Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on March 28, 2016, 01:48:56 PM
-
The heart of the matter in all the controversy over +Williamson's statements to the emotional woman in Mahopac, NY last summer is:
Is the Novus Ordo Mass intrinsically evil like a Black Mass?
Intrinsically evil means "evil in its very essence", an evil you can't possibly escape from due to circuмstances. For example, Abortion, Sodomy, or interfering with nature to prevent conception from occuring. Or any sin, for that matter. You can never sin that some good might come from it, because sin is an infinite offense against God, and intrinsically evil.
A rotten apple isn't intrinsically evil. It's a great food for certain farm animals, or at least the compost pile. Likewise a rusty nail can be sold to the recycling place and melted down to make something useful. A flat tire can be used to make a garden bed or planter. An empty 2-liter bottle can be used to store water. And so forth.
It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, what your circuмstances -- a priest could never permit a person to get out the forceps or saline solution and have an abortion, or commit sodomy, or attend a Black Mass. No matter what your state of mind, subjective opinion, your family's beliefs, your economic situation, etc.
(A woman with life-threatening cancer might undergo chemotherapy which could kill the baby, but this is "double effect" and she isn't willing the death of the baby. She's not "having an abortion", she's undergoing medical treatment, which MIGHT HAPPEN TO kill the baby as an unintended consequence. There's a difference.)
But if the Novus Ordo is truly as evil as a Black Mass, for everyone in all cases, then why don't we all:
A) deny that ANY converts from the Novus Ordo were Catholic
B) require converted satanists/Novus Ordo Catholics to undergo a full catechumen process, formal abjuration of their heresies/satanism, and baptism
C) Require converts from the Novus Ordo to confess how many times they attended the Novus Ordo as part of their "first confession"
D) become sedevacantists (and, like most sedevacantists, become ecclesiavacantists as well), because we're talking about the "Catholic Church" pushing a positively evil BLACK MASS EQUIVALENT on the entire world! The Catholic Church could never do that.
E) get SERIOUSLY vocal (shouting at a minimum, throwing things optional but preferred) with our friends and family members who still attend the Novus Ordo. Forget ignorance, good will, familial relationships, civility, etc.! Would you let a friend go to a Black Mass every Sunday without saying something, and taking serious action? I didn't think so. We should be boycotting them, totally cutting them off, and making a huge deal out of their weekly blasphemous attendance at a Black Mass.
-
The entire PURPOSE for the Novus Ordo's creation and implementation is to banish from the face of the earth the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to transform the faith of Catholics into something altogether alien to what Christ delivered.
And you ask the question of it's intrinsically evil?
-
A rotten apple isn't intrinsically evil. It's a great food for certain farm animals, or at least the compost pile. Likewise a rusty nail can be sold to the recycling place and melted down to make something useful. A flat tire can be used to make a garden bed or planter. An empty 2-liter bottle can be used to store water. And so forth.
A rotten apple, rusty nail, etc., are what they are because God created and intended them to be that way. They are in themselves good.
The Novus Ordo is a creation of man, and is not simply a transmutation of something good from one form into another. It is an entirely new creation. It pretends to be what it is not, an altogether pleasing, holy, and acceptable sacrifice of propitiation.
By their fruits you shall know them.
-
The entire PURPOSE for the Novus Ordo's creation and implementation is to banish from the face of the earth the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and to transform the faith of Catholics into something altogether alien to what Christ delivered.
And you ask the question of it's intrinsically evil?
Yes, yes, I do ask the question.
See my points A-E that would logically follow from the Novus Ordo Mass being "intrinsically evil" like Abortion.
-
A) deny that ANY converts from the Novus Ordo were Catholic
If you can demonstrate that their intention is to fall away from the faith and to abandon it, rather than taking part in an evil act because of confusion or genuine ignorance, then perhaps we can say they were not Catholic.
B) require converted satanists/Novus Ordo Catholics to undergo a full catechumen process, formal abjuration of their heresies/satanism, and baptism
Your extreme lumping of satanists and Novus Ordo Catholics is not a fair approach, and appears to be designed to elicit an emotional, knee jerk response. The satanist KNOWS and INTENDS to do what he does. The Novus Ordo Catholic, one presumes, does not have the same level of maliciousness.
They should, however, undergo full catechetical instruction, confession, and form the intention to amend their lives by not returning to the Novus Ordo.
I fail to see how attendance at the Novus Ordo demands that one be re-baptized, unless you are saying that if one holds the Novus Ordo to be intrinsically evil, it somehow effects the validity of the sacrament of baptism.
C) become sedevacantists (and, like most sedevacantists, become ecclesiavacantists as well), because we're talking about the "Catholic Church" pushing a positively evil BLACK MASS EQUIVALENT on the entire world! The Catholic Church could never do that.
Another extreme "either/or" example. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the "Catholic Church" pushed the Novus Ordo Mass on us, rather than that evil men in the hierarchy abused their authority.
An interesting tidbit is that nowhere does Paul VI command or give any priest permission to use the new Missal in the celebration of Mass. They behave as if he did, but if you read Paul VI's Missale Romanum, it simply doesn't exist in there.
D) get SERIOUSLY vocal (shouting at a minimum, throwing things optional but preferred) with our friends and family members who still attend the Novus Ordo. Forget ignorance, good will, etc.! Would you let a friend go to a Black Mass every Sunday without saying something, and taking serious action? I didn't think so. We should be boycotting them, totally cutting them off, and making a huge deal out of their weekly blasphemous attendance at a Black Mass.
You need to review the moral theology manual regarding the conditions/qualities for/of fraternal correction. And also, the extreme "either/or" approach to your question should be pointed out to the board.
-
Looks like you edited your post after I started my reply.
C) Require converts from the Novus Ordo to confess how many times they attended the Novus Ordo as part of their "first confession"
Good idea. I did it when I stopped going to the New Mass. It's not too hard.
-
C) Require converts from the Novus Ordo to confess how many times they attended the Novus Ordo as part of their "first confession"
I certainly confessed going to the Novus Ordo as a sin when I made my general confession after I started going to my SSPX chapel.
-
Matthew,
If Fr. Zendajas or some other otherwise acceptable resistance priest decided to show up at St. Dominic's next Sunday and say a "reverent" Novus Ordo, would you attend to fulfill your Sunday obligation? Why or why not?
-
The intrinsic evilness of the new mass is irrelevant to whether or not one can attend it. Even if it's not intrinsically evil (it's certainly arguable that it is), one cannot attend because:
1) it's illicit and therefore sinful
2) it's circuмstances (i.e. liturgy) are sacrilegous, therefore sinful.
To judge the morality of something, we must go back to the 3 elements of an act. If an act fails any of the 3, it's sinful.
1. The act itself
2. The circuмstances
3. The intention of the individual
Even if the act of the novus ordo (#1) is instrinicly NEUTRAL, it is sinful due to the circuмstances (#2), regardless of one's (good) intentions (#3).
-
If a Catholic is genuinely and innocently ignorant and a Conciliar priest sticks to the rubrics (two big ifs) the Novus Ordo Mass provides something of a basic and minimal validity. Bp Williamson said in really limited circuмstance the NOM is okay. However, any decently informed Catholic should stay far away. The risk of habituating a person to various Ecuмanias and other sins is too great. It goes too far to call it intrinsically evil, but it is intrinsically harmful or liable to weaken strong faith in a Catholic. What has happened over the near fifty years of its lamentable existence? It can be called the Great Apostasy. It is a great blunder which shows that many have fallen away from the Catholic Faith. The evil would only be supportable as a trait if Fr Bugini designed the NOM to weaken the Faith. I cannot see evidence of that. Evidence he was a Freemason is suggestive, but doesn't clinch it.
-
It might be a good idea for all of us to review what the SSPX used to say (http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm) regarding the New Mass, and stop making excuses for it.
IF the New Mass can be said in a way that is not intrinsically evil, that is not offensive to God and offensive to pious ears, then priests of tradition should be saying the Novus Ordo that way. For then there would be no real reason to refuse obedience to the legitimate authorities of the Church, neither is there cause for setting up private chapels outside the diocesan structure.
Unless, of course, you hold the sedevacantist or ecclesiavacantist (hey, a fancy new label!) view.
-
No, you can never choose a "doubtful" Liturgy in place of a certain one -- neither in the abstract nor in the concrete.
And St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass, at any rate, would always be acceptable for priests to say and Catholics to attend.
That is what I call sticking with what we know in a time of crisis. That's the very definition of being a Traditional Catholic.
-
The Novus Ordo is certainly defective ("evil" in that respect) and was created
by men (not God),
from scratch (an unacceptable rupture with the sacred Tradition of the Apostles, and the organic growth that occurred over 19 centuries)
by protestants
and appears to have many Freemasonic elements, for those who know about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
So no, the Novus Ordo is not acceptable for decently intelligent, aware and/or informed Catholics to attend.
The question is, could you be sanguine about a Downs Syndrome sufferer attending a Novus Ordo Mass if he was pious and insisted he was getting grace from it?
The same way you let a 95 year old woman alone if she watches the Mainstream Media and is totally convinced about terrorists and all the other boogeymen, and doesn't believe the truth about 9/11 (that the CIA and Mossad perpetrated the attack as a fαℓѕє fℓαg). What harm would it do, really, to let this poor old woman have her MainStreamMedia (MSM) fantasy? She won't live much longer, she doesn't have any kids who she needs to steer away from the military, etc.
