Quote from: Centroamerica

The Novus Ordo is a bastard rite and a trojan horse to destroy the faith.  It was invented by six protestants and a later exiled freemason cardinal Bugnini.  Those who know of the danger to the Faith and participate in the bastard rite commit objective mortal sin.  Those who have doubt are obliged under the pain of sin to alleviate this doubt.

The Novus Ordo was not legitimately promulgated and is not a legitimate way of fulfilling your Sunday obligation.  All Catholics have a strict duty to avoid a protestantized, dangerous rite of  worship.

Speak with a SSPX or independent priest or resistance priest about this matter.

And let us know what you decide, please.


AVOID THE NOVUS ORDO LIKETHE PLAGUE!

Can the church legislate that which is evil?

Well, the personal secretary of cardinal Stickler who holds a Doctor in Theology from Rome, where he was ordained says that it didn't...that the New Mass is not a work of the Church.  Don't argue with me.  Argue with those who have the credentials you don't because my argument is theirs...

Is the 1969 Promulgation of the Roman Missal by Paul VI an act of the Church?

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

Read the docuмent carefully, Gregory.  You will find that no priest, at any level, has ever been given permission, let alone commanded, to use the new missal.   You'll find where he says that he wishes the book "be accepted by the faithful", and that he wishes to give "the force of law (a debatable point, since that phrase doesn't appear in the version entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis)" to the current docuмent.  But you will not find anywhere, where any priest is given permission to say it.

That being the case, St. Pius V's prohibition on the use of any other missal stands.  Consequently, each time the new Missal is used it is a violation of standing Church law and constitutes, objectively, a serious sin of disobedience.

Y

Interesting private interpretation and opinion, but the de facto reality is that the overwhelming majority of bishops adopted it and used it. In her totality, the bishops United to the Pope, if they propose something to us for our use explaining it to be good and not evil (even if it is objectively abused later and implemented in a destructive way) can you say the Church has proposed that we do this evil and sacrilegious thing? How is this picking and choosing for ourselves not the same as the Jansenists and their Synod of Pistoia?

You don't have the slightest concept of the nature of Law, do you?  Even if no one obeys it, it's still the standing law of the Church.  "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven" applies here.

The de facto reality is that the overwhelming majority of bishops, united to the Pope, are committing grave acts of disobedience, mortally sinful in the (at least) objective order, each day.

And that's just the point:  There is no law giving permission, let alone cooercing, anyone to use the missal.  The Church has not proposed that we "do this evil and sacrilegious thing".  Quite the contrary.

I'm not sure how you can run around screaming "obedience" at the top of your lungs when the very act of saying the New Mass is a sin of disobedience.

I will provide my opinion, though I know my opinion is not worth much because I am a pretty ignorant layman. Well, I would always avoid the Novus Ordo whenever possible. I would also avoid the indult "extraordinary form" Masses because of doubts about their orders. If possible I would attend an SSPX Mass, a resistance Mass, an independent traditional Catholic Mass, a SSPV or CMRI Mass, and if there are none of these, I would attend an Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy (except for Marionite). If you are looking for a Mass to attend, the website http://traditio.com/ has a directory of almost every traditional Catholic Mass there is. You can download it for free, though they ask for a donation. That should help you find out if there are any traditional Masses near your home.

Y

Interesting private interpretation and opinion, but the de facto reality is that the overwhelming majority of bishops adopted it and used it. In her totality, the bishops United to the Pope, if they propose something to us for our use explaining it to be good and not evil (even if it is objectively abused later and implemented in a destructive way) can you say the Church has proposed that we do this evil and sacrilegious thing? How is this picking and choosing for ourselves not the same as the Jansenists and their Synod of Pistoia?

Funny that you mention Pistoia. It was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei. That docuмent contained the following very salient point:

[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their voices with that of the whole Church -- if this be understood to signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into the liturgical prayers -- is condemned as false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries, easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)

But of course, ultramontanist neocaths probably consider this - like all of Catholic Tradition prior to 1962 - to be merely "disciplinary," or "small t tradition," which was fine and all well and good for its time, and which we may "prefer" from a purely aesthetic perspective, but which can be brushed aside by whatever capricious whim takes hold of the currently reigning pope and bishops; so that when we see the vast majority of the world's clerics offering a bastardized fabricated liturgy in direct defiance of St. Pius V's Quo Primum, or espousing Modernist slush of precisely the kind condemned by St. Pius X, or engaging in the ubiquitous "interfaith" orgies of ecuмenical indifferentism explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XI, we're supposed to just shrug our shoulders and accept it because those engaging in these outrages are alive while those who issued the condemnations are dead.

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Matto

...(except for Marionite).

I'm not familiar with Marionite, other than it's my understanding that they're in the Middle East.  What's the problem with them?

I never went to one of their Masses so I cannot speak from personal experience, but I was told by other traditional Catholics that they were influenced the most by Vatican II and their Divine Liturgy was modernized a lot to bring it closer to the Novus Ordo, more than the other Eastern Rites.

I've been to Maronite Masses and I can confirm this. Versus Populum, Altar Girls, and Lectresses have been adopted by the Maronites.

I second BTNYC. We were at a Maronite Mass not long ago while traveling- it was the only option we could find outside the NO, and we'd never been. We will never go gain. There was everything BTNYC said, plus the sign of peace and protestant music. It was pretty much like the NO Mass. They also didn't kneel- they said according to their custom it was more fitting to stand before God. I thought that was.... strange.

Quote from: Gregory I

Y

Interesting private interpretation and opinion, but the de facto reality is that the overwhelming majority of bishops adopted it and used it. In her totality, the bishops United to the Pope, if they propose something to us for our use explaining it to be good and not evil (even if it is objectively abused later and implemented in a destructive way) can you say the Church has proposed that we do this evil and sacrilegious thing? How is this picking and choosing for ourselves not the same as the Jansenists and their Synod of Pistoia?

Funny that you mention Pistoia. It was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his bull Auctorem Fidei. That docuмent contained the following very salient point:

Quote from: Pope Pius VI

[To contend that] ways must be prepared for people to unite their voices with that of the whole Church -- if this be understood to signify the introduction of the use of the vernacular language into the liturgical prayers -- is condemned as false, rash, disturbing to the order prescribed for the celebration of the sacred mysteries, easily productive of many evils." (Auctorem Fidei)

But of course, ultramontanist neocaths probably consider this - like all of Catholic Tradition prior to 1962 - to be merely "disciplinary," or "small t tradition," which was fine and all well and good for its time, and which we may "prefer" from a purely aesthetic perspective, but which can be brushed aside by whatever capricious whim takes hold of the currently reigning pope and bishops; so that when we see the vast majority of the world's clerics offering a bastardized fabricated liturgy in direct defiance of St. Pius V's Quo Primum, or espousing Modernist slush of precisely the kind condemned by St. Pius X, or engaging in the ubiquitous "interfaith" orgies of ecuмenical indifferentism explicitly condemned by Pope Pius XI, we're supposed to just shrug our shoulders and accept it because those engaging in these outrages are alive while those who issued the condemnations are dead.

It all comes around to the question again: can the church promulgate evil? The 1969 Missal was promulgated, fact. The docuмents are noted and actually exist. Fact.

So: did the church legislate evil or did evil twist what was legislated? I say the latter.