Author Topic: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO  (Read 1081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3395
  • Reputation: +1640/-950
  • Gender: Female
Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2019, 08:34:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I cannot find this in corinthians. I did a google search withing my Bible App but could not come up with this phrase. Kindly, could you point me to the book and paragraph?
    The first quote was from I Corinthians, not the second.  
    "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
    is 1 Timothy 2:12.

    Offline StLouisIX

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 9
    • Reputation: +2/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #31 on: November 18, 2019, 02:22:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ascanio1, 

    I know it’s difficult to inform those raised in the Novus Ordo that they have been robbed of the true Mass. I myself was raised in the Novus Ordo, and all of my family that was raised Catholic go to the Novus Ordo. 
    The papal bull Quo Primum should be of help to you. Here’s an important quote from it: 

    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]“We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.” (Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V) [/color]

    https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm (Sadly, I could not find an Italian version). 

    Quo Primum stated that the Tridentine Rite, which was established by Pope St. Pius V, cannot be (legally) changed or replaced by any pastor of the Church, including the Pope. Here’s a short video series on Quo Primum in which this document is examined in detail and explained: 

     (7:00 long) 

     (10:34 long)

     (9:00 long)

    There is some irritating music from the American Novus Ordo in the beginning of each video, but this only lasts a few seconds. 


    Offline Yeti

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +3/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #32 on: November 18, 2019, 02:43:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    In the new Mass, the whole Canon including the words of Consecration are said out loud instead of in a low tone. This is condemned by that Canon of Trent that I cited.
    The phrase "let him be anathema" when used by a pope or general council is a technical term that means someone who incurs that anathema is contradicting a truth that is infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed and therefore is a heretic.

    Offline Yeti

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +3/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #33 on: November 18, 2019, 02:47:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?

    Yes, the Council of Trent was a general council promulgated solemnly promulgated by the pope, and enjoys infallibility. The phrase "let him be anathema" means that someone is "anathema", i.e. a heretic, if he says what is condemned, or fulfills the condition for being anathema that is given in that canon. It always means a solemn declaration of dogma, or an infallible condemnation of heresy.

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 348
    • Reputation: +35/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #34 on: December 03, 2019, 11:39:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.catholictreasures.com/articles/25errors.html
    Thank you. These were instrumental for me. They recently served to open questions in the heart of a very sincere and humble diocesan priest. Would you know of a similar list specifically for the NO liturgy?
    Tommaso
    + IHSV


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5010
    • Reputation: +2899/-1327
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #35 on: December 03, 2019, 01:21:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ascanio1,
    Have you read the "Ottaviani Intervention" yet?  This was written by multiple Cardinals, many of whom were the top theologians in Rome.  Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc.  This report tears apart the novus ordo's protestant, anti-Trent and neo-Catholic theology.  No one can read this and come to any other conclusion except that the new mass is unorthodox, not Traditional, and anti-Catholic.

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 348
    • Reputation: +35/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #36 on: Yesterday at 02:01:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ascanio1,
    Have you read the "Ottaviani Intervention" yet?  This was written by multiple Cardinals, many of whom were the top theologians in Rome.  Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc.  This report tears apart the novus ordo's protestant, anti-Trent and neo-Catholic theology.  No one can read this and come to any other conclusion except that the new mass is unorthodox, not Traditional, and anti-Catholic.
    Apologies if it took me so long to read what you recommended. I have little free time and a lot of catechism to learn.

    Yes, I finally got around to reading the Ottaviani Report and the The great Sacrilege.

    The new liturgy has many problems and, I agree, after reading this literature, that the new liturgy is the work of the devil or, at least, the work of very confused bishops.

    I understood that the new liturgy uses subtle variations to dilute the unicity and kinship of Christ, the Apostolic succession and their teachings and, omits the concept of Sacrifice and uses nuances to allow for the faithful's individual interpretation of the Teachings of the Church. I do not possess sufficient command of English language to render concisely my understanding. This is the best that i can do.

    Please note my complete agreement that the NO is harmful for our Faith, before continuing to read.

    Now, unfortunately, I am ignorant of doctrine and dogma. This ignorance challenges my discovery of precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma by the N.O. liturgy.

    Even the introduction of female readers and altar girls, while indirectly rebuked in a Papal encyclica, is not forbidden in doctrine or in infallible doctrine. An other example would be offering the Body of Christ in the hand of the faithful... also this is not explicitly forbidden by any doctrine or dogma; indirect references can be found in doctors of the Church and Popes or other non binding documents, all very notable and authoritative, but none possessing the authority of infallibility or, at least, doctrine.

