not like the rest of men;" who cannot endure being blamed without making some excuse, being attacked without answering back, being humbled without exalting themselves.No, no, my dear Companions of the Cross, do not deceive yourselves. Those Christians you see everywhere, fashionably dressed, fastidious in manner, full of importance and dignity, are not real disciples, real members of Christ crucified. To think they are would be an insult to our thorn-crowned Head and to the truth of the Gospel. How many so-called Christians imagine they are members of our Saviour when in reality they are his treacherous persecutors, for while they make the sign of the cross with their hand, in their hearts they are its enemies!"- St Father Montfort - Letter to the Friends of the Cross
http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/LFC.php
-
Stubborn - it is quite clear from my writings I understand the situation.
Yours is merely an effort to deflect that your holding to this false perspective, is nothing to do with Catholic integrity, but simply a matter of pride, for you use being a member of tradition as a badge of self-exaltation and fight tooth and nail to defend your fortress of vanity.
Afraid not Andy. The truth is as Fr. Wathen stated. You do not see the tragedy because you accept the tragedy as acceptable and the longer you go, the less you will see it. That's how it works.
As the demon said:
"Never does such a condemnation of the New Mass have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor. And it should also be said that there are many “traditionalists” who are Pharisees."
Although the demon rejoices over the new "mass" because of what it is and has accomplished, and although you'll never find any other saint or Father of the Church to say anything other than condemning the evil thing, try to avoid quoting demons to support the new "mass" - it does your cause no good.
Your "catholicism" is not true Catholicism, which is based on love of God and neighbour through penance and the cross. Like so many, it is based on hypocritical formalism.
Yes, I agree, the formalism of the Mass is to be found in it's origins, rituals and rubrics, right down to telling the priest which thumb goes over the other when praying hands are joined.
Unlike the new "mass" which "has no strictly defined ceremony, ritual, or formula. It is a kind of formless, spiritual essence, like a ghost (or something else invisible). It can only be seen when it is covered, and can be covered with first this set of rites, then that. It does not really matter which set is used, although a set should be chosen which is expressive to the men of a given time-period. (A Modernist notion if there ever was one!)" - Fr. Wathen
-
Your writings do not deal with the reasoned acceptability of attendance of the NO, which is the subject matter of the discussion. Rather, you simply uphold the Latin Mass, asserting that any departure from it cannot be entertained. That is your opinion and your reasoning is at fault, because you wish not to recognise that the primary identity of a Mass is the offering of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and this is performed at the NO.
Why does quoting the demon do my case no good?
True devotion to Mary - St Father Montfort
"One is recorded in the chronicles of St. Francis. The saint saw in ecstasy an immense ladder reaching to heaven, at the top of which stood the Blessed Virgin. This is the ladder, he was told, by which we must all go to heaven.
Here is another related in the Chronicles of St. Dominic. Near Carcassonne, where St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary, there was an unfortunate heretic who was possessed by a multitude of devils. These evil spirits to their confusion were compelled at the command of our Lady to confess many great and consoling truths concerning devotion to her. They did this so clearly and forcibly that, however weak our devotion to our Lady may be, we cannot read this authentic story containing such an unwilling tribute paid by the devils to devotion to our Lady without shedding tears of joy.
Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments."
Perhaps you ought to investigate and pray about the authenticity of the revelations.
The book essentially exposes the remarks and gestures made by a possessed woman in Switzerland during 1975‑1978. Speaking through the possessed woman, the demons were forced to tell the truth by Our Lady under the Solemn Church Exorcism, which was witnessed by the following priests who have all expressed their conviction of the authenticity of the revelations made by the demons upon the order of the Blessed Virgin.
1. Abbot Albert‑l`Arx, Niederbuchorten
2. Abbot Arnold Elig, Ramiswil
3. Abbot Ernest Fischer, Missionary, Gossau (St.‑Gall).
4. Rev. Father Pius Gervasi, O.S.B., Disentis
5. Abbot Karl Holdener, Ried
6. Rev. Father Gregoire Meyer, ‑ Trimbach
7. Rev. Father Robert Rinderer, C.P.P.S., Auw
8. Abbot Louis Veillard, Cerneux‑Pequignot
All eight priests are Swiss, except Father E. Fischer, a German. All participated in the exorcisms except Father G. Meyer who was spiritual director of the possessed woman. Two other French priests also participated in the exorcisms.
Your is not just a matter of faulty opinion, rather it is a spiritual blindness caused by your vanity and elitism.