In certain cases, truth or "the ideal" isn't an issue, because some people don't have use of reason, or perhaps they don't stand to profit much from the truth (or suffer much from error) due to extreme age, poverty, or other circuмstances.
Wouldn't the struggle, stress, and effort to convince a 95 year old woman about the truth of 9/11 to be more trouble than it's worth? What are the downsides to this woman continuing to believe an error of this nature? What are the potential gains? Those are the questions we must ask ourselves.
And besides, how do you convince a sincere, pious mental child to stop attending the Novus Ordo? Are you going to give him a copy of "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"? He can't even read. He has the mind of a 6 year old.
-
Believe it or not there are some people in the NO ( the older ones ) who have more of a truly Catholic worldview than some of the Bill O'Reilly Latin Mass dilettantes I've met over the years. Matthew's last comment really summed it up well. :reporter:
-
No, you can never choose a "doubtful" Liturgy in place of a certain one -- neither in the abstract nor in the concrete.
And St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass, at any rate, would always be acceptable for priests to say and Catholics to attend.
That is what I call sticking with what we know in a time of crisis. That's the very definition of being a Traditional Catholic.
It's not a matter of choice if the legitimate authorities make it clear that this is the rite they want you to use. Again, IF the NO can be said in the way I indicated above, THEN the conclusion given above stands.
-
The Novus Ordo is certainly defective ("evil" in that respect) and was created
by men (not God),
from scratch (an unacceptable rupture with the sacred Tradition of the Apostles, and the organic growth that occurred over 19 centuries)
by protestants
and appears to have many Freemasonic elements, for those who know about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
You appear to have answered your first question quite nicely.
So no, the Novus Ordo is not acceptable for decently intelligent, aware and/or informed Catholics to attend.
The intelligence, awareness, or information an individual possesses has absolutely nothing to do with the thing itself. I may not be aware I'm drinking poison, I may even be a downs syndrome sufferer with the mental capacity of a 6 year old, but it's going to kill me nonetheless.
And, would you say that the Novus Ordo is acceptable to God? That's really the point of the Mass, isn't it? Not whether we (or a downs syndrome sufferer, or an old lady, etc.) find it acceptable. But whether God finds it acceptable.
The thing, the Novus Ordo itself, regardless of anyone's perception of it, is evil.
The question is, could you be sanguine about a Downs Syndrome sufferer attending a Novus Ordo Mass if he was pious and insisted he was getting grace from it?
No. If this particular person is in my sphere of influence, I would do what is possible to change the situation.
Whether he's pious or not is irrelevant. It doesn't change the nature of the service he's attending.
If he's receiving grace, it is more proper to assume it is in spite of the Novus Ordo, not because of it, and such grace would certainly tend toward getting him out of that situation.
The same way you let a 95 year old woman alone if she watches the Mainstream Media and is totally convinced about terrorists and all the other boogeymen, and doesn't believe the truth about 9/11 (that the CIA and Mossad perpetrated the attack as a fαℓѕє fℓαg). What harm would it do, really, to let this poor old woman have her MainStreamMedia (MSM) fantasy? She won't live much longer, she doesn't have any kids who she needs to steer away from the military, etc.
In certain cases, truth or "the ideal" isn't an issue, because some people don't have use of reason, or perhaps they don't stand to profit much from the truth (or suffer much from error) due to extreme age, poverty, or other circuмstances.
Wouldn't the struggle, stress, and effort to convince a 95 year old woman about the truth of 9/11 to be more trouble than it's worth? What are the downsides to this woman continuing to believe an error of this nature? What are the potential gains? Those are the questions we must ask ourselves.
Matthew, I'm very surprised that you would appeal to emotions to make a point that completely misses the mark.
What one believes concerning 911 being an inside job, etc., is not part of the deposit of faith, and has little bearing on the topic at hand. What we're discussing is the Novus Ordo itself. Whether a person is sick, well, rich, poor, intelligent or a dunce does not change the fact that the New Mass itself is evil, was instituted by evil men for evil purposes, and has had fruits that can only be described as evil.
And besides, how do you convince a sincere, pious mental child to stop attending the Novus Ordo? Are you going to give him a copy of "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"? He can't even read. He has the mind of a 6 year old.
Again, that doesn't change the status of the Novus Ordo. Certainly it will have a bearing on culpability. But if a person is capable of understanding, and has a duty to know, then they are in a state of culpable ignorance, which is sinful.
-
No, you can never choose a "doubtful" Liturgy in place of a certain one -- neither in the abstract nor in the concrete.
And St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass, at any rate, would always be acceptable for priests to say and Catholics to attend.
That is what I call sticking with what we know in a time of crisis. That's the very definition of being a Traditional Catholic.
It's not a matter of choice if the legitimate authorities make it clear that this is the rite they want you to use. Again, IF the NO can be said in the way I indicated above, THEN the conclusion given above stands.
The Novus Ordo can be illicitly promulgated, and/or promulgated by means of deception, without affecting its status as intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil.
-
No, you can never choose a "doubtful" Liturgy in place of a certain one -- neither in the abstract nor in the concrete.
And St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass, at any rate, would always be acceptable for priests to say and Catholics to attend.
That is what I call sticking with what we know in a time of crisis. That's the very definition of being a Traditional Catholic.
It's not a matter of choice if the legitimate authorities make it clear that this is the rite they want you to use. Again, IF the NO can be said in the way I indicated above, THEN the conclusion given above stands.
The Novus Ordo can be illicitly promulgated, and/or promulgated by means of deception, without affecting its status as intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil.
If it is illicitly promulgated, and therefore involves no true command from the pontiff, does its usage not constitute a serious violation of standing Church law (e.g., Quo Primum, which forbids the use of other missals, including the Novus Ordo)? Perhaps in this context you can explain how this does not effect its status as being intrinsically or not intrinsically evil.
-
Hey, the Novus Ordo is "bad", I'd be the first to insist on that. It's wrong, it's dangerous, it's many things.
But I just don't see how the Conciliar Church, if it is the Catholic Church at all, could promulgate OR appear to promulgate something that was as evil as sterilizing oneself or procuring an abortion.
The evidence just doesn't point to the "fact" that there is no grace at all to be found in the Novus Ordo. The continual procession of people out of the Novus Ordo right into Tradition suggests otherwise. There is still Catholicism there. There are still "survivors". Just like a few sailors on a ship with poisoned food stores could survive by eating rats, sawdust, leather, and dead bodies. It wouldn't be pleasant, they wouldn't be in good shape, the survivors would number far less than 100% (closer to 2%), but there would be some nutrition (grace) to be scraped up.
You'd certainly be foolish to join that crew ON PURPOSE in the midst of their ordeal! It's the last place you'd want to be.
So I'd say the reality isn't much better than what you propose, and it still has plenty of mystery -- but at least it's something people can wrap their minds around. For God's own reasons, He allowed the Freemasons to infiltrate the Church, and through clever means these enemies of God came up with a new Mass, and Paul VI appeared to foist it upon the whole Church. They chanted the mantra of "obedience" even while sometimes admitting the Tridentine Mass wasn't forbidden. There were holes in their story, for those with eyes to see. And of course the wise Catholics knew about Quo Primum, Church History, etc. and they understood they had the right to stick with Tradition with no permission from Rome.
But the view that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil leads to an inescapable conclusion: that the Sedevacantists/ecclesiavacantists must be correct. Namely, that there is nothing Catholic at all in the Conciliar Church, not even as much grace as one could find nutrition in a restaurant's dumpster.
It leads to a "Traditio" or "Novus Ordo Watch" view of the Conciliar Church. The Pope isn't the Pope, the cardinals aren't cardinals, none of the bishops or priests has any orders, and the Novus Ordo Mass is equivalent to a Black Mass, except it's not even valid so nevermind!
I think it's more subtle than that.
I think a grave injustice was done to the Catholic world by focusing on the term "sedevacantist". It suggests that there's a big debate over whether or not the See of Rome is vacant. But it's SO MUCH MORE than just the See of Rome! The REAL question is whether the CHURCH is vacant or not. Sedevacantists say "yes"; others say "no".
How do these church-vacantists think the Church is going to be restored after the Chastisement? I know, most of them think some miracle will be worked. A heavenly light will shine on some man and he will magically become Pope.
That's not how God works. When he wiped the world out in a flood, he didn't create another man from the slime of the earth -- He preserved Noe and his family. When He rebuilds the Church, He will most likely use the means started by Christ: the existing Apostolic succession. He won't "reboot" or "reset" the Church and load up the last saved game; He will purify it and re-invigorate it.
-
I know your argument is basically that the Novus Ordo is evil, and only ignorance would excuse one of it.
But if the Novus Ordo is truly equivalent to a Black Mass, then how could you say, "Some of those people who attend Black Masses are in ignorance, and so they don't meet one of the criteria for Mortal Sin. So these ignorant ones are not culpable."
Have you ever read a description of a Black Mass? How could anyone, even 0.000001% of them be innocent when participating in such a Mass?
So you see, I would posit that your position leads to a pharasaical scorn of Novus Ordo Catholics, which history has proven to be a fact. Just look at the fruits of sedevacantist sites like Traditio and Novus Ordo Watch.
