Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on November 08, 2011, 09:46:02 PM
-
Christina
Going to the Novus Ordo is no different than going to a Black Mass, except one is more forthright (i.e. the black mass).
Like · · 7 hours ago ·
Christiaan Meadows just a little over the top Christina........admittedly many NOs are irreverent even NO rubrics......but the above is close to saying that the sovereign pontiff presides at what functionally black masses
4 hours ago · Like
Paul Danon It's not just close to saying it!
3 hours ago · Like
Matthew: I disagree -- if that were true, than attending the Novus Ordo would be mortally sinful in each and every case -- which is not true. What you stated is not even the SSPX position, BTW. Did something happen recently to particularly set you off against the Novus Ordo? If I didn't know better, I'd say you were angry about something.
about an hour ago · Like
Sursum Corda The Novus Ordo Mass is objectively a mortal sin, but subjectively people can be in ignorance. But no matter what it is a grave sacrilege and we ought to avoid it at all costs, unless we have to attend it out of charity because of a wedding or a funeral, in which case, we ought not to participate in it lest we sin mortally.
57 minutes ago · Like
Matthew: I've been a traditionalist all my life, so when I say the Novus Ordo isn't objectively a mortal sin, you can't just dismiss it as "I'm personally invested" or less against it because I was forced to become familiar with it. I feel like I'm at a protestant service when I attend a N.O. Mass, and I'm the type who would advocate staying at home if a Tridentine Mass isn't available. That having been said, I think saying that the Novus Ordo is a mortal sin is an exaggeration, and denies all the Catholics of good will who attend the Novus Ordo today, as well as traditional Catholics who attended it in the past. Just because it tends to destroy the Faith doesn't mean it's the equivalent of devil worship!
22 minutes ago · Like
Sursum Corda It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge. Pax Christi Regis.
-
It is a mortal sin, it is no different then the first sin of Cain, giving a sacrifice in a way man wants instead of how God wants.
Those in ingorence have reduced culpability however, but they still commit sacrilidge the worst sin by touching the body of christ with an unconsecrated hand.
So I am not on your side.
-
This Sursum Corda person has SSPX all over his profile. His profile pic is Archbishop Lefebvre. Yet I think he's at variance with the SSPX position on the Novus Ordo.
But I stopped myself before correcting him further, because I need to know -- WHY exactly does the SSPX advise not going to the Novus Ordo Mass, even if a traditional Mass isn't available? And actually I agree -- I would stay home too if no Tridentine Mass were available. Yet I disagree with him about it being a venial/mortal sin.
I think it's more "destructive of the Faith" due to omissions, making it un-sacred, etc.
Also, he and countless other traditional Catholics seem to have been to NovusOrdoWatch a few too many times -- my wife is from a small town in Texas, and the Catholic parish there never had any ecuмenical services, no dances, etc. Just standard Novus Ordo.
I think many trads lose sight of that when their only Novus Ordo exposure comes from the website Traditio.
-
I think you are becoming indifferent friend, the SSPX position is that the Novus Ordo is valid but Illicit, Illicit = Sinful.
Where did you get a view other then this?
-
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm
E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
I should also point out when the SSPX says that it is Valid but illicit it says so ONLY for the mass as SAID IN THE RUBRICS of 1969. In which I might point out most of the Mass is said in Latin and all the abuses are not in it. AND IT IS STILL ILLICIT in that form.
-
To say attending the NO is a mortal sin is absurd.
God the Father would certainly not send the NO laity to the Eternal Fire for such. The average NO parishioner is ignorant of all the fuss. They truly believe the Mass is what Rome says it is.
Avoid it once one knows ? Of course.
-
+JMJ+
First, let me say that I like Traditio. I know the writing there can be sensationalist at times, but they are some of the most apparently fierce defenders of not only correct DOCTRINE, but of encouraging people IN ACTUAL PRACTICE of Catholic devotion.
Too many 'trad' sites seem to be overrun with people that are simply out to justify themselves by means of memorizing some phrases from encyclicals.
Second, let me mention that I have THREE churches in my town alone (by this, I mean Catholic churches), let alone the ones within a few minutes' drive.
I would say that the VAST majority of them are 'Novus trad', at least to some degree, meaning that they stick to the text and rubrics that are most faithful to the latest NO missal. I cannot personally think of any seriously harmful innovations or scandalous sacrileges (so to speak) against the NO's standards (which are admittedly loose).
The parishes near me simply have the priest, the laypeople handling the species, communion in the hand, etc... all the typical stuff that most old ladies think is reverent and respectful.
These parishes haven't celebrated a 1969 Paul VI service since probably the 80s. I remember, vaguely, a mass ad orientem at our town's largest church from when I was VERY small (all I remember is seeing the priest in the chasuble kneeling at the altar with no table in front; it had been moved as far as I remember, because there are photos from before I was born that show the table). I don't even know of a church in my area or anywhere near me that still uses the original Paul VI service. Does ANYONE, anymore?
This, in a nutshell, is why I believe the NO to be so wicked and deadly. It's NOT because there are violations of Canon Law and of solemnly promulgated Papal decrees... it's because all of those violations are being FLAUNTED as the day-to-day TYPICAL Novus Ordo service and parochial atmosphere.
Put simply, there's not a single shred of evidence in these parishes that anything even WAS different TEN years ago, let alone 50 or 200 years ago.
I hate, more than any liturgical innovation, more than any so-called 'progress', the fact that the poor souls in these parishes are being starved not only of the chance to participate in the true worship of Christ, but starved of any sense of their place in history.
If they only knew what has been denied them for so long, I believe they would revolt and major changes would come about.
Hmmm... time to print some fliers.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Attending a Non-Catholic Mass is a mortal sin, the SSPX Position is that the Novus Ordo is not Catholic, Culpability is diminished based on knowledge as it is for all Mortal Sins, but that does not mean that attending the Novus Ordo is not a mortal sin, quite the contrary, the opposite opinion that it is not sinful is absurd, you are practically stating that it is not a sin to attend a schismatic mass as long as you don't believe they are schismatic, or to attend a heretical mass as long as you don't believe they are heretics?
Anyone who prays to God to not be decieved will be led by God to the truth.
The Novus Ordo as said in pracitise is not only a Mortal Sin, it is sacrilidge. I still have not seen either of you refute me, because you can't I can post all day long from SSPX.ORG on why one may not attend the Novus Ordo.
Does the
New Mass fulfill the notion of Catholic liturgy?
6-7-2011
Liturgy in general is ritualized prayer, i.e., the official prayer of a society approved by the authority of that society. In the case of Catholic liturgy, there is the additional fact that it is in some way the prayer of Jesus Christ Himself, the Head of the human race, carried out in union with His mystical members.