-
Your writings do not deal with the reasoned acceptability of attendance of the NO, which is the subject matter of the discussion. Rather, you simply uphold the Latin Mass, asserting that any departure from it cannot be entertained. That is your opinion and your reasoning is at fault, because you wish not to recognise that the primary identity of a Mass is the offering of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and this is performed at the NO.
It is not only my opinion, it is the Law (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm) of the Church - since you won't listen to the recordings, you should read about it. It's a short read and easily understood.
Briefly, God told the Fathers of Trent how He wants to be worshiped in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (22nd session), some 400 years later, man replaced what God wanted with the new "mass" and ended up telling God how He will be worshiped. You see nothing wrong with this even though it is a sacrilege. I say the reason you promote sacrilege is because you've been bred to do so within the NO, you cannot see the forest for the trees because you are accustomed to participating in the sacrilege - same as a person who lives in filth is so accustomed to the filth that to them, it's not filth.
So yes, I hold that any departure from the form God told us to worship Him cannot be entertained without committing sacrilege and offending Him.
-
Best summed up by Our Lady through the demon.
"These people act through obedience and believe that it comes from the Pope, because they do not know that there is a double and that there are some cardinals who are disloyal to the Pope. They go along under the banner of obedience. I want to say that if these Christians should happen to get hold of tracts coming from other genuinely privileged souls, or from priests, which warn them that they have no right and should not, and if they receive the interior light - which, when received certainly comes from On High - and if, in spite of everything, they do the opposite, saying to themselves: “It's all the same whether I receive Communion in the mouth or in the hand - it is of no importance”, then the situation is different. Then, naturally, it is a sin. That is what else we must tell you. It depends always on each individual case.
The same thing applies to the Holy Mass. The Mass of Saint Pius V is considered by Those up there (he points upward), by Heaven, to the preferred Mass. But many priests should be told that they have no right to trouble (or upset) people by saying: “If there is no Mass of Saint Pius V, do not go at all... say a Mass for yourselves at home on your own”.
This attitude is not good. In spite of everything, such a priest is not a good pastor (shepherd). For we have already said it on a previous occasion: It is a huge loss of graces, it is true, but the New Mass to the degree in which it is celebrated in all good faith and through obedience to the bishop, still brings nevertheless, many graces. Even if it does not have the plenitude of graces of the Mass of Saint Pius V, it brings some graces all the same. If people stay at home and believe that they only have to open up their missals, thus believing themselves to be better and superior to the rest, this is not good.
There are also some “traditionalists” who exalt themselves above the modernists. Those up there do not want any of that. That is not the Spirit of On High (he points upward). They think in Heaven that this smacks of phariseeism, and no one has the right to be like that. She makes me say that there are also many “traditionalists” who are full of themselves... We do not wish to speak any more! "
The truth is God has given us a diluted Mass for our times, but a mass it still is! The truth is to those to Whom God has given good understanding, if if wasn't for Our Lady we would hardly have been given that. Thanks be to her! Triumph and reign Holy Mother!
-
The truth is God has given us a diluted Mass for our times, but a mass it still is! The truth is to those to Whom God has given good understanding, if if wasn't for Our Lady we would hardly have been given that. Thanks be to her! Triumph and reign Holy Mother!
Here we learn that when you compromise, you will go to great lengths to justify every profanation the conciliar enemies of the Church can dish out, even if that means making blasphemous acts of sacrilege, good and lawful by convincing yourself that the acts of sacrilege and blasphemy to God's Holy Mass came from God Himself.
This is what you get when you spend your time in too many years of compromise.
-
andysloan said:
The truth is God has given us a diluted Mass for our times, but a mass it still is! The truth is to those to Whom God has given good understanding, if if wasn't for Our Lady we would hardly have been given that. Thanks be to her! Triumph and reign Holy Mother!
This is entirely untrue. This non-Catholic affair could not have come from God. It is not a work of the Catholic Church. It was created and imposed against the mind and will of the Church, and therfore, it is against the will of Christ.
If Our Lady has granted anything to sincere hearts, it is the discernment to see this alien abomination for the sacrilege that it is.
Those with the sensus Catholicus do not have to research or investigate, they simply know it for what it is.
-
andysloan said:
The truth is God has given us a diluted Mass for our times, but a mass it still is! The truth is to those to Whom God has given good understanding, if if wasn't for Our Lady we would hardly have been given that. Thanks be to her! Triumph and reign Holy Mother!
This is entirely untrue. This non-Catholic affair could not have come from God. It is not a work of the Catholic Church. It was created and imposed against the mind and will of the Church, and therfore, it is against the will of Christ.