It leads to giving up on the Novus Ordo Catholics, and a superiority complex with no charity. This is necessarily connected with the position you describe, because by exaggerating the evil of the Mass they attend, you must conclude that they all MUST be of bad will.
After all, how can anyone of good will or invincible ignorance participate in something intrinsically evil like a Black Mass?
-
I know your argument is basically that the Novus Ordo is evil, and only ignorance would excuse one of it.
But if the Novus Ordo is truly equivalent to a Black Mass, then how could you say, "Some of those people who attend Black Masses are in ignorance, and so they don't meet one of the criteria for Mortal Sin. So these ignorant ones are not culpable."
Have you ever read a description of a Black Mass? How could anyone, even 0.000001% of them be innocent when participating in such a Mass?
So you see, I would posit that your position leads to a pharasaical scorn of Novus Ordo Catholics, which history has proven to be a fact. Just look at the fruits of sedevacantist sites like Traditio and Novus Ordo Watch.
It leads to giving up on the Novus Ordo Catholics, and a superiority complex with no charity. This is necessarily connected with the position you describe, because by exaggerating the evil of the Mass they attend, you must conclude that they all MUST be of bad will.
After all, how can anyone of good will or invincible ignorance participate in something intrinsically evil like a Black Mass?
Matthew, one big difference between the new mass and a Black Mass is that the new mass deceives people into embracing false doctrines of man as though they are the true doctrines of the Church, whereas the black mass outright worships Satan. Though that may mean the same thing in the end, the paths are two different paths.
Evil is evil but arguably, the new mass' worst evil lies in it's deception, in it's intent by design to fool people who are led to believe they are worshiping God with it's adulterated liturgies, sins that are not sins, false love, false ecuмenism, no tabernacle and etc. ad nausem, these are deceptions which, regardless of our intentions, offend God to at least some degree, no?
The case of the downs syndrome sufferer with the mental capacity of a 6 year old, is just as incapable of the use of reason as any 6 year old, so I guess I do not see the point. I mean, certainly only God knows, but it seems to me that any person of whatever age who has a mental impediment that prevents or severely clouds their use of reason and who goes to the new mass because that's where he is taken cannot be held accountable.
-
I am sure most of you are aware that many Novus Ordo priests are responsible for millions of conversions in the last 10 years alone. I personally know a few Jesuit, Franciscan and Fransalian priests who are currently doing excellent work in villages and towns converting Hindus / Pagans (Satan worshipers) and spreading good Catholic teachings.
Are these good priests teaching a satanic doctrine? Absolutely NOT. In fact, these priests are risking their lives and have to endure severe hardship to preach about Our Risen Lord and devotion to His Blessed Mother.
It is naïve to say that there is no Catholicism left in the Novus Ordo, Conciliar Religion and the Novus Order Missae. Aren’t most of us “converts”, who have had our origins in the Conciliar Church?
So the real question is, how do we inform these many ‘well meaning’ Novus Ordo clergy and faithful of the errors of Vatican II?
Speaking from experience, this is by no means an easy task, many in the Novus Ordo have not even heard of the SSPX and let alone the ‘resistance’….I would venture to say that less than 1% of Catholics worldwide have ever heard of + Archbishop Lefebvre and all that he stood for. It is important to ensure that firstly, these ‘well meaning’ devout Catholics need to be encouraged to preserve their ‘Faith’ as + Williamson advised the Lady at the conference in Mahopac, NY. Secondly, we have to be patient in explaining the ‘True Traditional doctrine’ and dangers of following the Conciliar Church and most important, we need to be humble and charitable in our approach. For is it is only by the Grace of the Holy Spirit that one can fully achieve such an understanding.
I am not implying that ‘All’ Novus Ordo Clergy/faithful do things that are always pleasing to God…. However, I do feel there is some ‘good’ left in the Novus Ordo which CANNOT be discounted.
In short, we should leverage the ‘good’ that many of Novus Ordo Priests/clergy and faithful have built with their many sacrifices and be instrumental in showing them the ‘WAY’ back to our Catholic Tradition.
-
Matthew,
I think your dilemma can be solved by understanding that both the New Mass and a Black Mass are intrinsically evil, but the Black Mass is more intrinsically evil than the New Mass. Murder and lying are both intrinsically evil, but murder is more intrinsically evil than lying.
If you steer away from accepting that the New Mass is intrinsically evil, then you move away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX under him. Also, you would place yourself in a position to acknowledge that the New Mass may be attended if the circuмstances are good.
-
So no, the Novus Ordo is not acceptable for decently intelligent, aware and/or informed Catholics to attend.
The question is, could you be sanguine about a Downs Syndrome sufferer attending a Novus Ordo Mass if he was pious and insisted he was getting grace from it?
I don't understand why this didn't sink in on the previous "Down Syndrome" thread. There's a difference between one's SUBJECTIVE dispositions and the OBJECTIVE right or wrong in attending the Novus Ordo. How difficult is this?
We can judge that it's objectively wrong to attend the Novus Ordo Mass and that the Novus Ordo Mass objectively displeases God, but someone who's confused or uninformed or sincerely mistaken could subjectively please God through and receive graces from their attendance at the NOM. But these graces would be received per accidens vis-a-vis their actual attendance at the NOM. That does not, however, justify Bishop Williamson's publicly claiming that it might be OK to attend the NOM. He slid into clearly subjectivism there. Now, if I were to answer the question, I would say: "I personally consider the NOM to be offensive to God. But I do not have teaching authority in the Church and cannot bind your conscience. I can merely argue my case." OBVIOUSLY in the case of a Black Mass I cannot imagine a subjective disposition in attending it that would not be offensive to God. But with any of the Prot rites, those who attend do in fact intend to honor and worship God (unlike at a Black Mass). That doesn't make it OK under any circuмstances (when speaking objectively) to attend a Prot rite.
Similarly, is Cramner's Liturgy intrinsically evil like a Black Mass? Just because it's not as evil as a Black Mass doesn't make it not displeasing to God and OK for Catholics to attend.
Finally, you're conflating issues regarding the Mass and the faith itself.
What makes this particular falling away from Traditional Catholic Faith so insidious is that the NO hierarchs still claim to be the Catholic hierarchs and PROFESS Catholicism. They remain in material possession of the offices. Consequently, many of the Conciliar adherents adhere to the Conciliar precisely because they think it's Catholic. They therefore FORMALLY intend to profess Catholicism by remaining part of the Conciliar Church. Many Conciliar adherents are only MATERIALLY Conciliar but remain FORMALLY Catholic. That's why we don't force them to formally abjure heresy when coming over from the Conciliar Church.
-
D) become sedevacantists (and, like most sedevacantists, become ecclesiavacantists as well), because we're talking about the "Catholic Church" pushing a positively evil BLACK MASS EQUIVALENT on the entire world! The Catholic Church could never do that.
With regard to this point in particular, the Catholic Church is prevented through her indefectibility and disciplinary infallibility from promulgating even a DEFECTIVE Rite of Mass, not only a "Black Mass". Even Bishop Williamson admits this principle ... though he goes on to argue from the "non-promulgation" angle against the SV conclusion.
-
Matthew,
I think your dilemma can be solved by understanding that both the New Mass and a Black Mass are intrinsically evil, but the Black Mass is more intrinsically evil than the New Mass. Murder and lying are both intrinsically evil, but murder is more intrinsically evil than lying.
If you steer away from accepting that the New Mass is intrinsically evil, then you move away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX under him. Also, you would place yourself in a position to acknowledge that the New Mass may be attended if the circuмstances are good.
Yes, the term "intrinsically" is misused. I think what Matthew intends to argue is that with the Black Mass one cannot conceive a subjective disposition in attending it which would not be offensive to God, whereas with the Novus Ordo you can. Yet the same can be said of Prot services, that people could attend them with at least decent or naturally virtuous intentions. That doesn't make it objectively OK to attend a Prot service, nor therefore does it make it objectively OK to attend a NOM.
-
So no, the Novus Ordo is not acceptable for decently intelligent, aware and/or informed Catholics to attend.
If what you say is true about the NOM, then it's not acceptable PERIOD for anyone to attend. What you MEAN to say is that those who are uninformed or sincerely mistaken would not subjectively commit a sin in attending it. It's a very clear distinction, but in your attempts to defend Bishop Williamson at all costs, you blur these just as he did. Honestly, it's NOT that complicated.
-
Matthew, I'm very surprised that you would appeal to emotions to make a point that completely misses the mark.
I'm actually even MORE surprised that Bishop Williamson would slide into this kind of emotional subjectivism. It was in fact Bishop Williamson, teaching me at the seminary, who POUNDED into my head the distinction between the subjective and the objective, often mockingly deriding to value of "sincerity" and "nitheness". He pounded and pounded and pounded (and so very rightly) how the subjectivist philosphical movements undermined objective Catholic theology.
And it's under these EXACT SAME PRINCIPLES that Bergoglio can claim that sometimes ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ couples can find benefit in their relationships.
-
Matthew,
Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad, not good, troublesome, problematic, defective, wrong, dangerous, etc. These words betray an underlying fault of looking at the Mass as it relates to us, as it relates to man, and not looking at the Mass as it relates to its object, God.
I hold, and will defend this position, that the Novus Ordo Missae is a sacrilege, and in the objective order a mortal sin. And that it represents an evil that is worse than sterilizing oneself or abortion, for the simple reason that sins against the first and second commandments (directed squarely at God) are more heinous than sins against the fifth.