As regards the New Mass, the element of approval by authority is certainly present [at least de facto, if not de jure—Ed.] so any doubts regarding its legitimacy must concern something deeper—either some antagonism against the very notion of prayer or some incongruity with its status as the prayer of Christ.
All prayer has a double aspect—a primary, ascending aspect by which the adoration, thanksgiving, petition, and expiation of man is offered to God and a secondary, descending aspect by which the gifts and blessings of God are poured out upon man. Having acknowledged God for Who He is and giving Him the recognition which is unique to Him, Man humbly but confidently expects to receive from God those things which He alone can give.
When one considers the ascending aspect of prayer, one immediately realizes how much it depends upon and corresponds to man's knowledge of God.
In adoring God, man acknowledges the perfections which are known to him through reason and especially by faith—God's mercy, power, justice, wisdom, etc.
In praising God for His perfections as better known to man through faith, man also acknowledges the veracity of God.
In thanking God, man thanks Him for His goodness and mercy insofar as he knows of it through reason and especially through faith.
In petitioning God for blessings, man's confidence is rooted in his knowledge of God's power and mercy.
In seeking God's pardon, man is motivated by his knowledge of the malice of sin, the goodness and majesty of God, and man's own insignificance in comparison with His Creator.
Here lies the first reason for the illegitimacy of the rite of the New Mass—that it does not correspond to man's knowledge of God, i.e., to the truth of God's revelation considered either in its natural mode (via creation) or its supernatural mode (via revelation). The new rite in a certain sense worships a God of its own making—a God not offended by sin, Who is not interested in ritual sacrifice, Who has little respect for His own physical Presence at Mass, and Who places religious truth and religious error on similar footing.
God's real perfections and His real, historical dealings with men which reveal and express those perfections are ignored or re-interpreted according to the preferences of a modern man obsessed with his own dignity rather than the dignity of God. Objectively, such a rite of Mass is an insult to God.
As regards the descending aspect of prayer by which God's blessings are called down upon men, a rite of prayer will be legitimate insofar as it disposes man to receive these blessings. At the level of natural religion, this will require that the rite be so designed as to arouse sentiments of humility, confidence, and contrition. At the level of supernatural religion, the rite should dispose man to acts of faith, hope, and ultimately charity. At this level, the Novus Ordo rite again proves defective because it obscures the truths of the faith—hiding those elements of doctrine which offensive to ecuмenism or the modern notion of human dignity. Praying with such a distorted expression of the faith certainly does not facilitate acts of faith but rather impedes them. This undermines the whole structure of supernatural sanctification since faith is the foundation of hope and charity. Even considering natural religion, a rite which places man at the center of religious focus and a man eminent for his intrinsic dignity which no sinful act can compromise can hardly be said to dispose men to acts of humility and contrition. In fact, in practice, it is obvious that the new rite of Mass has undermined the natural religious reverence of the faithful.
Finally, all Catholic liturgy is unique in the striking sense that it is the prayer of Jesus Christ, Head of the Mystical Body. On the side of Christ, this flows from the fact that Our Lord is the only real mediator of salvation, the only Priest Who ever offered a worship worthy of God. On the side of His members, this flows from the reality of our incorporation into Christ and our participation in His Priesthood (either active or passive) achieved through the reception of indelible sacramental characters. What then can be said of a rite of Mass which, through its ecuмenical orientation, implicitly denies the unique mediation of Christ? Or which obscures the essentially sacrificial aspect of that mediation?
Or which implicitly denies the hierarchy among the sacramental characters by which the members of Christ participate in and benefit from this mediation? Such a liturgy is untrue to itself. It denies its own nature and lies about its own identity. Objectively, it is an insult to the Son considered as Incarnate God.
-
The Novus Ordo as said in pracitise is not only a Mortal Sin, it is sacrilidge. I still have not seen either of you refute me, because you can't I can post all day long from SSPX.ORG on why one may not attend the Novus Ordo.
Sacrilege can and certainly does occur at most NO's. To me, the NO lacks so much compared to the TLM. The TLM builds the Faith always. With the NO, a reverent one probably can as well IF the person in the pew is orthodox and informed. IOW, they would know error or heresy if they heard it from the pulpit.
But I admit, that's a perfect world situation.
Now the question I must ask is, if we are to accept the SSPX stance, then how can we reconcile that with the fact the SSPX is entertaining the thought of reconciliation with Rome, who is in fact the enabler of sacrilege in the NO to continue ?
What/who is orthodox at that point ? A trad that tolerates modernists, or a liberal that tolerates trads ?
VII has torn the Church to pieces no doubt. And it seems the only ones getting along are the blindly obedient in the NO pews that are ignorant to it all.
-
Can someone please ban this person for Protestant Heresy, that is doctrine not dicipline.
The Novus Ordo rubrics state it is in Latin, why? Because of this very Canon.
What the heretic just posted was the statements and explanations before the Canons.
This is the Canon:
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
He has also violated these in Regards to the Infallible Tridentine Mass:
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
-
If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?
Michael Davies, author of "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre" said as much, in his book on the Christian priesthood, "Order of Melchizedek"
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief. In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.
-
The Church is not defined by buildings. As in St. Athanasius' times of widespread apostasy, Catholics may be relegated to celebrate Mass in the desert while the apostates hold the CHurch buildings and offices hostage, but those who hold to Tradition (capital "T") are the Church.
-
Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite
That, right there, is part of the heresy and apostasy of Newrome, in a nutshell.
The Novus Ordo IS NOT THE ORDINARY FORM TO ANYONE EXCEPT NEWCHURCH!
Quo Primum[/b] made it VERY clear that no one was to issue ANY NEW MISSAL, let alone REPLACE the Mass that was already honored by the Church with pride of place and was for that reason codified at Trent.
Aquinasg and his kind are always going on about how we cannot be disobedient to Papal decrees, yet he wants to insist that 'in perpetuity' and 'forever have the force of law' DON'T mean exactly what the WORDS say!!
It would all be so tragic if it wasn't so infuriating.
-
Diego said:
The Church is not defined by buildings. As in St. Athanasius' times of widespread apostasy, Catholics may be relegated to celebrate Mass in the desert while the apostates hold the CHurch buildings and offices hostage, but those who hold to Tradition (capital "T") are the Church.
Nobody's denying the possibility, indeed the current reality, of widespread apostasy among clerics and prelates. The indefectibility of the Church has never been taught to extend to such. But it does appear that Popes have said that it does apply to her sacraments.
Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, par. 66 (1943): “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”
Stephen Francis, I understand where you're coming from, but my question was not about that. It was regarding whether the SSPX would officially agree with you or not.
-
It is in fact sinful to attend the Novus Ordo if you know it's wrong. I agree with the SSPX. If you know it was created by Freemasons to please the Protestants, why would you even want to attend it?
If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?
A logical conclusion would be that the Novus Ordo Missae was not given to us by Holy Mother Church, but rather was given to us by the counterfeit church and that Paul VI, by promulgating a heretical Mass, excommunicated himself in the process. Also, calling the NO the "Ordinary Form" is a lie. The Traditional Latin Mass is the true Ordinary Form of the Church because the Church made it clear that the liturgy can never be dramatically changed.
CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
This is an important thing to note, thumbs-up to LP for quoting these Canons. If the Church stated that anyone who dared try to change the liturgy was anathema, then Paul VI, Cardinal Bugnini, and everyone else who was directly involved in the second Vatican council excommunicated themselves, and therefore the Novus Ordo may be regarded as "the Mass of the excommunicated". In other words, it cannot be considered a true Mass of the Catholic Church.
-
To say attending the NO is a mortal sin is absurd.
Let's make the proper distinction. I believe assisting at the Novus Ordo is grave matter. However, the personal culpability of a person who assists at it depends upon his advertence to its gravity and his level of consent.
-
A logical conclusion would be that the Novus Ordo Missae was not given to us by Holy Mother Church, but rather was given to us by the counterfeit church and that Paul VI, by promulgating a heretical Mass, excommunicated himself in the process. Also, calling the NO the "Ordinary Form" is a lie. The Traditional Latin Mass is the true Ordinary Form of the Church because the Church made it clear that the liturgy can never be dramatically changed.
This is indeed logical. It's so logical it took me seven or eight years to finally admit it out loud.
All deception is bad, but self-deception is definitely the worst!
-
To say attending the NO is a mortal sin is absurd.
Let's make the proper distinction. I believe assisting at the Novus Ordo is grave matter. However, the personal culpability of a person who assists at it depends upon his advertence to its gravity and his level of consent.
I agree with this also. It just takes some people longer to realize that the Novus Ordo is a false mass and admit it than others. I was quite quilty of this myself. On the other hand, most people never get to that point. Narrow is the path...
-
What is the position of the SSPX concerning the New Mass?
I have before me the book, Christian Warfare, Deluxe Edition. It is published by the Society of Saint Pius X, Inc., Winnipeg, MB (Canada), and is copyright 2009. It is the book the Society uses in its retreats held in Ridgefield, CT.
The book contains an Examination of Conscience for use in preparing for a General Confession of all mortal sins that one may have committed during his life. This examination is extremely detailed. They thought of many things that would not have even crossed my mind.
On page 289, under the section for examining one's sins against the Third Commandment are these questions (among others):
"Have you attended and actively participated in the "New Mass? Have you received Holy Communion in the hand?
This examination clearly indicates that the questions asked concern objective mortal sins, though the examination also indicates that culpability may be less if one did not have "sufficient knowledge". Thus, it is clear that, if this book reflects the official teaching of the Society of St. Pius X, the Society considers the New Mass objectively evil.
-
It is objectively evil, not instrinsically, but under a certain aspect (secundum quid) insofar as it damages or endangers the faith. This holds for any circuмstance wherein any virtue is placed in danger. There is also a subjective note insofar as one may attend with a strong faith and maintain said faith in spite of the Novus Ordo and therefore no sin is committed from this aspect, though the profane service itself is objectively evil.
-
It is objectively evil, not instrinsically, but under a certain aspect (secundum quid) insofar as it damages or endangers the faith. This holds for any circuмstance wherein any virtue is placed in danger. There is also a subjective note insofar as one may attend with a strong faith and maintain said faith in spite of the Novus Ordo and therefore no sin is committed from this aspect, though the profane service itself is objectively evil.
Whatever happened to removing oneself from the near occasions of sin? One cannot attend an objectively evil service for the purpose of praising God with absolutely no possibility of sin! What you are saying here is that a man can go to Hooters for dinner (and watch the waitresses) completely without sin because of his strong faith. One is intentionally placing himself in the near occasion of sin just by going to that particular establishment.
N.B., When I first moved to this area, I had never heard about this restaraunt. There was one near my apartment and I was making plans to take my wife and child there for dinner. Based on the signage, I thought it was some sort of "owl-themed" restaraunt. Fortunately, when I asked a co-worker if they required reservations, she explained what the actual theme of that establishment was. Needless to say, I have never entered a Hooters restaraunt.
-
It is objectively evil, not instrinsically
What do you mean by this? Please distinguish "objectively evil" from "instrinsically evil"?
-
The SSPX's position doesn't make sense, which is why I encourage people to either be true CAtholics or sedevacantists. The Church cannot issue a sinful mass.
And communion in the hand is not sinful. Basil the Great and Clement of Jerusalem both speak of it among early Christians. There is nothing more sacred about the tongue. Hands aren't back; some people don't like sticking their tongues out, and feel close to Jesus in holding Him for a second.
Let me show you WHY your thinking is wrong. It is this kind of thinking that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
60. "The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See."
61. "The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man."
-
The problem with such arguments, it seems to me, is that they are of the same sort used by the Greek schismatics regarding the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, by citing a canon of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The Church does not bind herself, she binds her faithful to obedience. And on matters of discipline, the Church can loose what the Church has bound.
A logical conclusion would be that the Novus Ordo Missae was not given to us by Holy Mother Church, but rather was given to us by the counterfeit church and that Paul VI, by promulgating a heretical Mass, excommunicated himself in the process
That would indeed be logically consistent, I'll grant you. But there is the rub, isn't it: if and only if Paul VI (and arguably his successors for subsequently approving it) was not Pope, this could be true - and this isn't the official position of the SSPX.
Of course, it's another matter that the indefectiblity of the Church, although not exercised personally in any way, is still necessarily present in her even during an interregnum. So any consequence of indefectibility would hold even during one.
-
If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?
Michael Davies, author of "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre" said as much, in his book on the Christian priesthood, "Order of Melchizedek"
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief. In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.
Amen and amen and amen!
-
Sorry Sigismund, but I've already refuted that post from Nishant.
That would indeed be logically consistent, I'll grant you. But there is the rub, isn't it: if and only if Paul VI (and arguably his successors for subsequently approving it) was not Pope, this could be true - and this isn't the official position of the SSPX.
He wasn't a Pope, he was a heretic and Freemason.