If Our Lady has granted anything to sincere hearts, it is the discernment to see this alien abomination for the sacrilege that it is.
Those with the sensus Catholicus do not have to research or investigate, they simply know it for what it is.
To say God has given us a diluted Mass for our times is not only untrue.
It verges on blasphemy.
-
J Paul said:
"If Our Lady has granted anything to sincere hearts, it is the discernment to see this alien abomination for the sacrilege that it is. "
It is true that Our Lady grants sight to sincere hearts. Unfortunately for you, Nadir and awkward customer and many other "traditionalists", you have not sincere hearts, but are conceited pharisees. Your "catholicism" is selfish and not selfless.
Therefore, you are denied the understanding of the Holy Ghost, who flees from your pride. So much so, that the message through the demon is from Our Lady, yet Nadir says "it verges on blasphemy".
Wisdom 8:4
"For it is she that teacheth the knowledge of God, and is the chooser of his works."
John 8:47
"He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."
St Father Montfort sums up your position.
"If anyone, therefore, wants to follow me thus abased and crucified, he must glory, as I did, only in the poverty, humiliations and sufferings of my Cross. "Let him renounce himself."
Excluded, then, from the company of the Friends of the Cross are those who take pride in their sufferings; the worldly-wise, the intellectuals and the sceptics who are attached to their own ideas and puffed up with their own talents. Away from you those endless talkers who make a great show but produce nothing but vanity. Away from you those so- called devout Catholics who in their pride display the self- sufficiency of proud Lucifer wherever they go, saying, "I am not like the rest of men;" who cannot endure being blamed without making some excuse, being attacked without answering back, being humbled without exalting themselves.
Be careful not to admit into your society those delicate and sensitive people who are afraid of the slightest pin- prick, who cry out and complain at the least pain, who know nothing of the hair-shirt, the discipline or other instruments of penance, and who mingle, with their fashionable devotions, a most refined fastidiousness and a most studied lack of mortification. You are the members of Christ, a wonderful honour indeed, but one which entails suffering. If the Head is crowned with thorns, can the members expect to be crowned with roses? If the Head is jeered at and covered with dust on the road to Calvary, can the members expect to be sprinkled with perfumes on a throne? If the Head has no pillow on which to rest, can the members expect to recline on feathers and down? That would be unthinkable!
No, no, my dear Companions of the Cross, do not deceive yourselves. Those Christians you see everywhere, fashionably dressed, fastidious in manner, full of importance and dignity, are not real disciples, real members of Christ crucified. To think they are would be an insult to our thorn-crowned Head and to the truth of the Gospel. How many so-called Christians imagine they are members of our Saviour when in reality they are his treacherous persecutors, for while they make the sign of the cross with their hand, in their hearts they are its enemies!" Letter to the Friends of the Cross
-
andysloan said,
It is true that Our Lady grants sight to sincere hearts. Unfortunately for you, Nadir and awkward customer and many other "traditionalists", you have not sincere hearts, but are conceited pharisees. Your "catholicism" is selfish and not selfless.
Therefore, you are denied the understanding of the Holy Ghost, who flees from your pride. So much so, that the message through the demon is from Our Lady, yet Nadir says "it verges on blasphemy".
Talk about pot calling the kettle black. What is it that inspires you to come on a Traditionalist forum and insult people? Can you not see how ludicrous you sound, claiming the Catholic high ground while behaving the way you do? No... you can't, can you?
At least you've admitted your special devotion to John Paul II and that you love him very much. (Living Popes thread)
This explains a lot.
-
To awkwardcustomer
"What is it that inspires you to come on a Traditionalist forum and insult people?"
And once again we see your deceit, which is indicative of why God has blinded you, even to the disgrace of sedevacantism.
For you deceitfully fashion just rebuke as insult.
Titus 1:9-11
Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers. For there are also many disobedient, vain talkers, and seducers: especially they who are of the circuмcision:
Who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, "
Matthew 23:26
"Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean."
-
When I first entered St. Dominic's Church operated by the Dominicans Fathers and Brothers in
Washington, DC in 1965. The wreckovation was already accomplished at that early date
before the closing on Vatican II.
The altar was moved to the middle of the sanctuary. where the altar was was replaced
with chairs. The blessed sacrament was moved to the side altar. The painted frescoes
the decorated the walls were painted over. Is saw these frescoes in a book depicting
the history of the church.