Most Catholics who hold your position do so because they have not a clear idea of what the Mass is. Whether they admit it or not, they imagine that men may worship God as they please, rather than being bound by the first commandment which decrees that we must worship God as HE pleases. We are the creature, He is the Creator. He has absolute domination over us, and we have no right whatsoever to decide how we will adore His Infinite Majesty.
The true Mass was given to us by Christ Himself, grown and developed organically over time under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the care of the Church, and is a perfect, pleasing, spotless and immaculate sacrifice, a fitting act of adoration and worship of the most Holy Trinity. It is, literally, God giving God to God.
The Novus Ordo Missae is a creation of man. It is not simply man telling God that they will adore Him as they please. It is, in reality, man telling God that we will worship man in place of God. The purpose, the whole reason for its existence, is to replace the true Mass, to bring to an end the worship of the True God. You are, I'm sure, aware of the numerous "problems" of the Novus Ordo. I will not labor through that list here, but have you considered how and to what degree those "problems" are offensive to God? We have whole books written about how they're offensive to Catholics, but few consider how the Majesty of God is offended by these "problems". Add to that the fact that each time the mockery is performed, it is a violation of the standing law of the Church (Quo Primum), and by that fact alone constitutes a sacrilege of unimaginable proportions.
Holding the position that the act, the event, of the Novus Ordo Missae being evil and a sacrilege, does not lead to inescapable conclusion that there is "nothing Catholic at all in the Conciliar Church." Rather, the fact that it was given to us by the very shepherds of the Church makes its sacrilegious nature all the more poignant. It is the difference between the Babylonians creating a false rite and the priests of the Mosaic Law creating one. The latter example is far more odious than the former. Does the fact that the Hebrew priests devised their own false worship, their own "Novus Ordo", demand we take the position that there was nothing of the worship of the true God left in old covenant?
And how does the Novus Ordo Missae being evil force us to take the position that "The Pope isn't the Pope, the cardinals aren't cardinals, none of the bishops or priests has any orders"? The very fact that these same men are the ones perpetrating the sacrilege is what makes it so heinous. If a simple layman were to offer the Novus Ordo, it would be bad, but not on the level of a priest of God taking part in it.
The validity of conciliar orders is another topic altogether. I do not have the authority to decide whether they're valid or not. The very fact that there is a question, however, precludes my approaching them for the sacraments. I will wait for the Church to decide the issue, and in the meantime will take the safer course.
Your point touching on how God will restore things after the chastisement has little bearing on the topic. That's His business, not mine. My job is to adore Him as He desires to be adored, not defend the indefensible.
The subjective culpability of each of the attendees at the Novus Ordo is an issue that we can't delve into because it's in the internal forum, but the nature of the act itself is certainly up for review. Their innocence or guilt doesn't change the fact that the act itself is sacrilegious.
I cannot speak for others, but my holding the this position has never lead to "a pharasaical scorn of Novus Ordo Catholics". On the contrary, having been one for 20 years I know all-too-well what it's like, and have nothing but compassion for them. I have little trouble making a distinction between their actions and their person, and the fact that they have an immortal soul which needs help.
The bottom line, Matthew, is that Bishop Williamson was wrong. He screwed up. Just accept the fact and move on.
-
I forgot to add --
I don't think any of us, in our arguments, can bring GOD into this. How in the world can you or I speak for God? Has He spoken to you personally about what He thinks of the New Mass, or the precise nature of the New Mass?
Let's keep the Almighty out of this. Part of the Crisis itself is the fact that God hasn't manifested his opinion in the matter. None of us know with absolute certainty who is right. We have some good ideas, and MORAL certainty (enough to act on), but while we have the certainty of Faith to declare that protestants are wrong, we don't have the same certainty about the sedevacantists, for example. For all we know, they got it right!
-
God accepted Abel's sacrifice because he offered his FIRST FRUITS, i.e. the BEST he had to give. Cain offered God a good offering, but it was not his best, therefore it was not pleasing to Him.
The question is not whether a NO is as evil as a black mass, but whether a NO is as perfect as the "Mass of all Time", which Christ created himself. The answer is, clearly, no. Not even close. And since we are COMMANDED to offer to God the highest worship we can, we must offer to God the PERFECT Mass, not an inferior one.
Despite the numerous theological, legal, and moral arguments against the NO (on this tread alone), the question of it's acceptance by God can be answered by pondering the simple question: Is the NO Mass the best mass that can be offered to God? I think we all know the answer..
-
Matthew,
Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad...
Just for full disclosure here, I presume you are a sedevacantist then?
-
Matthew: Part of the Crisis itself is the fact that God hasn't manifested his opinion in the matter.
God has manifested His will on the Liturgy over the period of 2,000 years, culminating in Pope St Pius V's law, Quo Primum, which allows (and, more importantly, BINDS US ALL) to say/attend ONLY the True Mass.
-
I forgot to add --
I don't think any of us, in our arguments, can bring GOD into this. How in the world can you or I speak for God? Has He spoken to you personally about what He thinks of the New Mass, or the precise nature of the New Mass?
Let's keep the Almighty out of this. Part of the Crisis itself is the fact that God hasn't manifested his opinion in the matter. None of us know with absolute certainty who is right. We have some good ideas, and MORAL certainty (enough to act on), but while we have the certainty of Faith to declare that protestants are wrong, we don't have the same certainty about the sedevacantists, for example. For all we know, they got it right!
Then we can't discuss the issue, or any issue of morality for that matter. The heart of the issue of the Mass IS GOD. If you don't KNOW for certain that God is pleased with a particular form of worship, like we know He is with the True Mass, then you have no business defending it, making excuses for it, exonerating it, or presenting it as in any way acceptable, even for 95 year old ladys or downs syndrome sufferers.
Are you seriously taking the position that we can't know for certain than a particular act is offensive to God unless He comes down and tells us specifically?
-
Matthew: Part of the Crisis itself is the fact that God hasn't manifested his opinion in the matter.
God has manifested His will on the Liturgy over the period of 2,000 years, culminating in Pope St Pius V's law, Quo Primum, which allows (and, more importantly, BINDS US ALL) to say/attend ONLY the True Mass.
Not conclusive enough.
We have to keep this discussion narrowly focused; remember I'm a Trad. I've been a Trad my whole life. I am not only against the Novus Ordo Mass, but I even have an emotional/visceral reaction against it, because unlike the majority of Trads, I have no past where I attended the Novus Ordo for years. I've attended a Tridentine Mass for almost 4 decades.
Obviously the Novus Ordo is "bad".
My question is: could someone with defective reason (e.g., a Downs Syndrome sufferer) escape many of the problems, or at least could he receive grace, by attending the Novus Ordo?
Is a Downs Syndrome sufferer one of those likely to be a "survivor", rather than a "casualty" (in terms of the Faith) in the Novus Ordo milieu?
Don't forget, some people don't have a Tridentine Mass within 5 hours of their home. So not only would you have to tell this Downs Syndrome young man to stop attending Mass, but he'd have to sit at home. Do you really think he has the means to keep the Faith in that kind of scenario? Do you really think he can practice religion by himself with no social dimension? I have my doubts.
This is all a hypothetical, but it seems to be an interesting question. One that cuts to the heart of the Sedevacantist vs. Recognize and Resist debate.
-
Matthew,
Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad...
Just for full disclosure here, I presume you are a sedevacantist then?
I am not. There are other "flavors" of non-sede traditionalists aside from the SSPX.
-
And for the record, the fact that Quo Primum specifically forbids the use of other missals (Paul VI and subsequent conciliar popes have never rescinded that law or given permission to do otherwise) is more than sufficient for us to know with certainty what God thinks of the Novus Ordo.
-
Also, it goes beyond the Sede vs. R&R debate, namely:
If you applied your arguments to the neo-SSPX vs. Resistance debate, you'd be a "red lighter". That is to say, you'd tell people to stay home from those SSPX Masses, even if they had no Resistance Mass option.
It's not subjectivism to say that individual circuмstances sometimes play a role in our decisions.
There are yes/no, right/wrong issues, and then there are prudential questions. "What should I do, given my situation and options?"
The question is: Has God actually commanded what we must do in this crisis, or is it a question of prudence?
I would submit that God hasn't spoken definitively about what course of action we should take, otherwise a LOT OF PEOPLE are willfully going against God. Just look at all the disagreements in the world of Tradition!
Just because objectively speaking it's prudent for 99.9% of us to totally avoid the Novus Ordo Mass doesn't mean that it ceases to be a prudential decision in the first place. It's tempting to round that 99.9% up to 100% and say "everyone". But it's not in the same boat as "everyone is supposed to convert to the Catholic Faith" or "Everyone has a chance to save his soul." That is a matter of objective certainty, not prudence.
-
...The question is: Has God actually commanded what we must do in this crisis, or is it a question of prudence?
I would submit that God hasn't spoken definitively about what course of action we should take, otherwise a LOT OF PEOPLE are willfully going against God. Just look at all the disagreements in the world of Tradition! ...
Nonsense.
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.
This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.
All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
I needn't go into the bit about the keys of the kingdom of heaven, binding on earth and heaven, he who hears you hears Me, etc. I'm sure you get the point.
-
Matthew,
Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad...
Just for full disclosure here, I presume you are a sedevacantist then?
I am not. There are other "flavors" of non-sede traditionalists aside from the SSPX.