-
The doctrine of indefectibility guarantees that the supreme authority in the Church, the Roman Pontiff, could never impose or authorize for universal use throughout the Church any liturgical rite or practice that was contrary to sound doctrine, could invalidate the Sacrament, or undermine Catholic belief. In this instance the Roman Rite can be considered as equivalent to universal as it includes the overwhelming majority of Catholics throughout the world, and is proper to the Holy See itself. Thus, if the Latin Ordinal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968, or the Latin Missal promulgated by him in 1970, are examined carefully, they will be found to contain nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith.
This is Mr. Davies interpretation of the "doctrine of indefectibility" as it applies to the scope of "disciplinary infallibility" a doctrine that is ill-defined and much disputed by theologians. His interpretation turns permission into command and doesn't account for imprudence or negligence on the part of the Episcopate, not to mention doctrinal aberrations. He unwittingly inflates the true status of the N.O. (a non-authoritative experimental liturgy) and thus is forced to admit it is doctrinally sound or not in any way harmful. The assertion that the Roman Rite is to be considered as "equivalent to universal" is a gratuitous claim. Though he is correct in his last assertion taken in its most narrow sense, that is, a proposition that is contradictory to the Catholic faith cannot be found within the texts examined. But a thing can be injurious to the faith indirectly and considering other circuмstances.
-
Sigismund, :-)
Spiritus, well, I guess my question is to those who personally share the official views of the SSPX as such, namely that all the Popes past Vatican II are valid Popes.
Caminus,
This is Mr. Davies interpretation of the "doctrine of indefectibility" as it applies to the scope of "disciplinary infallibility" a doctrine that is ill-defined and much disputed by theologians.
Well, I know that some specifics are still open to theological discussion, but I think the Magisterial teaching of Mystici Corporis I cited above from Pope Pius XII closes the question on whether any of the sacramental rites of the Church can be objectively evil. Would you disagree?
In my understanding, that is all that Catholic faith obliges me to hold. I completely concur with you and Michael Davies that there has been pastoral negligence and grave imprudence in its implementation and I see no contradiction in doing so. If it were up to me, for one, I would restore by mandate the high Altars, versus Deum orientation, communion rails, chapel veils, Latin in the liturgy, at least partially, and make receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue not only the norm but also the practice.
The extent of abuses alone necessitates such a measure. As a historical parallel, we saw how the Church responded when the grants of Indulgences, itself a sacred dogma of the Faith, was abused in practice to be an occasion for scandal.
As it is, however, it is not up to me, so I pray for this in as much hope and patience as I can muster. I do not see how I or any other Catholic to whom this Mass is the only option can be expected to do differently. Do you?
-
You're equating the N.O. with the Church's liturgy. If you appreciate its true status I think it would be easier to agree with the SSPX analysis of the matter. The appearance of universal usage for a temporary period of time certainly gives the impression that it is properly a rite of the Church, but when you analyze both its inception, promulgation and the stated principles of the reformers you will see it more correctly as, not a liturgy of the Catholic Church, but a blood-sucking parasite that needs to be surgically removed. This liturgy is nothing more than a transient, never ending experiment that has no foundation in law, tradition or authority. How can a deformation and debasing of the liturgy be considered a liturgy properly speaking? Just as an evil law is no law at all and is rather an act of violence, so too is a defective liturgy, built upon false principles of a small committee, no liturgy at all, vouchesafed neither by antiquity nor authority.
-
Ok, great. If I understand you correctly, Caminus, the SSPX position is that the New Mass, owing to some reasons during its promulgation, is not therefore protected by the indefectibility of the Church.
Before we come to the liturgy itself, concerning the place of the rite itself in the Church, let me ask you, even if it was as you say, doesn't the subsequent approval of all Popes including Benedict XVI, most especially and manifestly in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм seem to settle the issue once and for all? I ask this only because it seems to me that, whatever my private judgment of the liturgical text may be, Catholic faith obliges me to hold this.
If we are to go into the text itself, well, I think there is no doubt that what Pope Benedict XVI calls "The Extraordinary Form" is a richer, more beautiful and more expressive manifestation of lex orandi, lex credendi. That said, I do not think "The Ordinary Form" fails to manifest with sufficient clarity the twin and inseparable character of the Mass as at once a sacrament and a sacrifice. I have read the famous "short, critical study on the New Mass" but I also heard that Cardinal Ottaviani himself was satisfied after one of Pope Paul VI's address regarding its doctrinal precision but called for an extensive catechesis to make sure the faithful understand the prayer and belief of the Church.
-
If the claim that the traditional Roman rite, approved by authority and antiquity, could legitimately be suppressed holds, how much moreso the N.O.? If the ground is open to assert that authority is utlimately arbitrary and does not exist except for the common good, then one is forced to admit that an aberrant liturgy could coexist within the Church. The approbation of a few conciliar Popes holds no more weight than the Council itself. If a mere postulate, suggestion, wish or desire is not tantamount to a command or law, neither is a series of them. In the practical order, what precisely is the novus ordo liturgy anyway, since it was purposely designed to disintegrate and form indigenous rites upon contact with various cultures?
-
Nishant, keep in mind the modus of the Council and the hierarchy, they have abdicated their authority for a different approach. This must always be remembered when analyzing these matters. Always try to keep a true and accurate perspective, apperances notwithstanding. The Popes of old taught with authority; their encyclicals formed a beautiful symphonic harmony. But the conciliar Popes, strike distinctly a sour note and do not teach with authority, they desire to dialogue, trade ideas, converse, express their hopes and aspirations, wishes and desires. Not only this, but they are terrible theologians, jurists and philosophers; entire pontificates spent on testing their vain theologizing and philosophizing. If they could seriously view sectarian liturgies with approval (because of the new philosophy of religion they have adopted), how much credibility to they really have viz. the Catholic liturgy?
-
doesn't the subsequent approval of all Popes including Benedict XVI, most especially and manifestly in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм seem to settle the issue once and for all?
No, that's not how it works. The Council of Trent says that whosoever dramatically changes the liturgy, "let him be anathema". So it's quite obvious by that Dogma that Paul VI excommunicated himself in promulgating such a sacreligious, un-Catholic liturgy. So while you say you are obliged to hold your view based on Catholic teaching, you are also obliged to hold the Catholic teaching that the Mass was never supposed to be overhauled, and that no priest of any rank, not even the Pope, could promulgate an entirely new liturgy.
I do not think "The Ordinary Form" fails to manifest with sufficient clarity the twin and inseparable character of the Mass as at once a sacrament and a sacrifice.
First of all, it's a lie to call the Novus Ordo the "Ordinary Form". If the Church made the Traditional Latin Mass the liturgy of the Church and said that this could never change, why then should we consider the New Mass to be the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? Clearly this is contrary to Church teaching and is not a part of logical reasoning.