Interesting note, this church was the Parish Church of General Sherman, of the
cινιℓ ωαr. Sherman's march to the sea also included his parish church many years
after his death.
-
J Paul said:
"If Our Lady has granted anything to sincere hearts, it is the discernment to see this alien abomination for the sacrilege that it is. "
It is true that Our Lady grants sight to sincere hearts. Unfortunately for you, Nadir and awkward customer and many other "traditionalists", you have not sincere hearts, but are conceited pharisees. Your "catholicism" is selfish and not selfless.
Therefore, you are denied the understanding of the Holy Ghost, who flees from your pride. So much so, that the message through the demon is from Our Lady, yet Nadir says "it verges on blasphemy".
Wisdom 8:4
"For it is she that teacheth the knowledge of God, and is the chooser of his works."
John 8:47
"He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God."
St Father Montfort sums up your position.
"If anyone, therefore, wants to follow me thus abased and crucified, he must glory, as I did, only in the poverty, humiliations and sufferings of my Cross. "Let him renounce himself."
Excluded, then, from the company of the Friends of the Cross are those who take pride in their sufferings; the worldly-wise, the intellectuals and the sceptics who are attached to their own ideas and puffed up with their own talents. Away from you those endless talkers who make a great show but produce nothing but vanity. Away from you those so- called devout Catholics who in their pride display the self- sufficiency of proud Lucifer wherever they go, saying, "I am not like the rest of men;" who cannot endure being blamed without making some excuse, being attacked without answering back, being humbled without exalting themselves.
Be careful not to admit into your society those delicate and sensitive people who are afraid of the slightest pin- prick, who cry out and complain at the least pain, who know nothing of the hair-shirt, the discipline or other instruments of penance, and who mingle, with their fashionable devotions, a most refined fastidiousness and a most studied lack of mortification. You are the members of Christ, a wonderful honour indeed, but one which entails suffering. If the Head is crowned with thorns, can the members expect to be crowned with roses? If the Head is jeered at and covered with dust on the road to Calvary, can the members expect to be sprinkled with perfumes on a throne? If the Head has no pillow on which to rest, can the members expect to recline on feathers and down? That would be unthinkable!
No, no, my dear Companions of the Cross, do not deceive yourselves. Those Christians you see everywhere, fashionably dressed, fastidious in manner, full of importance and dignity, are not real disciples, real members of Christ crucified. To think they are would be an insult to our thorn-crowned Head and to the truth of the Gospel. How many so-called Christians imagine they are members of our Saviour when in reality they are his treacherous persecutors, for while they make the sign of the cross with their hand, in their hearts they are its enemies!" Letter to the Friends of the Cross
Your quotes do nothing but confirm what I have said, and do indeed condemn your own assertions.
You cannot enlist the truth to defend that which is false, and you cannot use the Queen of the Saints to justify the works of demons.
-
The truth is God has given us a diluted Mass for our times, but a mass it still is! The truth is to those to Whom God has given good understanding, if if wasn't for Our Lady we would hardly have been given that. Thanks be to her! Triumph and reign Holy Mother!
Here we learn that when you compromise, you will go to great lengths to justify every profanation the conciliar enemies of the Church can dish out, even if that means making blasphemous acts of sacrilege, good and lawful by convincing yourself that the acts of sacrilege and blasphemy to God's Holy Mass came from God Himself.
This is what you get when you spend your time in too many years of compromise.
Such as we see here, is not compromise, it is surrender.
-
JPaul said:
"Your quotes do nothing but confirm what I have said, and do indeed condemn your own assertions.
You cannot enlist the truth to defend that which is false, and you cannot use the Queen of the Saints to justify the works of demons. "
You do not see the Queen of Saints in this revelation. You have not even attempted to disprove its authenticity.
What you are concerned with is to defend your own opinion, formed of pharasiasm, which you hold of higher import than the truth.
"a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." St Augustine
You fear to be wrong, because of the consequences ie; that you will be forced to admit you were in error and your condemnations of the conciliar Popes will be seen for what they really are; not just reprovals, but slander and hate against authority constituted by God, with the imbroglio post Vatican 2 used as cover for your malice.
-
JPaul said:
"Your quotes do nothing but confirm what I have said, and do indeed condemn your own assertions.
You cannot enlist the truth to defend that which is false, and you cannot use the Queen of the Saints to justify the works of demons. "
You do not see the Queen of Saints in this revelation. You have not even attempted to disprove its authenticity.
What you are concerned with is to defend your own opinion, formed of pharasiasm, which you hold of higher import than the truth.
