Author Topic: Whats Wrong with the New Mass? (Read 2109 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** April 14, 2015, 01:45:27 PM »

http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/

What's Wrong with the New Mass?

from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn.

Among other things, the liturgical changes of Vatican II reflect the doctrinal errors of the Council concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecuмenism; (3) religious liberty and (4) collegiality. (See What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs)

The new liturgy is an ecuмenical liturgy, and seeks to erase any doctrines which are distinctly Catholic, and to turn the Catholic liturgy into a form of worship which would not be offensive to any Protestant. It is man-centered worship, stripped of all symbolism of the supernatural.

The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is an evil liturgical discipline, because:

it contains a heretical definition of the Mass;
it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecuмenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist;
it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated;
its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics;
it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Furthermore, it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration of the words of Christ in the consecration formula.

Tridentine MT · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2015, 01:48:46 AM »

I wouldn't call it an "evil liturgical discipline", although I understand why Rev. Sanborn argues this way.

Bill Murray, Hollywood actor and a traditional Roman Catholic, put it differently.

Miseremini · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2015, 09:45:53 AM »

You ask "What's wrong with the new mass?'

The first thing wrong is, it's not a Mass !

:geezer:

BTNYC · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2015, 10:37:18 AM »

Quote from: Tridentine MT

I wouldn't call it an "evil liturgical discipline", although I understand why Rev. Sanborn argues this way.

Bill Murray, Hollywood actor and a traditional Roman Catholic, put it differently.

I don't get it... "Traditional Roman Catholic?" Is that some kind of joke?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:11:09 PM »

LoT, I asked this on another thread. What do you consider the chief heresy of Vatican II to be?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2015, 12:42:14 PM »

Sorry to derail, just a brief aside.

I don't know how Murray got a rep as a trad. Perhaps from his comment below? Apparently Jimmy Fallon made a similar statement. Quite a stretch from "gee I wish the Mass was still in Latin and the music sacred again" to traditional Catholic, esp these compromised Hollywood men who work for, and act as, enemies of Christ, imho.

I'm curious about the source of his quote "religion is the worst enemy of mankind...". So far, can't find. It's touted and repeated everywhere. Urban legend?

Regardless, unless he's recently repented and returned to his birthright, his life negates his Faith.

Quote

Murray was born in the mid-20th century, the middle child of nine, living in a three-bedroom house in Chicago. Before Second City, before Saturday Night Live, his improv skills were honed round the dining table. Younger brother Joel has said that the aim was to make their father – a slow eater – laugh with his mouth full. (Murray himself has six sons, by a couple of ex-wives, and his conversation sometimes gets snagged on custody.)

His parents were Irish Catholics; one of his sisters is a nun. This conspicuous religion adds to his broad church appeal (there’s a citation from the Christian Science Monitor on his golfing memoirs). You don’t need to ask if his faith is important to him. He talks about how 19th-century candidates risk not getting canonised because the church is keen to push ahead with the likes of John Paul II and Mother Teresa. “I think they’re just trying to get current and hot,” he smiles.

One new saint he does approve of is Pope John XXIII (who died in 1963). “I’ll buy that one, he’s my guy; an extraordinary joyous Florentine who changed the order. I’m not sure all those changes were right. I tend to disagree with what they call the new mass. I think we lost something by losing the Latin. Now if you go to a Catholic mass even just in Harlem it can be in Spanish, it can be in Ethiopian, it can be in any number of languages. The shape of it, the pictures, are the same but the words aren’t the same.”

Back to the discussion. I'm hoping that forum members will answer Ladislaus' question.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2015, 03:11:54 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

http://www.traditionalmass.org/issues/

What's Wrong with the New Mass?

from "Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass" by Rev. Donald J. Sanborn.

Among other things, the liturgical changes of Vatican II reflect the doctrinal errors of the Council concerning: (1) the unity of the Church; (2) ecuмenism; (3) religious liberty and (4) collegiality. (See What's wrong with Vatican II? FAQs)

The new liturgy is an ecuмenical liturgy, and seeks to erase any doctrines which are distinctly Catholic, and to turn the Catholic liturgy into a form of worship which would not be offensive to any Protestant. It is man-centered worship, stripped of all symbolism of the supernatural.

The Ordo Missae of Paul VI is an evil liturgical discipline, because:

it contains a heretical definition of the Mass;
it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecuмenical liturgy, pleasing to Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist;
it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated;
its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be offensive to heretics;
it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

I don't disagree at all with these points except that the definition of the Mass might not be positively heretical but perhaps negatively deficient (but I haven't read that part in a long time).

Quote

Furthermore, it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration of the words of Christ in the consecration formula.

This I disagree with. 1) the English has been changed back to "for many", so that point is dated and 2) I disagree with the defect of intention. There's been a long misunderstanding about what intention is required to validly confect the Sacraments. Only the intention to DO what the Church does and not necessarily BELIEVE what the Church believes is required. That's why an atheist can validly baptized. Even if the priest doesn't believe in transubstantiation, the Mass would still be valid so long as the priest followed the rite prescribed by the Church because he would thereby be intending to DO what the Church DOES. That's true even if he actively intends not to consecrate because he's still intending to DO the Rite regardless of what's going on elsewhere in his head.

veribus · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2015, 03:42:42 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

You ask "What's wrong with the new mass?'

The first thing wrong is, it's not a Mass !

Then how can it be part of the Catholic Church?

Miseremini · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2015, 05:22:23 PM »

Quote from: veribus

Quote from: Miseremini
You ask "What's wrong with the new mass?'

The first thing wrong is, it's not a Mass !

Then how can it be part of the Catholic Church?

I guess the same way a pedophile priest , a divorcee, a transgendered person etc are considered part of the church since Vatican II.

veribus · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2015, 06:22:21 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

Quote from: veribus
Quote from: Miseremini
You ask "What's wrong with the new mass?'

The first thing wrong is, it's not a Mass !

Then how can it be part of the Catholic Church?

I guess the same way a pedophile priest , a divorcee, a transgendered person etc are considered part of the church since Vatican II.

If enough people say it is (and the media helps), some people will accept it. But no, this is not the Church of 19 centuries. The new sacraments, new everything is completely anathema.

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 14, 2015, 01:48:56 PM »

I use to be a long time reader of 'The Wanderer', a so called conservative Catholic weekly publication based in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The question in the "Question and answers" was brought up the new mass and that six
protestant ministers help in its construction.
An answer was given and it was not denied, that we can learn from each other's liturgy.
And that the protestant ministers contribution was positive.
Also, a poll was taken in which asked if there was a crisis in the Church, and the results
of the poll that there was no crisis.
Here is a publication that brought out the heterodox actions of certain Catholic Bishops
week after week.
When my subscription expired, it was never renewed.