The New Mass is not, in fact, a sacrifice. It is not meant to re-enact the Death of Christ on the Cross. Rather, the New Mass resembles a meal, the Last Supper to be exact. For example, Communion in the hand (which, interestingly, even Benedict discourages). St. Thomas Aquinas said that only Consecrated Hands should touch the Eucharist. Yet, at the NO you have Eucharistic Ministers handing out the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ and putting it in everyone's hands, as if it's a dorito chip. And speaking of it being the Body of Christ, they aren't allowed to say "This is the Body of Christ". They instead say "Body of Christ" which can imply that everyone is the Body of Christ. They also neglect to use a patten, which is very sacreligious. The Church has taught that Our Lord is present in even the smallest particle of the Sacred Host. And if the patten is not used, then crumbs may fall on the floor and Christ's Body is trampled on. As for the wine (which is turned into Our Lord's Blood during the Consecration), only the priest is supposed to drink it. The laypeople need not drink it because the Blood of Christ is also present in the Eucharist. But the promulgators of the NO knew they had to turn the Mass into a meal, so the lay people were thus allowed to drink from the Chalice as well. So, the New Mass does in fact fail to resemble a sacrifice. It instead resembles a meal.
I have read the famous "short, critical study on the New Mass" but I also heard that Cardinal Ottaviani himself was satisfied after one of Pope Paul VI's address regarding its doctrinal precision but called for an extensive catechesis to make sure the faithful understand the prayer and belief of the Church.
To my knowledge, Cardinal Ottaviani was never satisfied with the Novus Ordo Missae. Do you have proof for your statement? Otherwise it is hearsay.
-
Most people who recognize that the NO is invalid seem to assume that those attending it are simply receiving bread.
However, another possibility has occurred to me. What if the Freemasonically inspired NO ritual is actually confecting the body of Antichrist? :scratchchin:
After all, the Freemasons worship Satan, :devil2: and the Antichrist is Satan's offspring, which provides Satan with another way to ape God the Father.
So maybe the devil has inspired the apostate clergy to develop and institute a ritual that confects the body of Antichrist and distributes it to his dupes. This would also enable the Antichrist to more closely ape Christ. :detective:
And the more you receive the NO host, or Antihost, the more you are ingrafted into the Body of Antichrist and his diabolical kingdom. :shocked:
This may help to explain why even older adults who should know better are so clueless about what's really going on. They didn't care enough or bother to know enough to tell the difference between the real Mass and a counterfeit in the beginning and reject the counterfeit. And as a result, their minds are being clouded and their wills weakened by being more and more unified with Satan and the Antichrist at every NO Mass they attend. Their trance just gets deeper and deeper.
It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.
-
One thing I know for sure: The inferior cannot judge the superior. There is no higher position for a human being to hold than Vicar of Christ. Therefore, only God Himself can judge the Vicar of Christ. In that regard, I will let God do His work, and I will do mine.
-
Most people who recognize that the NO is invalid seem to assume that those attending it are simply receiving bread.
However, another possibility has occurred to me. What if the Freemasonically inspired NO ritual is actually confecting the body of Antichrist? :scratchchin:
After all, the Freemasons worship Satan, :devil2: and the Antichrist is Satan's offspring, which provides Satan with another way to ape God the Father.
So maybe the devil has inspired the apostate clergy to develop and institute a ritual that confects the body of Antichrist and distributes it to his dupes. This would also enable the Antichrist to more closely ape Christ. :detective:
And the more you receive the NO host, or Antihost, the more you are ingrafted into the Body of Antichrist and his diabolical kingdom. :shocked:
This may help to explain why even older adults who should know better are so clueless about what's really going on. They didn't care enough or bother to know enough to tell the difference between the real Mass and a counterfeit in the beginning and reject the counterfeit. And as a result, their minds are being clouded and their wills weakened by being more and more unified with Satan and the Antichrist at every NO Mass they attend. Their trance just gets deeper and deeper.
It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.
That's funny! You had me going there for a second. I almost thought you were serious. Good one.
-
It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.
Funny you mention this, because the name "Novus Ordo" sounds Freemasonic. If you look on the back of a dollar bill, the words "Novus Ordo Seculorum" can be found.
-
Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?
The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?
or
The one mistranslated in the vernacular?
With CITH or without?
With Girl Altar Boys or without?
With heretical hymns or without?
With rock music or without?
With female lectors or without?
With DNC talking point homilies or without?
With the sign of peace or without?
No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.
My response would be something like...
I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.
You guys can develop more verses....
-
Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?
The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?
or
The one mistranslated in the vernacular?
With CITH or without?
With Girl Altar Boys or without?
With heretical hymns or without?
With rock music or without?
With female lectors or without?
With DNC talking point homilies or without?
With the sign of peace or without?
No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.
My response would be something like...
I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.
You guys can develop more verses....
Thank you Stevus that made me laugh.
-
Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?
The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?
or
The one mistranslated in the vernacular?
With CITH or without?
With Girl Altar Boys or without?
With heretical hymns or without?
With rock music or without?
With female lectors or without?
With DNC talking point homilies or without?
With the sign of peace or without?
No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.
My response would be something like...
I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.
You guys can develop more verses....
:laugh1:
Thumbs up for that.
-
If the SSPX does in fact hold that participation in the Holy Sacrifice in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is objectively sinful, how do they reconcile this with the indefectibility of the Church? Is it possible that what the Church, our Mother, hands down to her faithful is corrupt and polluted, what she binds on earth, is not bound in heaven?
The New "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.
Here, this snip is from A Theological Critique OF Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGE (http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/wathen.html) by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Br. Alexis Bugnolo ends up agreeing with Fr. Wathen and admits that the NOM is not a liturgical norm and it is not protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility.
.........The general interpretative principle that a universal disciplinary decree is protected from error, on account of the Church’s indefectibility, is based on its precise nature both as a universal decree and as an exercise of the infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium.
Because inasmuch as the decree, even if it virtually teaches in regard to some matter of faith or morals, does not fulfill the other conditions for infallibility established by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, it fails to represent that form of the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church which Christ willed to be protected from error.
In addition, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI clearly was not a universal norm, because Paul VI never formally made it such, never formally derogated the Old Rite, granted a general exemption for England to use the liturgy of 1965, and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it. Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, nor did it rise to the level of that form of liturgical norm, which expressly confirmed by Trent and the decree of St. Pius V, is expressly recognized as free from error and valid for all times.