"a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." St Augustine
You fear to be wrong, because of the consequences ie; that you will be forced to admit you were in error and your condemnations of the conciliar Popes will be seen for what they really are; not just reprovals, but slander and hate against authority constituted by God, with the imbroglio post Vatican 2 used as cover for your malice.
The absurdity of your charges do not dignify a response. The authority constituted by God was rejected and blasphemed by Vatican II and its adherents. You constitute a part of that rebellion against almost two thousand years of the Church's Catholic sense and judgment.
-
JPaul said:
"The absurdity of your charges do not dignify a response."
ie; your not willing to face up to the consequences that you are in error, because you will have to then admit that your haughty denunciations of the conciliar Popes are nothing but hate veneered with (hypocritical) formalism. You are another "catholic", of whom there are many these days, who think Catholicism is about legalism and knowledge- as the pharisees of old. Whereas true Catholicism is about carrying the cross.
"Even my own people - and I say this with tears in my eyes and grief in my heart - my own children whom I have brought up and instructed in my ways, my members whom I have quickened with my own Spirit, have turned their backs on me and forsaken me by becoming enemies of my Cross. 'Will you also go away?' Will you also desert me by running away from my Cross like the worldlings, who thus become so many antichrists? Will you also follow the world; despise the poverty of my Cross in order to seek after wealth; shun the sufferings of my Cross to look for enjoyment; avoid the humiliations of my Cross in order to chase after the honours of the world? 'There are many who pretend they are friends of mine and protest that they love me, but in their hearts they hate me. I have many friends of my table, but very few of my Cross. No, no, my dear Companions of the Cross, do not deceive yourselves. Those Christians you see everywhere, fashionably dressed, fastidious in manner, full of importance and dignity, are not real disciples, real members of Christ crucified. To think they are would be an insult to our thorn-crowned Head and to the truth of the Gospel. How many so-called Christians imagine they are members of our Saviour when in reality they are his treacherous persecutors, for while they make the sign of the cross with their hand, in their hearts they are its enemies!' - St Father Montfort - Letter to the Friends of the cross
I went to the Novus Ordo this evening. I received the Body and blood of Christ. In the morning I am going to an SSPX mass, to also receive the Body and blood of Christ. I have the love of God in me as I write. Therefore, how can I be in rebellion? How wrong you are!
-
When you go to the Novus Ordo do you receive communion in the hand?
-
Matto:
Mark 12:13
"And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians; that they should catch him in his words."
Thus trying to find fault, so you find excuse to relieve the pressure of the truth.
I receive communion on the tongue and kneeling.
"The enemies of Christ's cross lie in wait for our every deed and word, so that, if we but give them the slightest pretext, they may accuse us mendaciously of agreeing with Nestorius." Pope Leo - letter to Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria
-
I receive communion on the tongue and kneeling.
Good. That is how you should receive. And thanks for the insult.
-
Matto said:
"Good. That is how you should receive"
Why did you ask me? Did you wish to give me instruction?
-
Matto said:
"Good. That is how you should receive"
Why did you ask me? Did you wish to give me instruction?
I asked you because you say the Novus Ordo is alright so I wondered if you received holy communion like most people in the Novus Ordo in the way officially approved by the Novus Ordo Church.
-
Matto said:
"I asked you because you say the Novus Ordo is alright so I wondered if you received holy communion like most people in the Novus Ordo in the way officially approved by the Novus Ordo Church."
You really expect me (and God) to believe that?
-
Matto said:
"I asked you because you say the Novus Ordo is alright so I wondered if you received holy communion like most people in the Novus Ordo in the way officially approved by the Novus Ordo Church."
You really expect me (and God) to believe that?
I don't understand your comment. Are you accusing me of lying?
-
By saying you don't understand the comment you are lying. And then suggesting that your motive in asking me whether I had communion in the hand was just a wondering, is an act of deceit.
-
So now I am a liar. You cannot even give me the benefit of the doubt. You seem to follow the same pattern in all your interactions here. You are one of the most liberal members on Cathinfo and because of your liberalism you often get in disagreements with other less liberal posters. And when this happens you always accuse the other person of being evil instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. At least this time you didn't quote some irrelevant passage from scripture, a private revelation, or an exorcism, you just came out and called me a liar when I have been truthful.
-
Andy Sloan,
I went to the Novus Ordo this evening. I received the Body and blood of Christ.
So you say. Given the realities of today, that is far from certain.
That you pass from the sacrilegious mockery to the Catholic Mass so freely is hard to imagine.