    We all appreciate how canon and precepts can change, within the boundaries of our Faith, because these are mere administrative and spiritaul supports to the mission of saving souls. One other example is the great canonical difference in how the Pope has been elected through the centuries: by the state, by the people, by the cardinals; originally in a semy lay framework, then in a mixed framwork, finally in a fully clergy framework; also the procedures and regulations varied very greatly. Yet not Pope has ever later been declared an anti-Pope because of variation in the canonical framework of his election.

    So, my challenge, does not lie in agreeing that the new liturgy hurts the Faith.

    More precisely, my challenge lies in constructing a valid and verifiable, yet concise and easily understandable, instrument to save the souls of those whom I love.

    It is futile to point the finger at those who like Vatican II and settle the problem by saying: "They will burn in hell, it's their problem". I love some who like Vatican II and I make it my personal, not religious, responsibility to try to save them, even if belive that they do not need to be saved.

    Also, my conviction is that it is always my responsibility to explain my ideas, not the listeners responsibility to understand them. Of course some listeners will be in good faith and truly do not understand my ideas while others will be in bad faith and will not want to understand my ideas. But their good or bad faith is irrelevant to me. It only means that I must be all the more convincing so that my ideas become so evident, simple and clear that even those in bad faith will have to concede.

    Unfortunately, the liturgy variation is not evident, not simple and not clear to understand.

    Also, I cannot ask someone, even if in good faith, to read a whole book only to be convinced of my arguments. I did it, I followed your advice and it was helpful and I am grateful as it was convicing. Others will not accept to invest time only because I recommend them to do so.

    This does not reduce in the least, in fact it only increases, my desire to save those whom I love.

    Can anyone who possesses greater knowledge of doctrine and infallible teachings help me discovery precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma, by the N.O. liturgy?

    Please do not refer to books or articles, but only to specific doctrines and dogmas.
    Tommaso
    + IHSV

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 348
    • Reputation: +35/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #37 on: Yesterday at 02:13:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ascanio1,

    I know it’s difficult to inform those raised in the Novus Ordo that they have been robbed of the true Mass. I myself was raised in the Novus Ordo, and all of my family that was raised Catholic go to the Novus Ordo.

    YouTube VIDEOS
    Thank you. These videos were excelletn. And informative. I appreciate the time that you invested to help me.

    The Bull too is quite clear and helpful to surface conflicts with Apostolic (is this the correct term for teachings not directly by Jesus but by his legitimate bishops, Popes and Church in general?) teachings.

    I wish someone would produce 5 minute videos, more streamlined (PragerU style) on these matters.

    PragerU has "converted" many friends of mine to conservative political ideas. We need a Catholic (PragerU is Jewish) versoin of this for traditional apology.



    Yes, the Council of Trent was a general council promulgated solemnly promulgated by the pope, and enjoys infallibility. The phrase "let him be anathema" means that someone is "anathema", i.e. a heretic, if he says what is condemned, or fulfills the condition for being anathema that is given in that canon. It always means a solemn declaration of dogma, or an infallible condemnation of heresy.
    This was contested. I was told that only when a Pope explicitly invokes Divine Inspiration, ex-cathedra, does his teaching become infallible.

    Can someone, please, help me understand?



    The first quote was from I Corinthians, not the second.  
    "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence."
    is 1 Timothy 2:12.
    Again, apology if it took me long to reply. I have been busy and I only now finished the book that Pax Vobis recommended. This citation corresponds also to a Pope's similar expression in an encyclica (I think). However, this will not help me to open the minds of those who like Vatican II and - maybe - will only reconsider if I explain that it violates dogma and infallible doctrine.
    Tommaso
    + IHSV