The constant changes made to the Missal and its translations, norms, rubrics, etc., clarifies that it was never intended to be a stable, liturgical form. For all these reasons, since the very nature of infallibility and indefectibility requires a stable adherence to the deposit of the faith, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, cannot be considered a universal liturgical norm that is protected by the Church’s infallibility or indefectibility. And if not, then it is capable of containing errors, which while not formally heretical, to the extent that it did not intended to contradict or abrogate formally any dogma of the faith, could contain materially grave errors, even those which could not otherwise be founded but upon heresy; and hence virtually could be as detrimental to the Faith and the Church as something formally heretical. As for the rest of the merits of the argument I present in this article, I leave them to be, as a historical testament to my own imperfect understanding of the issues.
-
Correct position on which Novus Ordo Mass?
The one in Latin ad Orientam with altar rails and incense?
or
The one mistranslated in the vernacular?
With CITH or without?
With Girl Altar Boys or without?
With heretical hymns or without?
With rock music or without?
With female lectors or without?
With DNC talking point homilies or without?
With the sign of peace or without?
No two NO's are ever alike. Like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.
My response would be something like...
I do not like it with a song.
I do not like it short or long.
I do not like it holding hands.
I do not like it Sam I Am.
You guys can develop more verses....
LOL
-
It's as if every NO Mass you attend etches the "666" deeper into your flesh. Many appear to have already reached the point of no return.
Funny you mention this, because the name "Novus Ordo" sounds Freemasonic. If you look on the back of a dollar bill, the words "Novus Ordo Seculorum" can be found.
Thanks for making that additional point for me, SS.
And thanks, pax, for supporting my post as well.
There's nothing like being mocked by a guy whose avatar is one of the Three Stooges dressed up like an Orthodox Jєω to give true gravitas to a post supporting traditional Catholicism vs. the Novus Ordo!
-
Caminus, you're right in that Popes these days seem rarely if ever to invoke their Apostolic authority, but I'm a little skeptical of this position being reduced to a sort of crypto-sedevacantism which would insist that the Pope cannot bind us even if he clearly intends to. This is the language used,
Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the Cardinal Fathers of the Consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these Apostolic Letters we establish the following:
If the claim that the traditional Roman rite, approved by authority and antiquity, could legitimately be suppressed holds, how much moreso the N.O.?
Well, concerning the traditional Rite, Pope Benedict says it was "in principle, always permitted".
If the ground is open to assert that authority is utlimately arbitrary and does not exist except for the common good
I'm not saying that authority is arbitrary. I'm saying that the Church can loose what the Church has bound. The Church binds her faithful to obedience, she does not bind herself for the future. It would be impossible to imagine otherwise. Trent says, "this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,--or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circuмstances, times, and places."
The approbation of a few conciliar Popes holds no more weight than the Council itself.
I agree with you on the Council and have said so. It did not bind anyone to anything, and defined no new dogma at all. I also do not deny that the last 50 years have been tragic to the Church, and the grandeur of the Papacy has been unwittingly, perhaps, self-abased.
The only real place I disagree with you, is as I said, and I think other traditional orders like the FSSP disagree with the SSPX, is in the living Magisterium, that Christ will protect it through weak Popes, and speak decisively at the right time, the faith of Peter will not fail, the gates of hell shall not prevail, according to the divine promise. So, yes, the Council did not in fact bind anything, but if, in future, the Church does bind something, even if there is a weak Pope at the time, I will submit to it. I believe it is an instance of that here.
If a mere postulate, suggestion, wish or desire is not tantamount to a command or law, neither is a series of them.
But this is not a suggestion, it does not have the language of a suggestion. It seems clearly intended to be a decisive act of the Magisterium to close the question.
In the practical order, what precisely is the novus ordo liturgy anyway, since it was purposely designed to disintegrate and form indigenous rites upon contact with various cultures?
I mean only the 1970 Latin Missal. The prudence of the decision may be reasonably questioned, but I do not believe I can hold any longer, following this statement by the Holy See, that this Mass, even with the misguided intended "simplifications" or whatever can actually become deficient for effecting the grace it signifies or be sinful or an occasion of sin.
-
Spiritus,
No, that's not how it works. The Council of Trent says that whosoever dramatically changes the liturgy, "let him be anathema".
So why aren't all Popes and Bishops and priests and even laymen since the insertion of the Filioque likewise anathematized or deposed? By the way, slightly off topic, I'm curious, would the sedevacantism you espouse allow for such an eventuality? I mean, if we're in an extended interregnum, as unless I'm mistaken, you seem clearly to think, is there any limits on how long that interregnum could be, theoretically? A hundred years? 500?
Besides, it says nothing of "dramatically". Interpreted simplistically, it would apply to every Pope who has ever made a minor change since then, including I believe Pope St.Pius V himself, which is absurd. It even penalizes by such temporal sanctions as fines the individual transgressing priests, and clearly does not bind the Church as a body, or the Pope who can always act on her behalf.
First of all, it's a lie to call the Novus Ordo the "Ordinary Form".
But it is the term the Magisterium uses, rather than "Novus Ordo".
The New Mass is not, in fact, a sacrifice.
From the text: Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizingthe sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Bloodof your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.
This statement so-often repeated, simply isn't true. Have you read Pope Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" on the subject? It is sufficiently orthodox, maintains transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, and the true nature of the Eucharist as both sacrament and sacrifice, and quotes the Fathers as well on the subject.
I fully share your approbation for the horrendous abuses that have crept in, but what do they prove about the Mass itself? No more than abuses of Indulgences proved about them.
To my knowledge, Cardinal Ottaviani was never satisfied with the Novus Ordo Missae. Do you have proof for your statement? Otherwise it is hearsay.
The statement was: "I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success."
Stubborn,
The New "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.
I read the analysis, and it was interesting. If the Church has not seemed to officially clarify the matter, I might be of a different mind on the subject. Do you have a reason as to why I might be mistaken in understanding Summorum Pontificuм?
-
So why aren't all Popes and Bishops and priests and even laymen since the insertion of the Filioque likewise anathematized or deposed? By the way, slightly off topic, I'm curious, would the sedevacantism you espouse allow for such an eventuality? I mean, if we're in an extended interregnum, as unless I'm mistaken, you seem clearly to think, is there any limits on how long that interregnum could be, theoretically? A hundred years? 500?
Only God knows how long that interregnum could/will be. According to many sedes, it's been 53 years since the last true Pope (Pius XII). I, on the other hand, believe for the time being that John Paul I was a true Pope, back in 1978. I certainly do not think the Church will be without a Pope for 100 years, much less 500. In fact, according to some Prophecies the next Pope (the one after Benedict) will be the one that Consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Besides, it says nothing of "dramatically". Interpreted simplistically, it would apply to every Pope who has ever made a minor change since then, including I believe Pope St.Pius V himself, which is absurd. It even penalizes by such temporal sanctions as fines the individual transgressing priests, and clearly does not bind the Church as a body, or the Pope who can always act on her behalf.
