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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10

Author Topic: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO  (Read 4134 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2019, 01:52:55 PM »

Quote
Can someone, please, list the most important errors of doctrine (and dogma, if present) in the NO liturgy besides language?
Read the Ottaviani intervention below:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
Logged

Offline Jaynek

Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2019, 02:03:39 PM »
Quote from: ascanio1 on November 16, 2019, 12:42:05 PM
These are the kind of errors that I am searching for but I will also need to locate the phrase or what paragraph within the V2 that is (was being) interpreted to justify the introduction of the error.

Often there is no direct link betwwen problems with the new Mass and the docuмents of Vatican II.  Liberal theologians frequently invoked "the spirit of Vatican II" as a way to justify all sorts of changes in the post-conciliar period.  It is not unusual for them to follow "the spirit of Vatican II" even in cases in which it contradicted what was actually said in the docuмents.  For example, the docuмent on liturgy ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ) decreed the use of Latin and Gregorian chant but the opposite was what actually happened.  

Here is the passage about Latin which demonstrates the "bait and switch" involved:  
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Can you see how it worked?  While it seemed to promote Latin, it actually puts the structure in place to completely remove Latin.  Another trick was using an undefined expression, such as "active participation in the liturgy" which could then be used to introduce changes.  Michael Davies wrote a book called Liturgical Time Bombs about all these ambiguities which made the docuмent seem to say one thing but were used to justify changes later.  I think the title captures a powerful image of words that were put in place to explode and destroy the liturgy later.

A classic work on doctrinal problems in the Novus Ordo is the Ottavianin Intervention:  https://sspx.ca/en/ottaviani-intervention  This is fairly short and can be read online, so it makes a good starting point.  (I see that Pax Vobis just recommended it too, as I was writing this.)
Logged

Offline ascanio1

Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2019, 03:58:06 PM »
Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2019, 01:18:38 PM
In the Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 9 we have the following (Denzinger 956):

If anyone says 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 vernacular only, or that water should not be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.
Thank you.

This type of evidence is precisely what I am looking for but I cannot see whre this particular quote conflicts with the NO liturgy or the NO Missal.
Logged

Offline ascanio1

Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2019, 04:15:48 PM »
Yeti, again, thank you as this is the sort of evidence that I am looking for.


Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
Can. 1. If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema

The definition of the Mass in the new missal basically said the new mass was a meal and didn't say it was a sacrifice.
It is true that one cannot find reference to the Sacrifice in modern missals but one cannot imply that it is denied based exclusively on the fact that it is not cited. Omission does not eqal denial.

Also, I cannot find words in the new Missal that basically say that the Mass is a meal and deny transubstantiation.



Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
Can. 6. If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema.
This is key. This reference is explicit and unequivocable. It is evidence that the council of Trent and Vatican II are in conflict.

Was the council of Trent promulgated ex-cathedra? As infallible Truth?


Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
Can. 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema. (Actually the Recognize & Resist people who condemn the New Mass while saying it is the Mass of the Catholic Church violate this canon too.)
This Can 7. is not in explicit or evident conflict with the NO liturgy and NO missal.



Quote from: Yeti on November 16, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
Can. 8. If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema.
This Can 8. is another explicit conflict with what was held by the government of the Church before Benedict XVI.

Thank you. If you can find more quotes and references like these, I would appreciate them.

Unfortunately many NO missal and liturgy changes are omissions from the tridentine Mass but, these omissions are not incontrovertible evidence of denial. For example, content referring to exclusivity has been removed but one cannot build a case against the NO litirgy/missal based only on the fact that references to the exclisivity of Christ were removed.
Logged

Offline ascanio1

Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2019, 01:09:05 AM »
Quote from: Jaynek on November 16, 2019, 02:03:39 PM
Often there is no direct link betwwen problems with the new Mass and the docuмents of Vatican II.  Liberal theologians frequently invoked "the spirit of Vatican II" as a way to justify all sorts of changes in the post-conciliar period.  It is not unusual for them to follow "the spirit of Vatican II" even in cases in which it contradicted what was actually said in the docuмents.
Yes, this is true and constitutes my challenge because if I cannot quote canon, doctrine or precepts that conflict with the new Mass and misslas, then one could argue that the new Mass and missals are perfectly valid and can be graciously prayed on Sunday and all this "fuss" about the Tridentine Mass is unnecessary.


Quote from: Jaynek on November 16, 2019, 02:03:39 PM
For example, the docuмent on liturgy ( http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html ) decreed the use of Latin and Gregorian chant but the opposite was what actually happened.  

Here is the passage about Latin which demonstrates the "bait and switch" involved:  
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Can you see how it worked?  While it seemed to promote Latin, it actually puts the structure in place to completely remove Latin.  Another trick was using an undefined expression, such as "active participation in the liturgy" which could then be used to introduce changes.  Michael Davies wrote a book called Liturgical Time Bombs about all these ambiguities which made the docuмent seem to say one thing but were used to justify changes later.  I think the title captures a powerful image of words that were put in place to explode and destroy the liturgy later.
Yes, I recognize this bait and switch but this is not evidence of conflict between the new Mass and missal with Catholic doctrine and dogma. This does not prove an error.

So far I found only a few errors (thanks to the help of forum members here).

I appreciate that bait and switch and vague language is the tool of the devil but I want to save souls of individuals dear to me. I know that they have good intentions and I know how pius they are but, they also are, as I was, ignorant of Catholic canons, precepts and doctrine and do not see the error in V2. We have agreed to discuss Mass. If I can prove that it violates Catholic laws, I will have access to their attention on all the rest.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
« previous next »