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5010
    • Reputation: +2899/-1327
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #38 on: Yesterday at 02:31:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Even the introduction of female readers and altar girls, while indirectly rebuked in a Papal encyclicals, is not forbidden in doctrine or in infallible doctrine.
    Not true.  Female priests are absolutely forbidden both doctrinally, Scripturally and by Tradition.  St Paul says that women are not to take part in Church functions.  Traditions of the Church have forbidden women from being readers and altar girls since the Church started.  Modernists like to point to the early church to support "female deacons" but not much is known of this phenomenon.  We don't know what they did, nor when they were condemned (as they obviously were condemned at some point, because they don't exist anymore).  The idea of women in the sanctuary is even forbidden, even to clean the sacristy, except for cases of necessity.
    .
    Quote
    An other example would be offering the Body of Christ in the hand of the faithful... also this is not explicitly forbidden by any doctrine or dogma; indirect references can be found in doctors of the Church and Popes or other non binding documents, all very notable and authoritative, but none possessing the authority of infallibility or, at least, doctrine.
    Not true.  The 1st century has orders of one of the early popes condemning the faithful from reception of the eucharist in the hands.  St Thomas Aquinas also condemned it.  The very reason that the Latin Church stopped giving Holy Communion with both bread and wine, was to stop the "accidents" of the host and wine being spilled on the ground.  One of the very top privileges of the priesthood is the consecration of some of his fingers, which the faithful have none of this.  St Isaac Jogues, a priest, had to receive special permission FROM THE POPE, to offer mass with his non-consecrated fingers, since the Indians chewed off his consecrated ones.  So, even a priest is not allowed to touch Our Lord with fingers that aren't consecrated.
    .
    Quote
    Unfortunately, the liturgy variation is not evident, not simple and not clear to understand.
    Agree.  But we are all called to learn our Faith on a continuing basis.  This doesn't stop after high school.  Those that do not want to read and continue to learn will be held accountable.  God bless you for your continued efforts.

    Quote
    Also, I cannot ask someone, even if in good faith, to read a whole book only to be convinced of my arguments. I did it, I followed your advice and it was helpful and I am grateful as it was convincing. Others will not accept to invest time only because I recommend them to do so.
    Those that will not study such a topic, which is of paramount importance to their souls, will be held accountable for spiritual sloth.  Let's pray for them to change their minds!

    Quote
    This does not reduce in the least, in fact it only increases, my desire to save those whom I love.  Can anyone who possesses greater knowledge of doctrine and infallible teachings help me discovery precise and direct violation of doctrines and dogma, by the N.O. liturgy?

    Please do not refer to books or articles, but only to specific doctrines and dogmas.
    The Ottaviani booklet is the most summarized study that I know of.  Why can't you further summarize it and type out the "Top 5" violations?  It's all there.

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3395
    • Reputation: +1640/-950
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #39 on: Yesterday at 03:12:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Not true.  Female priests are absolutely forbidden both doctrinally, Scripturally and by Tradition.  St Paul says that women are not to take part in Church functions.  Traditions of the Church have forbidden women from being readers and altar girls since the Church started.  Modernists like to point to the early church to support "female deacons" but not much is known of this phenomenon.  We don't know what they did, nor when they were condemned (as they obviously were condemned at some point, because they don't exist anymore).  The idea of women in the sanctuary is even forbidden, even to clean the sacristy, except for cases of necessity.
    The Greek word diakonos originally means a servant.  Some men were ordained to serve the Church in a certain way and so the same word also got the meaning of that ordained office.  There is no evidence that women were ever ordained, although some women were referred to as servants of the Church using the feminine form of the word diakonos.  One known function was assisting in the baptism of women in order to protect modesty.  

    There is no reason to think these females who were serving the Church did anything comparable to the liturgical functions of the office of deacon.  I would not expect to find a condemnation of them because they were not doing anything wrong.  They were like religious sisters.  The Montanist heresy was known for having women in leadership positions and we could probably find a condemnation of that practice among the condemnations of Montanism, although I can't think of one off the top of my head.

    It is a modernist trick to use an ambiguity of language to pretend that there were once women taking on a role corresponding to the ordained diaconate.  There is no real justification for women to be given the office of deacon.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5010
    • Reputation: +2899/-1327
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #40 on: Yesterday at 03:42:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    It is a modernist trick to use an ambiguity of language to pretend that there were once women taking on a role corresponding to the ordained diaconate.
    Exactly.  Thanks for the good history info.


    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 348
    • Reputation: +35/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #41 on: Yesterday at 04:46:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius05/p5quopri.htm (Sadly, I could not find an Italian version).

    does not contain the same quotes as related in this videio at:

    (7:00 long)

    The quotes in the first link do not match exactly the quotes as related in the video of the second link at 3:26, 3:39 and 5:42.

    Also the other videos are not perfectly accurate. Can you help me, kindly, obtain accurate and matching references?

    I appreciate these videos and links as they were very helpful. Thank you.
    Tommaso
    + IHSV

    Offline ascanio1

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 348
    • Reputation: +35/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #42 on: Today at 05:30:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm is the first of an interesting series of articles. It was recommended by a kind lady in Kansas (US) but, unfortunately, while it is very useful for my personal studies, it is not the tool that I was searching for to open the eys of those whom I love.