There are only so many positions in Tradition. What position are you? You should be open about your position, otherwise you have me at a disadvantage.
-
And for the record, the fact that Quo Primum specifically forbids the use of other missals (Paul VI and subsequent conciliar popes have never rescinded that law or given permission to do otherwise) is more than sufficient for us to know with certainty what God thinks of the Novus Ordo.
Stay on target, now! We're not looking for justification to become Trads and disobey if necessary to avoid the Novus Ordo.
As a Traditional Catholic, I'm with you on that.
The question, again, is: Is the Novus Ordo Mass intrinsically evil like sodomy or abortion, and does it objectively give grace?
-
Matthew,
Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad...
Just for full disclosure here, I presume you are a sedevacantist then?
I am not. There are other "flavors" of non-sede traditionalists aside from the SSPX.
There are only so many positions in Tradition. What position are you? You should be open about your position, otherwise you have me at a disadvantage.
My position on the Mass, I believe, has been quite clear. If you want my position on anything else, you'll have to be more specific, otherwise I'd have to cover everything.
And regardless, I don't know what my position on anything else has to do with the topic at hand.
-
And for the record, the fact that Quo Primum specifically forbids the use of other missals (Paul VI and subsequent conciliar popes have never rescinded that law or given permission to do otherwise) is more than sufficient for us to know with certainty what God thinks of the Novus Ordo.
Stay on target, now! We're not looking for justification to become Trads and disobey if necessary to avoid the Novus Ordo.
As a Traditional Catholic, I'm with you on that.
The question, again, is: Is the Novus Ordo Mass intrinsically evil like sodomy or abortion, and does it objectively give grace?
Matthew, is the use of any other missals specifically forbidden by Pius V?
-
How is the law of Quo Primum, which codified the liturgy around the sacrament of the Eucharist, promulgated by a Pope, under pain of sin, "not conclusive enough"?
As others have stated, even if the answer to your question is: "No, the new mass is not intrinsically evil." That doesn't mean it's good and ok to attend. A protestant service is not intrinsically evil, but that doesn't mean we can attend.
-
As others have stated, even if the answer to your question is: "No, the new mass is not intrinsically evil." That doesn't mean it's good and ok to attend. A protestant service is not intrinsically evil, but that doesn't mean we can attend.
"good and ok to attend"? Now who's adding in words? That's not what we're discussing here. It's obviously not "good and ok to attend" or we'd all have to go back to our parishes.
This reminds me of the critics of +Williamson who exaggerate his position into something like "the Novus Ordo is hunky-dory to attend." Uh...no. That's not his position at all. If these people would turn on their brains, they'd notice that +Williamson is a Resistance, Traditional bishop. He obviously doesn't think the Novus Ordo is acceptable for 99.9% of us, at any rate. And with even that famous emotional lady in Mahopac, NY he laid down the reasons why she needs to leave the Novus Ordo.
-
+W provided exceptions for when one could attend the NO. I believe there are 100% no exceptions.
-
Matthew,
I think your dilemma can be solved by understanding that both the New Mass and a Black Mass are intrinsically evil, but the Black Mass is more intrinsically evil than the New Mass. Murder and lying are both intrinsically evil, but murder is more intrinsically evil than lying.
If you steer away from accepting that the New Mass is intrinsically evil, then you move away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX under him. Also, you would place yourself in a position to acknowledge that the New Mass may be attended if the circuмstances are good.
Yes, the term "intrinsically" is misused.
What do you mean?
-
+W provided exceptions for when one could attend the NO. I believe there are 100% no exceptions.
Yes. And this is Bishop Williamson's deviation from the Archbishop because Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is bad in itself. Therefore, there can be no exceptions that would justify attendance.
Bishop Williamson himself publicly stated in one of his Letters to the Rector that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is intrinsically evil.
Matthew, you are treading dangerous waters by defending Bishop Williamson's words on this matter because this makes you too deviate from the Archbishop's position.
-
IHSV, well said and explained.
-
He obviously doesn't think the Novus Ordo is acceptable for 99.9% of us
:facepalm:
Pure subjectivism.
If, as you stated, you believe that the NOM is OBJECTIVELY bad, then it is OBJECTIVELY unacceptable for EVERYONE to attend ... even if subjectively some people can be excused from guilt in attending.
If the NOM displeases God and some people receive graces from it, they receive the graces per accidens.
-
Matthew,
I think your dilemma can be solved by understanding that both the New Mass and a Black Mass are intrinsically evil, but the Black Mass is more intrinsically evil than the New Mass. Murder and lying are both intrinsically evil, but murder is more intrinsically evil than lying.
If you steer away from accepting that the New Mass is intrinsically evil, then you move away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX under him. Also, you would place yourself in a position to acknowledge that the New Mass may be attended if the circuмstances are good.
Yes, the term "intrinsically" is misused.
What do you mean?
It means that the post of yours I cited is in fact correct. Matthew is using the term "intrinsically" to mean that nobody could possibly attend it with good subjective dispositions (such as in a Black Mass). But your definition is correct, and the NOM can be intrinisically evil even if it's possible for some people to attend it with good subjective dispositions.
-
I'm speculating here - but would it be accurate to say that there's a difference in KNOWING the 'intrinsic evilness' between the natural and supernatural level? For example, everyone knows that murder is intrinsically evil, because it is a violation of the natural law, which is written on all men's hearts. But, the Divine law isn't necessarily "common knowledge" because it deals with the virtue of Faith, which we all have in varying degrees.
So the NO mass may be 'intrinsically evil' but that doesn't necessarily mean that catholics can recognize this evil in the same way as we can in sins against nature. That's why theologians exist, such as Card Ottaviani, who said the NO was "grave departure from the Faith".
-
+W provided exceptions for when one could attend the NO. I believe there are 100% no exceptions.
Yes. And this is Bishop Williamson's deviation from the Archbishop because Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is bad in itself. Therefore, there can be no exceptions that would justify attendance.
Bishop Williamson himself publicly stated in one of his Letters to the Rector that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is intrinsically evil.
Matthew, you are treading dangerous waters by defending Bishop Williamson's words on this matter because this makes you too deviate from the Archbishop's position.
I am keeping an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Crisis in the Church.
I realize that God hasn't stepped in and clarified *anything* yet. We're all flying blind here, going with what we feel is the best solution to keep the Faith. But none of us has any certainty, except for things like judging by the fruits, our feelings, our sensus catholicus, etc.
-
We're all flying blind here
You can fly blind if you want to, and plenty of people prefer to remain moderately ignorant, (in hopes that they can blame their lukewarm faith on "the modern times" instead of on their own lack of spiritual effort). For those of us who like to have a factual basis on why we stick with tradition, we simply read and study the issues, and base our decisions on sound catholic doctrine. As the X-files proved, "The Truth is out there."
-
I am keeping an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Crisis in the Church.
Now, this I agree with. We can make certain judgments, but we do not have the Church's teaching authority and cannot bind the consciences of others. So, simply because I say that the NOM displeases God, this doesn't mean that someone else might not come to a different conclusion.
-
We're all flying blind here
You can fly blind if you want to, and plenty of people prefer to remain moderately ignorant, (in hopes that they can blame their lukewarm faith on "the modern times" instead of on their own lack of spiritual effort). For those of us who like to have a factual basis on why we stick with tradition, we simply read and study the issues, and base our decisions on sound catholic doctrine. As the X-files proved, "The Truth is out there."
Perhaps "flying blind" is a misleading term. Of course we can know truth, but certain truths? no, we can't. Some truths are beyond our grasp as humans. For example, how God can be a Trinity of persons but still one God. Our minds are limited. We also don't fully understand what happened to the Church in the late 20th century, and why God allowed it. We could argue about it all day, and come up with some reasonable theories, but in the end we'd just be best-educated-guessing.
So as far as certainty is concerned, we are flying blind. But we can make good EDUCATED guesses by applying our brains.
-
We also don't fully understand what happened to the Church in the late 20th century
Ok, I agree. But we DO have enough understanding to know how to keep the Faith in the face of challenges to faith/morality. As the bible says, "There is nothing new under the sun." We aren't the first Catholics to face apostasy in the Church, internal persecution, new liturgies, deciets from the top, discord, a weak or inactive authority, or contradiction from Church leaders. See Arian heresy, protestant revolt, Henry VIII, to name a few.
All of these historical times prove that Christ will always be with those who choose to remain with the Truth. But most do not remain with Him. The idea of the "fewness of the saved" is a sobering one, but it is precisely because we want to ignore this reality that too many people go to great lengths (and use faulty 'sentimental' theology) to make apologies for lukewarm catholics, especially those that go to the NO mass.
-
For about a year, after I learned about tradition and had many traditional ideas, I attended the Novus Ordo. I wonder if I received graces from going to Mass there. I prayed the Rosary every day and wore the Brown Scapular, but when I went to Mass it still felt wrong because I was more traditional than the Mass I attended. When I went to benediction it was alright because there was singing in Latin and the priest was reverent, but I did not like the Mass because, well, it was typical Novus Ordo. I do wonder if God considered me Catholic when I went to the Novus Ordo because as far as I know my ideas and beliefs were Catholic despite my going to the Novus Ordo and I wonder if I died in that state, as a traditional Novus Ordo attendee, would I have gone to heaven or hell.
