Author Topic: Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass? (Read 43324 times)

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #450 on:** April 26, 2016, 01:11:56 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Gerard from FE
Quote from: Prayerful
The content of the Novus Ordo Mass might possibly be seen as minimally valid, but most here would have heard the utterly hereticated ICEL quasi-translation. Heretical but also boring. It destroyed the Faith of so many. That has to count as evil on some level.

That is hardly the equivalent of a Black Mass and the translation is not the missal promulgated by Paul VI.

Most people have never been to a Novus Ordo Mass that has not been distorted in one way or another by an additional change and a liturgical abuse of one form or another.

And why would they want to?

The appropriate reason would be to worship God and to benefit from the sacraments. That's the same reason that Novus Ordo Catholics of good will go to Novus Ordos that do suffer from abuse.

JPaul · « **Reply #451 on:** April 26, 2016, 01:50:41 PM »

Quote from: Gerard from FE

Quote from: J.Paul
Gerard,
Quote
No. You see, by your thinking, if you're going to be consistent the pre-Vatican II Church was evil. It was infiltrated by the enemy.

There was poison in the cake. Right? So you have to toss out the whole thing.

This is misdirecting the point. The pre-conciliar Church was CATHOLIC! It was indeed infiltrated by the alien entity which became the conciliar entity after it got its council and popes in place.

No. What you mean is it was partly Catholic and part of what you would call "conciliar" was also running throughout the Church.

Quote
As with all revolutions a vanguard was necessary to spearhead its progress.
The Novus Ordo was and is that Vanguard and it has served its purpose well in softening resistance and changing the beliefs that would have naturally led to counter revolutionary resistance.

No. That doesn't square well with the facts. If the pre-conciliar Church was CATHOLIC! as you claim, then it must have been militant and powerful enough to crush any revolutionary ideas that were opposed to the Catholic faith. The gates of Hell would not have prevailed.

Quote
You are again conflating the pre-conciliar Catholic Church with the post council New Order church as being equally Catholic. You may indeed believe it, but it is not true.

They are equally Catholic in the sense that a person with a disease is still the same person when the disease it at stage 2 and when it is at stage 3.

Gerard, what on earth are you talking about? What part of the Church being infiltrated, attacked and ruined by its enemies do you not comprehend? Why are you compelled to recast this as a ѕυιcιdє by the pre-conciliar Church?

Catholics and the Church did not sign up to be overrun by the Protestants, and the communist Judaizers. It was forced upon them. They may not have been well prepared enough for such a devious enemy, but they do not deserve the great fault that your imagination casts upon them.

It was betrayal, was Christ at fault for Judas's betrayal?

Gerard you are presenting an inverted picture of reality in these matters, and that is a signature of the conciliar mind. Stubborn was correct in his assessment.

Franciscan Solitary · « **Reply #452 on:** April 26, 2016, 02:23:18 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Gerard from FE
Quote from: J.Paul
Gerard,
Quote
No. You see, by your thinking, if you're going to be consistent the pre-Vatican II Church was evil. It was infiltrated by the enemy.

There was poison in the cake. Right? So you have to toss out the whole thing.

This is misdirecting the point. The pre-conciliar Church was CATHOLIC! It was indeed infiltrated by the alien entity which became the conciliar entity after it got its council and popes in place.

No. What you mean is it was partly Catholic and part of what you would call "conciliar" was also running throughout the Church.

Quote
As with all revolutions a vanguard was necessary to spearhead its progress.
The Novus Ordo was and is that Vanguard and it has served its purpose well in softening resistance and changing the beliefs that would have naturally led to counter revolutionary resistance.

No. That doesn't square well with the facts. If the pre-conciliar Church was CATHOLIC! as you claim, then it must have been militant and powerful enough to crush any revolutionary ideas that were opposed to the Catholic faith. The gates of Hell would not have prevailed.

Quote
You are again conflating the pre-conciliar Catholic Church with the post council New Order church as being equally Catholic. You may indeed believe it, but it is not true.

They are equally Catholic in the sense that a person with a disease is still the same person when the disease it at stage 2 and when it is at stage 3.