    The Greek word diakonos originally means a servant.  
    ... CUT ...
    It is a modernist trick to use an ambiguity of language to pretend that there were once women taking on a role corresponding to the ordained diaconate.  There is no real justification for women to be given the office of deacon.
    Thank you Jaynek, as usual you are very interesting and informative to read.


    Not true. Female priests are absolutely forbidden both doctrinally, Scripturally and by Tradition.
    .
    Not true. ...CUT... early popes condemning the faithful from reception of the eucharist in the hands.  St Thomas Aquinas also condemned it.
    You are correct.

    I explained myself inadequately. I used the words doctrine + dogma. I should have used only the word dogma.

    My challenge lies in the difficulty of making a simple, concise and eloquent case if I base my apology on theology and Faith as these require extensive knowledge and study to be understood, appreciates and discussed.

    I can articulate a case with greater simplicity and vigour, if I can point to dogmatic conflicts as these translate, unequivocally, in heresy. I made a mistake to include doctrine because doctrine too, like canon, can be changed by the Church. It is difficult to explain why a change in doctrine is an error. It is easy to explain that a dogma cannot be changed.

    For example, while this is true: "St Paul says that women are not to take part in Church functions.  Traditions of the Church have forbidden women from being readers and altar girls since the Church started.", it is not a dogma. Anything that is not infallible, at least in point of principle, is susceptible to amendment and, hence St Paul and St Aquinas are very authoritative voices, but are not infallible. Just as Pope Francis today.

    The best I could do, so far, is to download this: www.unavox.it › PDF › Opuscoli › Breve_Esame_Critico but I have very little hope that it will be read at all...

    I appreciate your continued help. It certainly reinforces my conviction, even if, unfortunately, I cannot use those arguments in my apologies.



    Agree. But we are all called to learn our Faith on a continuing basis.  This doesn't stop after high school.  Those that do not want to read and continue to learn will be held accountable.  God bless you for your continued efforts.

    Those that will not study such a topic, which is of paramount importance to their souls, will be held accountable for spiritual sloth.  Let's pray for them to change their minds!
    What angers me is the deceitful way in which reformers fight their battle which almost brings me to admire Luter...

    Luter, at least, fought us openly: he stood against the Pope and the Church and laid out, clearly, his critiques, his proposed reforms and his open intention to create a new church. Present Church governance have the same goal but diguise it with nuanced language and vague, written, doctrinal changes that open the door to concrete, drastic, doctrinal revolutions. Both Luter and conciliars share the same goal. Luter was, at least, intellectually honest.

    The end result is that Luter had to convince and convert new faithful to his new religion, while conciliars don't convince and convert but swindle and carry, unknowing Catholic faithful, into a new faith/religion.

    The devil is cunning and admirably smart...
    Tommaso
    + IHSV

    Offline StLouisIX

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 9
    • Reputation: +2/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #43 on: Today at 07:46:40 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tommaso,  

    Sorry about that. I believe the translation of QP that was used in those videos was this one: 

    http://archives.sspx.org/motu_proprio/quo_primum.htm

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5010
    • Reputation: +2899/-1327
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Doctrine/Dogma errors in NO
    « Reply #44 on: Today at 08:30:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    it is not a dogma. Anything that is not infallible, at least in point of principle, is susceptible to amendment

    Not true.  Not only is dogma infallible, but also Scripture and...the constant Traditions of the Church.  The issues of women being involved in Church and communion in the hand have to do with Church Traditions and the constant history through the ages.  It has nothing to do with doctrine.  Traditions can never be said to be "infallible" but they are protected from amendments just the same.
    .
    I appreciate your search for clear, concise statements which prove that the V2 church is wrong.  But these don't exist.  In order to see that V2 is wrong, one must know their Faith (which includes both a knowledge and a respect for the Church's Traditions), and also have a prayer life, whereby God can enlighten those so that they have a "Catholic sense" of what is good and pleasing to Him. 
    .
    The Modernists changed those things which they knew could get away with; things which, on the surface, did not seem wrong to change, but, like a 1,000 paper cuts, would slowly kill the Faith of everyone.  They are the devil's henchmen and the devil will do everything bad that God will allow Him to.  Those that recognize the errors of V2 have only done so through prayer, as only God can enlighten us as to the devil's confusion.  Those that do not see, are those that do not pray.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16