The changes made by Pope St. Pius V were not "dramatic". Furthermore, his changes were in line with Church teaching. Many of the changes made to the Novus Ordo are sacreligious.
But it is the term the Magisterium uses, rather than "Novus Ordo".
The New Magisterium is flawed.
This statement so-often repeated, simply isn't true. Have you read Pope Paul VI's Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" on the subject? It is sufficiently orthodox, maintains transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, and the true nature of the Eucharist as both sacrament and sacrifice, and quotes the Fathers as well on the subject.
I fully share your approbation for the horrendous abuses that have crept in, but what do they prove about the Mass itself? No more than abuses of Indulgences proved about them.
The New Mass resembles a meal, the Last Supper to be exact. This is quite obvious during the Vatican II reform. That is precisely why there is a table, Communion in the hand, and drinking from the wine. If you read the book "The Mass of All Time", it breaks down the changes of the Novus Ordo and why the NO resembles a meal and not a Holy Sacrifice.
-
Spiritus,
In fact, according to some Prophecies the next Pope (the one after Benedict) will be the one that Consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
I'm glad you think so. However, my question was with regard to sedevacantism as a theological position. Does it allow for any limit to the term of an interregnum, by itself? If not, does that not render "perpetual successors" of Vatican I rather meaningless?
Many of the changes made to the Novus Ordo are sacreligious.
Really? Can you show me an example? One will do. I can show you several prayers that are completely orthodox.
Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty,from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
In humble prayer we ask you,almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son maybe filled with every grace and heavenly blessing. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
The New Mass resembles a meal, the Last Supper to be exact. This is quite
obvious during the Vatican II reform.
At the Last Supper, Christ offered His body and His blood for our salvation, and by commanding His disciples to perpetuate the memorial sacrifice of His passion, appointed His disciples priests. This is the Tridentine doctrine. This is that same "Supper of the Lamb" that St.John in the book of revelation calls us to. The Eucharist is at once both sacrament and sacrifice, St.Paul puts it like this, "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" and
"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?"
I think it is clear in the texts of the New Mass cited above that there is an Altar of sacrifice, and as St.Paul reminds us, when we eat of the Sacrifice, who is the Holy Lamb of God, slain for our sins, offered through the ministry of priests from the rising of the sun to the setting, according to the prophecy of Malachi, we participate in it, thus receiving sacramental grace. There can be no sacrament without the sacrifice. It is true this necessary truth of Catholic faith has been unwittingly blurred by some, but I deny that it is due to the texts themselves. God bless.
-
However, my question was with regard to sedevacantism as a theological position. Does it allow for any limit to the term of an interregnum, by itself? If not, does that not render "perpetual successors" of Vatican I rather meaningless?
I don't think the sedevacantist position allows for any limit of an interregnum.
Really? Can you show me an example?
Communion in the hand is a prime example.
I think it is clear in the texts of the New Mass cited above that there is an Altar of sacrifice, and as St.Paul reminds us, when we eat of the Sacrifice, who is the Holy Lamb of God, slain for our sins, offered through the ministry of priests from the rising of the sun to the setting, according to the prophecy of Malachi, we participate in it, thus receiving sacramental grace. There can be no sacrament without the sacrifice. It is true this necessary truth of Catholic faith has been unwittingly blurred by some, but I deny that it is due to the texts themselves. God bless.
There is a sacrifice in the Novus Ordo, but that is not what the New Mass is centered around. The Novus Ordo is meant to re-enact the Last Supper, similarly to the Protestant services.
-
I am still waiting to see some response to the excellent point above about the addition of the Filoque.
-
I am still waiting to see some response to the excellent point above about the addition of the Filoque.
The filioque clause came before the dogmatic decree, and it is a one word change, not exactly "changing the liturgy". Certainly not something to leave the ONLY true Church for. It is just an excuse to leave for power.
-
It is a mortal sin, it is no different then the first sin of Cain, giving a sacrifice in a way man wants instead of how God wants.
Those in ingorence have reduced culpability however, but they still commit sacrilidge the worst sin by touching the body of christ with an unconsecrated hand.
Can someone who TRULY seeks to do God's Will, one in a state of grace, one who thus receives God's enlightment, can such a person make such a monumental error as to fall to the Novus Ordo mass/ sermons/lifestyle?
I don't believe so, at least not for very long (they may just be passing through).
Those that go to the Novus Ordo do so because they are not truly living their Catholic lives, they are lying to themselves, they have some "benefits" that they do not wish to abandon. The Novus Ordo world does not rebuke them, it does not alert their conscience, it leaves them alone.
-
That is really presumptuous.
-
[/quote]Can someone who TRULY seeks to do God's Will, one in a state of grace, one who thus receives God's enlightment, can such a person make such a monumental error as to fall to the Novus Ordo mass/ sermons/lifestyle?
I don't believe so, at least not for very long (they may just be passing through).
Those that go to the Novus Ordo do so because they are not truly living their Catholic lives, they are lying to themselves, they have some "benefits" that they do not wish to abandon. The Novus Ordo world does not rebuke them, it does not alert their conscience, it leaves them alone.[/quote]
I think the main effect of the NO has been a complete falling away from the Catholic faith and even a complete rejection of anything that smacks of Christianity. At least it was for me in my teens after a few years of NO Masses.
I was so young and uninformed when the changes took place that I didn't realize what was going on -- although a lot of the elderly folks in my family did. Some of them tried to warn me at the time, but I had already lost the faith by then.
But I sure started remembering their objections when I was finally open to Christianity and had the difference between the NO and the TLM explained to me. Too bad the folks who did the explaining were part of a cult masquerading as traditional Catholics who had some anti-Catholic teachings of their own! Out of the fire, into the frying pan! :fryingpan:
I've tried to warn an older relative than the NO is destructive and that the Vatican has been infiltrated. I even sent her a copy of Malachi Martin's Windswept House. The dual satanic ritual scenes in Charleston and the Vatican in the beginning of the book seemed to get her attention. But she just kept going to the NO services, either out of habit or denial or both. Of course, she's lived a sɛҳuąƖly immoral life, so maybe the NO allowed her to avoid having to genuinely repent.
The weird thing was when I was in my 20s, I went on a trip with this NO relative to a state park near a Marian shrine. At the park, she debated whether we should take a side trip to the shrine and said, "No, if I do that, you'll be drawn to her (Mary), and we can't have that!" So deep down, no matter what they say, the NO gang doesn't really love Our Lady, and they don't want anyone else to either because they're under Satanic influence. Their individual minds are connected into one big Satanic hive mind. :devil2:
-
That is really presumptuous.