Gerard, what on earth are you talking about? What part of the Church being infiltrated, attacked and ruined by its enemies do you not comprehend? Why are you compelled to recast this as a ѕυιcιdє by the pre-conciliar Church?

Catholics and the Church did not sign up to be overrun by the Protestants, and the communist Judaizers. It was forced upon them. They may not have been well prepared enough for such a devious enemy, but they do not deserve the great fault that your imagination casts upon them.

It was betrayal, was Christ at fault for Judas's betrayal?

Gerard you are presenting an inverted picture of reality in these matters, and that is a signature of the conciliar mind. Stubborn was correct in his assessment.

Catholic life before the V2 was pretty much a complete Garden of Eden in comparison with the present time. This writer can remember the halcyon sunset of historic Roman Catholicism in 1962 and 1963. What a joy it was to go to Church in those far away distant days!

JPaul · « **Reply #453 on:** April 26, 2016, 02:56:39 PM »

By comparison that is an accurate observation for those remaining few who remember and were witness to it.

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #454 on:** April 26, 2016, 05:10:49 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Gerard, what on earth are you talking about? What part of the Church being infiltrated, attacked and ruined by its enemies do you not comprehend?

The part where you deny the indefectibility of the Church by stating "ruined."

Quote

Why are you compelled to recast this as a ѕυιcιdє by the pre-conciliar Church?

I'm simply dispelling myths and giving a more complete picture. The more complete the picture, the more accurate the restoration, the sooner the restoration and the stronger the restoration.

Quote

Catholics and the Church did not sign up to be overrun by the Protestants, and the communist Judaizers. It was forced upon them. They may not have been well prepared enough for such a devious enemy, but they do not deserve the great fault that your imagination casts upon them.

Oh, the victim card again. That's really tiresome and not very convincing anymore.

Again, I ask, where was the big fight put up by the heroic Church Militant of the pre-conciliar era?

Did about 800 million Catholics leave the Church in 1969 and a different 800 million take their places with the advent of the Novus Ordo?

Quote

It was betrayal, was Christ at fault for Judas's betrayal?

Christ was Christ before, during and after the betrayal by Judas. The same God-man that was glorified on Mt. Tabor was the same man, bleeding, sweating and falling and dying on the way to Calvary.

Quote

Gerard you are presenting an inverted picture of reality in these matters, and that is a signature of the conciliar mind. Stubborn was correct in his assessment.

Nope. You're wrong. It seems anything that contradicts your caricature of the past and doesn't reinforce the myth, must automatically be labeled "conciliar."

It's a Neo-trad, knee jerk reaction.

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #455 on:** April 26, 2016, 05:13:18 PM »

Quote from: Franciscan Solitary

Catholic life before the V2 was pretty much a complete Garden of Eden in comparison with the present time. This writer can remember the halcyon sunset of historic Roman Catholicism in 1962 and 1963. What a joy it was to go to Church in those far away distant days!

Yet it would probably seem pretty lackluster and milquetoast and watered down compared to the Catholicism in Europe during the Middle Ages.

JPaul · « **Reply #456 on:** April 26, 2016, 08:18:26 PM »

Gerard,

These arguments and allegations are ridiculous. For example, you keep labeling pre-conciliar Catholic forum members as being "neo-Trads".

Both the term and the manifestation of what you call neo-trad did not occur until after the council when the non-Traditional conciliar church appeared as a contradiction to Tradition.

Before the council there were only Catholics and those who have never departed from the pre-conciliar Faith and practice remain as they were, Catholics.

The correct application of your term must by necessity apply to post council Novus Ordo catholics who have adopted some of the old practices and beliefs. Such as yourself and most of the indultists.

It is an impossibility for a faithful pre-council Catholic to be "neo-traditional".
It could apply to someone who defected to the New Religion and then retured to the old, but even then, it is a poor and imprecise term.

Whatever you are thinking about these things, it is not at all logical.

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #457 on:** April 26, 2016, 09:47:01 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Gerard,

These arguments and allegations are ridiculous. For example, you keep labeling pre-conciliar Catholic forum members as being "neo-Trads".