-
I do wonder if God considered me Catholic when I went to the Novus Ordo because as far as I know my ideas and beliefs were Catholic despite my going to the Novus Ordo and I wonder if I died in that state, as a traditional Novus Ordo attendee, would I have gone to heaven or hell.
See, I would have considered you a Catholic and my personal opinion is that God would have too.
So I would say "Heaven" (assuming a state of grace) because you died a Catholic, whereas many sedevacantists would say "Hell" because you died a Lutheran.
-
I do wonder if God considered me Catholic when I went to the Novus Ordo because as far as I know my ideas and beliefs were Catholic despite my going to the Novus Ordo and I wonder if I died in that state, as a traditional Novus Ordo attendee, would I have gone to heaven or hell.
See, I would have considered you a Catholic and my personal opinion is that God would have too.
So I would say "Heaven" because you died a Catholic, whereas many sedevacantists would say "Hell" because you died a Lutheran.
It seems like both of you miss the point. Dying as a "Catholic" doesn't automatically save you. Dying in sanctifying grace is what saves you.
-
What would the philosopher Descartes say if he were a novus ordo mass'er? "I think I am a catholic, therefore I am."
-
What would the philosopher Descartes say if he were a novus ordo mass'er? "I think I am a catholic, therefore I am."
So you say all those in the Conciliar Church aren't Catholic?
I've never been one to think that way.
Sure, many if not most of them are losing the Faith if they haven't already lost it. But that isn't everyone.
There are survivors.
See this is why I'm inclined to ask this question in the first place. I've never taken such a Pharasaical view of my fellow Catholics. They are in ignorance, poorly catechized and to be pitied, and may have suffered damage to their Faith after years of Novus Ordo Mass attendance. But many of them aren't Lutherans. (There are a few liberals who probably don't have the Faith and would leave the Church if the post-Vatican II mess got cleaned up)
At least the church they attend every Sunday CLAIMS to be part of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church founded by Christ, and the church building says "St. ______ Catholic Church". You have to give the benefit of the doubt to some degree.
You can't give that benefit of the doubt to the Lutherans. Who is Luther? Some guy 400 years ago. The Catholic Church everyone knows is 2,000 years old and founded by Jesus Christ Himself.
-
What would the philosopher Descartes say if he were a novus ordo mass'er? "I think I am a catholic, therefore I am."
If someone is baptized in the Catholic Church, and does their best to stay on good terms with that Church, then YES they are a Catholic.
They might not know all truth, but I bet a lot of Trads are deficient in some point of moral theology, dogmatic theology, canon law, or Church History -- and yet we give each other plenty of benefit of the doubt that we're all real Catholics.
I wonder if the Pharisees were always nice to each other -- kind of like "agree to not expose each others' hypocrisy"... I bet they did that.
You know, some extremist Trads won't even give that benefit of the doubt to fellow Trads. That's why I had to impose a rule on this forum that "Everyone on CathInfo is a Traditional Catholic and not excommunicated (vitandus). Anyone who considers CathInfo to be missionary territory (the majority need to embrace Catholicism/need conversion) need to leave."
Strictly speaking, all that is required to be Catholic is to be a member of the Catholic Church, be baptized, and believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Redemption.
You might be in all kinds of error, and those errors might very likely lead you to hell -- but we're talking about simply "are they Catholic or not?" I think that question is pretty straightforward.
I notice that many extremist Trad cults tend to go astray on this matter. Armed with signing statements and formulae of abjuration they start from "no Catholics at all in the world" and add one Catholic for every person who signs their simple formula.
THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS.
The Catholic Faith isn't opt-in like a whitelist, it's opt-out like a blacklist starting from whoever was baptized with water "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".
-
The Black Mass is evil because Sacrilege is an intrinsic element in it. You can't have a pious attitude and participate in it. The prayers are literally said backwards and if it's the worst of the worst, you can't have a child abused, murdered and cannibalized and somehow think you are offering homage to God.
The Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil because it is intrinsically worship of God with all the elements necessary for a valid consecration. It simply does not have the defenses built into it that the TLM adopted over the years.
A Knight isn't a Knight because he has armor. He should have armor but if he isn't always in his armor he is a Knight.
The purpose of Bugnini and Paul VI and others were multiple and varied and they were not all malicious. Most modernists are not malicious as St. Pius X pointed out in Pascendi.
God does not hand down liturgies from Heaven. They develop over time by men adding and subtracting.
The Novus Ordo is far more organized than the earliest liturgical forms of the Church.
Everything in the Novus Ordo as promulgated has its basis in Catholic liturgy, scripture and traditions of both east and west. The alleged Protestant elements are Catholic elements that Protestants took with them. They did not cease to be Catholic.
Quo Primun does not bind a Pope from offering another liturgy.
Pius XII settled it in Mediator Dei when he said only the Pope is allowed to touch anything concerning the worship of God. He didn't make a caveat for Pro Quimum. He literally said a Pope can modify and even introduce new rites as he sees fit.
The TLM is a richer liturgy with a lot more potential for a person to subjectively extract graces and develop their faith with. But obviously people were not doing that. So God has allowed the TLM to be suppressed and some Catholics have to work for it, and appreciate it.
But that doesn't mean that a Novus Ordo Catholic can't actually work with less and achieve a higher degree of sanctity than quite a few trad Catholics.
God cares more about the subjective state of the person's piety than the objective state of a person's practice.
The widow's mite was essentially nothing objectively speaking, but it was worth more to God because He knew the subjective value of the total sacrifice of the widow.
RE: Cain and Abel. God could care less about the objective value of Abel's sacrifice over Cain's. Objectively Cain's sacrifice might have been of greater value. But it was Cain's subjective holding back his best from God. Had Abel been a farmer as well and offered an objectively inferior sacrifice to God, but still his absolute best, Abel would still have been pleasing to God.
You can attend a TLM and mind all of your Ps an Qs and sing gloriously and know the rubrics with great precision, but if you're heart is going cold and you start to take pride in your circuмstances and scorn those less fortunate, you are Cain.
You can attend the Novus Ordo with the mentality of the Widow of the "Widow's mite" and God will reward your faith.
What traditional Catholics have to develop is the attitude of the Widow with the TLM.
One more point: Subjectivity is the interior understanding of the objective reality.
It is how one actually communicates with God. I examine my conscience for confession by examine what I've done objectively and I determine the sin and the level of sin based on my subjective understanding of the commission of my sin. Did I say something blasphemous in a joke? No. Because I didn't have malice in my intention. So, my sin was venial and against prudence not blasphemy. Or yes. I was really frustrated and angry with God for this, that and the other thing.
I objectively say my penance of 3 Hail Mary's, but subjectively my mind wanders and I don't pray for graces called for by the prayer. The objective forms of prayer are simply the tools used to facilitate that communication.
Subjectivism by contrast is the philosophical idea that nothing objective exists. You have your truth, I have my truth and it doesn't matter if they contradict one another because it's your truth and my truth.
-
Catholics are obligated to believe, teach, and defend the Truth, as it has been handed down to us, from Christ. All of it, not part, or most, but all. Those who deviate from this Truth, or water it down, or misinterpret it, are wrong. It is not my job, only God's, to put them in hell (nor do I want to) but I'll be darn sure to point out their errors, for only then will they have the opportunity to change and to save their souls. Salvation is not had by those who persist in error nor in ignorance, which is a punishment from God. Charity rejoices in the Truth. Therefore we must all be missionaries of the Truth, and preach it to those that don't have it fully. Those that have 90% of the Truth are in just as much danger as those that have 30%. For wide is the way that leads to destruction.
-
Catholics are obligated to believe, teach, and defend the Truth, as it has been handed down to us, from Christ. All of it, not part, or most, but all. Those who deviate from this Truth, or water it down, or misinterpret it, are wrong. It is not my job, only God's, to put them in hell (nor do I want to) but I'll be darn sure to point out their errors, for only then will they have the opportunity to change and to save their souls. Salvation is not had by those who persist in error nor in ignorance, which is a punishment from God. Charity rejoices in the Truth. Therefore we must all be missionaries of the Truth, and preach it to those that don't have it fully. Those that have 90% of the Truth are in just as much danger as those that have 30%. For wide is the way that leads to destruction.
Great sermon, but it's neither here nor there.
I think we all agree that we need to stand by the truth and promote it both in and out of season.
-
What would the philosopher Descartes say if he were a novus and we ordo mass'er? "I think I am a catholic, therefore I am."
Most were through accident of birth. The are denominated such and become part of a culture. Now, believing in the stuff is a different matter and it did not take much to throw out the old ideology, introduce a new one while maintaining the same church-going habits. A quiet revolution, indeed! Could anyone but Rome have been more stealthful in bringing this about?
We are always going to trip up defining what is Catholic because the institution overwhelms the essential elements and we are required to shoulder the excesses of the centuries. Being forced to return to a more simple church has concentrated the minds of trads on the essentials although some have always preferred the theatrical. Maybe V2 was needed to unravel the unwieldy monster and reveal the true motivations of its participants. Catholics thus can now be easily regarded as impressionable nostalgics, those obsessed with giving spiritual expression to human goodness (the type Bp. W so hates and ridicules), moral gatekeepers of various kinds including those who see virtue in everything and the rest who just have to be part of something.
-
The Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil because it is intrinsically worship of God with all the elements necessary for a valid consecration. It simply does not have the defenses built into it that the TLM adopted over the years.
The Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil because it is not a Catholic rite. It is a product of a schismatic sect called the conciliar church. A valid consecration is not sufficient to save the Novus Ordo Mass from being intrinsically evil anymore than Cranmer's rite of Mass.
-
+W provided exceptions for when one could attend the NO. I believe there are 100% no exceptions.
Yes. And this is Bishop Williamson's deviation from the Archbishop because Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is bad in itself. Therefore, there can be no exceptions that would justify attendance.
Bishop Williamson himself publicly stated in one of his Letters to the Rector that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is intrinsically evil.
Matthew, you are treading dangerous waters by defending Bishop Williamson's words on this matter because this makes you too deviate from the Archbishop's position.
I am keeping an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Crisis in the Church.
I realize that God hasn't stepped in and clarified *anything* yet. We're all flying blind here, going with what we feel is the best solution to keep the Faith. But none of us has any certainty, except for things like judging by the fruits, our feelings, our sensus catholicus, etc.
Did you have an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass prior to Bishop Williamson's comments in Mahopac, NY? Did you question it being intrinsically evil before his comments?
Bishop Williamson was saying and writing the same things about the Novus Ordo thirty years before his comments to the "emotional" woman.
-
I think we all agree that we need to stand by the truth and promote it both in and out of season.
Matthew, the point is, those who want to condone the actions (even slightly) of novus ordo catholics are compromising the Truth. As Catholics condemn protestantism and warn them of their eternal loss, so we have the duty to warn novus ordo catholics of their errors and of their eternal loss. It's not our job (nor do we have the right to, only God does) to make excuses for them, or to rationalize how they are 'good people'; our job is to tell them they need the WHOLE truth to save their souls, which they don't have. If they don't come to tradition and reject the errors of new-Rome, they won't save their souls.
-
The Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil because it is intrinsically worship of God with all the elements necessary for a valid consecration. It simply does not have the defenses built into it that the TLM adopted over the years.
The Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil because it is not a Catholic rite. It is a product of a schismatic sect called the conciliar church. A valid consecration is not sufficient to save the Novus Ordo Mass from being intrinsically evil anymore than Cranmer's rite of Mass.
It is a Catholic rite because a Pope has the power to introduce new rites.
A schismatic sect does not make a rite intrinsically evil. There are already rites in the Church that developed outside of communion with Rome. The Syra Malankara rite and Syro Malabar rites developed after separation from Rome and were incorporated into the Church prior to Vatican II. So, prior to Vatican II the Church approved rites that were the product of truly schismatic sects.
RE: Cranmer's liturgy, first, it's not necessarily intrinsically evil just because it was part of an evil agenda by Cranmer.
The second point, is a Pope has the right to introduce or modify rites, only him, not Cranmer, but if he wants how Cranmer or St. John Chrysostom or the Syro Malabar Catholics wanted the ordering of the rite to be, it's legitimate.
Cranmer's liturgy is also eminently fixable since the weaknesses and errors are ones of omission. All that is needed is an additional reinforcement on the sacrificial aspect of the priest and it is Catholic with the approval of the Pope.
If a liturgy is fixable, it is by definition not intrinsically evil.
The Novus Ordo could theoretically be improved to the point where it addresses all of the current errors and if done right, with rubrical adjustments could be at least equal to the TLM.
-
I think we all agree that we need to stand by the truth and promote it both in and out of season.
Matthew, the point is, those who want to condone the actions (even slightly) of novus ordo catholics are compromising the Truth. As Catholics condemn protestantism and warn them of their eternal loss, so we have the duty to warn novus ordo catholics of their errors and of their eternal loss. It's not our job (nor do we have the right to, only God does) to make excuses for them, or to rationalize how they are 'good people'; our job is to tell them they need the WHOLE truth to save their souls, which they don't have. If they don't come to tradition and reject the errors of new-Rome, they won't save their souls.
Novus Ordo Catholics are not at any more risk of eternal loss. It's not our job to condemn them ipso facto.
There are plenty of errors floating around in both traditionalist and Novus Ordo segments of the Church. Neo-Ultramontanism, Jansenism, Donatism, Apparition-chasing among some of the more common problems.
There is no doctrine in traditional Catholicism that is not accepted officially in the Novus Ordo. Though it appears both Novus Ordo and traditionalists are picking and choosing which doctrines they want to emphasize and which ones to ignore.
The sedevacantists are a different manner because they don't believe the Extraordinary Magisterium has infallibly declared the male-only priesthood. So, they are incrementally moving more and more into a definitive schism.
-
The mantra begins once again, and again refusing to consider the intent of the creators, and the wicked Pope who inserted this false ritual into the Church.
-
It's not our job (nor do we have the right to, only God does) to make excuses for them, or to rationalize how they are 'good people'; our job is to tell them they need the WHOLE truth to save their souls, which they don't have. If they don't come to tradition and reject the errors of new-Rome, they won't save their souls.
Why? How can you say that? Because "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" combined with the fact the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church? Nonsense!
See, you're preaching ecclesiavacantism. I am not sedevacantist and I'm not ecclesiavacantist. I don't believe the Conciliar Church is something completely other than the Catholic Church. There's something still Catholic there. (Whether anyone, even a Downs Syndrome sufferer, should ever attend is another issue, which is certainly open for debate and I'm not even sure what the objectively correct answer is.)
That would only be true if we were talking about PROTESTANTS. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Outside the Church there is no salvation. They are not necessarily protestant. There are some conservative Catholics in the Novus Ordo licking up the specks of Catholicism they find on the ground. Pathetic, yes. But in their will they want to be Catholic, and they have been baptised, and they do their best to attend "Catholic churches" every Sunday, so they are Catholic. Their sacraments are questionable, but not the sacrament of Baptism. So, at worst, they would be in the same state as the Japanese Catholics. They could die IN the Novus Ordo and be in the state of grace and save their souls.
The Mystical Body of Christ could only be undergoing its own Passion if it's the Mystical Body of Christ! If it's some Montinian sect or Bugninian sect, it's not the Mystical Body of Christ and we lose the whole meaning of the Crisis in the Church!
Your perspective on the Novus Ordo is skewed. Do you know, for example, how many TAN Books have been sold to Novus Ordo Catholics over the past 50 years? A lot. Those books are seriously Catholic. If some in the Novus Ordo have the Faith, it might be through miraculous intervention, supplemental catechism (though things like TAN books), etc.
However, with the errors, danger, pitfalls all over the place in the Conciliar Church, saving their souls becomes EXTREMELY DIFFICULT or RARE. It is *imprudent* to stay there.
You're rounding up. 99% or even 99.9% is not 100%.
The Novus Ordo is like a battlefield with an intense bombardment of artillery occurring. The wounded are all over the place; some with no legs, others with a big hole in them, others bleeding out. Some, of course, are dead. But there are a few survivors that are extremely lucky that somehow have escaped with no wounds, or just a few superficial bullet wounds, after 5 hours of this bombardment. You can't say "they're all dead" when right now there are still survivors. Yes, they need to get the heck out of there, and anyone would be foolish to run in and join them on that battlefield, but you can't deny the reality: there are survivors.
-
+W provided exceptions for when one could attend the NO. I believe there are 100% no exceptions.
Yes. And this is Bishop Williamson's deviation from the Archbishop because Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is bad in itself. Therefore, there can be no exceptions that would justify attendance.
Bishop Williamson himself publicly stated in one of his Letters to the Rector that Archbishop Lefebvre said that the New Mass is intrinsically evil.
Matthew, you are treading dangerous waters by defending Bishop Williamson's words on this matter because this makes you too deviate from the Archbishop's position.
I am keeping an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass and the Crisis in the Church.
I realize that God hasn't stepped in and clarified *anything* yet. We're all flying blind here, going with what we feel is the best solution to keep the Faith. But none of us has any certainty, except for things like judging by the fruits, our feelings, our sensus catholicus, etc.
Did you have an open mind about the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass prior to Bishop Williamson's comments in Mahopac, NY? Did you question it being intrinsically evil before his comments?
Yes. I've always been more interested in the truth, even when it's difficult and complicated, rather than the simplistic solutions of the sedevacantists.
-
The mantra begins once again, and again refusing to consider the intent of the creators, and the wicked Pope who inserted this false ritual into the Church.
What was the intent of those who invented crucifixion?
-
The mantra begins once again, and again refusing to consider the intent of the creators, and the wicked Pope who inserted this false ritual into the Church.
What was the intent of those who invented crucifixion?
Unfortunately, we do not have the words both written and spoken of those individuals, but as regards the New Order we do have the intent on record.
-
Matthew,
Novus Ordo Catholics are objectively in error. If they do not change, they cannot save their souls. This is catholic logic.
Now, SUBJECTIVELY, God will judge them based on intentions and circuмstances. Neither you nor I (nor +W) can hand out either mercy or judgement in this realm, either for or against them. We must base our conclusions on facts.
As the Church condemns no one to hell, even those who commit ѕυιcιdє; yet, based on the facts, a ѕυιcιdє situation is not allowed a catholic burial because of the extreme scandal it would cause and the grave sin committed.
So I condemn no one to hell for attending the new mass, But I do judge their actions and say they are in grave error and commit grave sacrileges which warrant hell, should they die in that state. I don't wish it to be the case but I don't make the rules, God does. Which is why I'll continue to preach they are in error and need to change, instead of telling them to continue on their merry way in error.