The day we come before God, we will learn that the only thing we did of our will was maybe lean a degree in the right direction, that everything good that we did was done by God's grace. We scaresly did anything more than lean.
Once we understand this, we will realize that anything bad that we notice, we see only by God's grace, and that we are doing good only because we are not following our own desires.
The no-Catholicism of the Novus Ordo religion (for lack of a better title) is obvious to anyone in God's grace. It should be so repugnant, as to be almost laughable, if it were not so sad.
By the way, the same can be said of all false religions, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.
-
So deep down, no matter what they say, the NO gang doesn't really love Our Lady, and they don't want anyone else to either because they're under Satanic influence. Their individual minds are connected into one big Satanic hive mind. :devil2:
Exactly, DivaEl. This is the "diabolical disorientation" that Sister Lucy of Fatima warned about. People today don't know, and don't want to know, right from wrong.
-
That is really presumptuous.
The day we come before God, we will learn that the only thing we did of our will was maybe lean a degree in the right direction, that everything good that we did was done by God's grace. We scaresly did anything more than lean.
Once we understand this, we will realize that anything bad that we notice, we see only by God's grace, and that we are doing good only because we are not following our own desires.
The no-Catholicism of the Novus Ordo religion (for lack of a better title) is obvious to anyone in God's grace. It should be so repugnant, as to be almost laughable, if it were not so sad.
By the way, the same can be said of all false religions, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Great post, nobody.
The pew-sitters in the Conciliar religion might not know what happened back in the 60's and 70's, or about the Phatican 2 Council, or the New "Mass", but even a cursory reading of the Bible or their catechism should tell them that something is wrong. Unfortunately for them, they don't even bother to do that. Not even the financial scandals or the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and pederastic scandals make them start to wonder.
If they do begin the question the integrity of the Conciliar sect they usually end up turning to something even less demanding than Novus Ordoism, like the "evangelical" sects. At least, that's what usually happens here in Latin America. In the States, some end up at mega-churches, others just wander off, never to return.
-
That is really presumptuous.
The day we come before God, we will learn that the only thing we did of our will was maybe lean a degree in the right direction, that everything good that we did was done by God's grace. We scaresly did anything more than lean.
Once we understand this, we will realize that anything bad that we notice, we see only by God's grace, and that we are doing good only because we are not following our own desires.
The no-Catholicism of the Novus Ordo religion (for lack of a better title) is obvious to anyone in God's grace. It should be so repugnant, as to be almost laughable, if it were not so sad.
By the way, the same can be said of all false religions, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Great post, nobody.
The pew-sitters in the Conciliar religion might not know what happened back in the 60's and 70's, or about the Phatican 2 Council, or the New "Mass", but even a cursory reading of the Bible or their catechism should tell them that something is wrong. Unfortunately for them, they don't even bother to do that. Not even the financial scandals or the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and pederastic scandals make them start to wonder.
If they do begin the question the integrity of the Conciliar sect they usually end up turning to something even less demanding than Novus Ordoism, like the "evangelical" sects. At least, that's what usually happens here in Latin America. In the States, some end up at mega-churches, others just wander off, never to return.
I came back to the church at 40 years of age. I knew NOTHING about the faith. To give you an example, at 40 I learned for the first time that the four gospels were the same historical event told by four different people. When I stopped going to mass at like 14 years of age, all I remember was going to mass (up to 1967) with my parents and standing up and sitting down. I saw and learned NOTHING, but I somehow did learn one thing, fear of God.
All of that said, and as soon as I saw a Novus Ordo mass at 40 years of age , I was alarmed, I knew it was not Catholic, but I was not sure if I was correct, because I knew nothing. Within 2 months I found the Latin Mass, the Indult mass, and one month later the SSPX. Within 2 years I had read and had a library, that looking back today, contained NOT EVEN ONE Novus Ordo conservative book, let alone anything worse. How on earth could an ignorant person like that, find all that proper direction and make no mistakes in such a short time? Only by God's grace, and only by seeking truth with no regard to the consequences.
Any ignorant person can do the same. There is no reason for anyone to be in the Novus Ordo religion for very long unless they are not following God's will.
-
I had a similar experience, nadie. I too was raised Novus Ordo in the 60's and 70's, knew nothing about my faith, dropped out, came back in my 30's, and very quickly realized the Novus Ordus was, as poster Spiritus Sanctus says, the Bogus Ordo. So I got online, started going to an indult Mass downtown, started ordering TAN and Angelus Press books, and educated myself.
Why? Because I cared. I knew that 2 + 2 cannot equal 4, and 5, and -9, and 17.84 to the 3rd power simultaneously. I knew instinctively that there could only be One Truth and I wanted to know what It was. So I studied the teachings of Holy Church and I found out that She had all the answers. Then came the task of changing my life to a Christian one, which I am still in the process of doing.
God save you and all others who have gone down this same path. It's not an easy way, but it's the only way.
-
Stubborn,
The New "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.
I read the analysis, and it was interesting. If the Church has not seemed to officially clarify the matter, I might be of a different mind on the subject. Do you have a reason as to why I might be mistaken in understanding Summorum Pontificuм?
I'm not familiar with what your understanding is on SP. My understanding is that SP is yet another attempt to destroy the TLM completely. Exactly how? We can only speculate.
I've seen enough in my life to remain completely un-trusting and skeptical of anything that comes out of post conciliar Rome - SP is simply another crock that starts out with a lie........... Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of supreme pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, 'to the praise and glory of His name,' and 'to the benefit of all His Holy Church.
When it starts out like that, there's really no need to read any further imo. Now had the first sentence proclaimed the truth, it would have started off "Up to the 2nd Vatican Council......" Or perhaps some earlier point in time.
Far as I'm concerned, SP is riddled right through with lies and errors, same as every other post conciliar docuмent which = an ulterior motive, better stated, yet *another* ulterior motive.
This enemy will not have a change of heart, this enemy will not surrender, this enemy must be overcome in battle, and any thought of winning this battle must first show Rome is willing to actually do battle.
-
http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm
E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
I should also point out when the SSPX says that it is Valid but illicit it says so ONLY for the mass as SAID IN THE RUBRICS of 1969. In which I might point out most of the Mass is said in Latin and all the abuses are not in it. AND IT IS STILL ILLICIT in that form.
-
:facepalm:I believe the "correct position" for a Catholic on the novus ordo is to be outside the door. If forced to be inside, then position yourself as the emoticon.