Both the term and the manifestation of what you call neo-trad did not occur until after the council when the non-Traditional conciliar church appeared as a contradiction to Tradition.

Before the council there were only Catholics and those who have never departed from the pre-conciliar Faith and practice remain as they were, Catholics.

The correct application of your term must by necessity apply to post council Novus Ordo catholics who have adopted some of the old practices and beliefs. Such as yourself and most of the indultists.

It is an impossibility for a faithful pre-council Catholic to be "neo-traditional".
It could apply to someone who defected to the New Religion and then retured to the old, but even then, it is a poor and imprecise term.

Whatever you are thinking about these things, it is not at all logical.

That's a specious argument. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, there were no "Roman Catholics" either. They were simply "Catholics" as well.

After the council, there developed a series of fracturings among "Catholics" and while the liberals and Progressives found themselves in one faction, they have varying subdivisions.

The Neo Catholics also find themselves in subdivisions as well some are orthodox and conservative and utilize much of the traditions of the Church. Others don't but they still hold conservative values and hold to orthodox doctrine. Some simply give appearances of orthodoxy but sway too liberal to be considered orthodox.

Within traditional Catholicism, there are also subdivisions, those that hold to tradition and try and live peaceably with the Novus Ordo (ie. FSSP, individual parishes etc.) Those that resist the Novus Ordo (SSPX for now, Resistance priests, independents )

Sedevacantists who hold to the Neo-Ultramontanist error and make irrational conclusions about the papacy due to premises that are in error.

And conclavists that elect their "garage Pope" as Bp. Williamson calls them who are out in left field.

The Neo-Traditionalist is someone who adheres to the appearances of traditional Catholic practice prior to the Council, but they are imbibing in a variation of the delusions of the Neo-Catholics. Where the Neo-Catholic praises Vatican II, JPII and every novelty and abuse as a gift of the Holy "Spirit". The Neo-Trad envisions and revises a pollyanna version of the pre-conciliar Church as the very peak of Catholicism and like the Neo-Catholic refuses to acknowledge the inherent problems of their position vis a vis reality.

In essence, a Neo-Trad is what a Neo-Catholic is just without the Council. Everything is perfect with their "version" of Catholicism which is the real deal to them.

JPaul · « **Reply #458 on:** April 26, 2016, 10:03:31 PM »

:tv-disturbed:

Stubborn · « **Reply #459 on:** April 27, 2016, 11:41:48 AM »

Gerard, this blast from the past is worth listening to.

They're all worth listening to, but there is some repetitiveness in #2 through #6 so listen to just the first two when time permits. Can also be downloaded to your desk top or phone.

HiddenServant · « **Reply #460 on:** April 27, 2016, 02:33:44 PM »

Pray much in these times that we support each other and
do not ever quit on the true faith.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #461 on:** April 27, 2016, 02:43:29 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Gerard, this blast from the past is worth listening to.

They're all worth listening to, but there is some repetitiveness in #2 through #6 so listen to just the first two when time permits. Can also be downloaded to your desk top or phone.

I think he, Gerald, put you on Ignore as he did to me. :smile:

That way he doesn't have to answer our questions.

JPaul · « **Reply #462 on:** April 27, 2016, 04:42:32 PM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: Stubborn
Gerard, this blast from the past is worth listening to.

They're all worth listening to, but there is some repetitiveness in #2 through #6 so listen to just the first two when time permits. Can also be downloaded to your desk top or phone.

I think he, Gerald, put you on Ignore as he did to me. :smile:

That way he doesn't have to answer our questions.

Has he ever?........................................ :scratchchin:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #463 on:** April 27, 2016, 05:56:18 PM »

A prime example of speaking much and saying little.................................

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #464 on:** April 27, 2016, 06:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Gerard, this blast from the past is worth listening to.

They're all worth listening to, but there is some repetitiveness in #2 through #6 so listen to just the first two when time permits. Can also be downloaded to your desk top or phone.

Thank you for these links, Stub. Good stuff.