Should we NOT be trying to convert them? You want to call what they are doing evil, yet not tell them to stop. What sense does that make? At least I'm being logical.
-
Good idea and points for the matter of faith. Just do like Our Lady
of Fatima suggested. Holy Rosary (Latin is best as St Pope Pius 10)
had in mind. We need to wear the brown scapular and be invested
in the Confraternity. Many forget that part and get it blessed only.
-
The tool the devil uses well against us is despair in that
we shall lose and fail no matter what. Then he causes us
to be so distracted we forget what is real ! :pray::smile:
-
The mantra begins once again, and again refusing to consider the intent of the creators, and the wicked Pope who inserted this false ritual into the Church.
What was the intent of those who invented crucifixion?
Unfortunately, we do not have the words both written and spoken of those individuals, but as regards the New Order we do have the intent on record.
Paul VI's stated intentions are the only one that matter when it comes to the introduction or modification of a rite of the Church during his reign.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
Those are the stated intentions, whether there were traitors and others with their own agenda is neither here nor there as far as the legitimacy of the rite goes.
And whether or not Paul VI's intentions were naive and his efforts a failure is irrelevant to whether or not it was licit for him to do what he did.
John XXIII had one set of stated intentions for Vatican II, he had LeFebvre on the schemata commission. His intentions from the opening speech never manifested themselves and instead the opposite occurred.
Paul VI had a set of intentions declared for the Novus Ordo. It didn't work. He even admitted it. He thought it was going to be bright skies and it turned out to be dark clouds.
-
Should we NOT be trying to convert them? You want to call what they are doing evil, yet not tell them to stop. What sense does that make? At least I'm being logical.
Of course we should be trying to awaken them to the truth, as many as will listen.
As I've been saying, there is a grave danger to the Faith in attending the Novus Ordo. We have 45+ years of proof of what happens to the faith -- and morality -- of most Catholics when they get a steady diet of Novus Ordo.
I never said we shouldn't tell them to stop.
We should always do our best to speak the truth to them, and HOPE they will follow our wise counsel.
-
Of course we should be trying to awaken them to the truth, as many as will listen.
As I've been saying, there is a grave danger to the Faith in attending the Novus Ordo. We have 45+ years of proof of what happens to the faith -- and morality -- of most Catholics when they get a steady diet of Novus Ordo.
I never said we shouldn't tell them to stop.
We should always do our best to speak the truth to them, and HOPE they will follow our wise counsel.
Great. Sounds like we agree, based on the OBJECTIVE errors of new Rome. But all of your other arguments/comments where you stop short of condeming the actions of who follow new rome, are based on SUBJECTIVE/INTERNAL reasons, over which we have no way to judge, measure, or investigate. Therefore, we can (and are only allowed to) judge actions at the OBJECTIVE level. And objectively, those who attend the novus ordo are committing sin, and it's not "pharisaical scorn" to say so; quite the contrary, it's charitable to try to convert the sinner.
-
Of course we should be trying to awaken them to the truth, as many as will listen.
As I've been saying, there is a grave danger to the Faith in attending the Novus Ordo. We have 45+ years of proof of what happens to the faith -- and morality -- of most Catholics when they get a steady diet of Novus Ordo.
I never said we shouldn't tell them to stop.
We should always do our best to speak the truth to them, and HOPE they will follow our wise counsel.
Great. Sounds like we agree, based on the OBJECTIVE errors of new Rome. But all of your other arguments/comments where you stop short of condeming the actions of who follow new rome, are based on SUBJECTIVE/INTERNAL reasons, over which we have no way to judge, measure, or investigate. Therefore, we can (and are only allowed to) judge actions at the OBJECTIVE level. And objectively, those who attend the novus ordo are committing sin, and it's not "pharisaical scorn" to say so; quite the contrary, it's charitable to try to convert the sinner.
This is the Fr. Cekada argument that attending a TLM in which the name of the "antipope" is mentioned is sinful for any Catholic to attend.
Quick question, if the consecration is valid and Christ is present, are the angels also present? And if they are, are they sinning as well?
The truth is, objectively they are not sinning, those that sin are the people that positively intend to offend God or are completely indifferent towards God in their attitude. You don't need the Novus Ordo for that, you can have that in any rite of the Church.
Sin occurs due to the full knowledge and full consent of the will.
-
Sin occurs due to the full knowledge and full consent of the will.
No, FULL GUILT for sin occurs due to full knowledge and full consent. Sin is sin, regardless of intent.
-
Gerard,
This is the Fr. Cekada argument that attending a TLM in which the name of the "antipope" is mentioned is sinful for any Catholic to attend.
Don't put words into my mouth. I never mentioned Fr Cekada, nor the pope.
Quick question, if the consecration is valid and Christ is present, are the angels also present? And if they are, are they sinning as well?
Angels can't sin, they've already been judged. Angels are present everywhere, even where sin is committed. Doesn't mean they condone it.
The truth is, objectively they are not sinning, those that sin are the people that positively intend to offend God or are completely indifferent towards God in their attitude. You don't need the Novus Ordo for that, you can have that in any rite of the Church.
Sin is sin, whether we recognize it or not. That's because truth exists outside our conscience, which can be ill-formed.
-
Sin occurs due to the full knowledge and full consent of the will.
No, FULL GUILT for sin occurs due to full knowledge and full consent. Sin is sin, regardless of intent.
And that is the truth. When God is offended by an action or inaction, he is offended, a sin has happened. That, regardless of our level of awareness.
Knowledge and consent are the determinants of our culpability.
What is always swept under the rug by apologists is our obligation to be aware of what is going to offend Him. That can only happen by responding to His grace and using our intellect, reason, and diligence to find and submit to the Truth.
Who can argue that the truth about the alien nature and danger of the Novus Ordo is not readily available and easily found in our time? And yet it is proposed that most who are blanketed by the so called cloak of ignorance of it, bear no responsibility for being in this state.
-
Who can argue that the truth about the alien nature and danger of the Novus Ordo is not readily available and easily found in our time? And yet it is proposed that most who are blanketed by the so called cloak of ignorance of it, bear no responsibility for being in this state.
THIS!!!!!
-
Sin occurs due to the full knowledge and full consent of the will.
No, FULL GUILT for sin occurs due to full knowledge and full consent. Sin is sin, regardless of intent.
No. Sin is not an object. Sin is an action done by force of the will that is opposed to a virtue.
It is not a sin to accidentally spill the Holy Eucharist out of the Cyborium. It is a sin to deliberately dump the Sacred Species onto the floor.
-
Gerard,
This is the Fr. Cekada argument that attending a TLM in which the name of the "antipope" is mentioned is sinful for any Catholic to attend.
Don't put words into my mouth. I never mentioned Fr Cekada, nor the pope.
Don't accuse me of things I haven't done. You make the same argument as Cekada. It's not my fault the two of you make the same errors.
Quick question, if the consecration is valid and Christ is present, are the angels also present? And if they are, are they sinning as well?
Angels can't sin, they've already been judged. Angels are present everywhere, even where sin is committed. Doesn't mean they condone it.
Oh but Angels aren't just present. You can't dodge the obvious. They participate in the Liturgy. The confiteor the Preface and the Sanctus in the Novus Ordo directly invoke the Angels. The consecration is valid, they are there worshipping the Lord.
Your argument is falling apart.
The truth is, objectively they are not sinning, those that sin are the people that positively intend to offend God or are completely indifferent towards God in their attitude. You don't need the Novus Ordo for that, you can have that in any rite of the Church.
Sin is sin, whether we recognize it or not. That's because truth exists outside our conscience, which can be ill-formed.[/quote]
So, the Angels present and worshipping at a valid Novus Ordo are sinning.
Are you going to make the claim that the Angels cannot be worshipping Our Lord at the consecration of a Novus Ordo?
-
Who can argue that the truth about the alien nature and danger of the Novus Ordo is not readily available and easily found in our time? And yet it is proposed that most who are blanketed by the so called cloak of ignorance of it, bear no responsibility for being in this state.
1. The alien nature? The Novus Ordo is the most normal thing in the world to someone raised with it. It's been the normative form of Mass since 1969. It's alien to US TRADS maybe...
2. As for the danger of the Novus Ordo, how are "most" Catholics supposed to figure that one out? By going to obscure forums where an extreme group of politically incorrect, anti-Semitic Catholics called "Traditional Catholics" frequent? Another miss. Most Catholics have only other Novus Ordo Catholics as well as protestants and atheists for friends. Which of them is going to enlighten them to the true nature of the Crisis, Quo Primum, etc.? Is their priest going to enlighten them?
3. The full force of history (the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, it has survived it all) all the impressive buildings/infrastructure, as well as the entire authority structure -- the hierarchy -- tend to support the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. Why would anyone question it on their own, without Providence or God's grace sending a Trad into their path?
4. The question of numbers is a good matter for debate. I'm certainly not saying "most Novus Ordo Catholics are innocent, swimming in invincible ignorance." It might be 60%, 40%, 20%, 10%, 5% -- God only knows. All I know is that I've seen several, so I know they exist.
5. Furthermore, despite some pious Trads wishing to confess their Novus Ordo experience in their first Trad confession (that's between you and God), not every "convert" to Tradition needs to do this. St. Augustine was a wicked sinner and then converted. A converted Trad could actually DISCOVER Tradition and promptly give up the Novus Ordo, and basically be guiltless. So what was he 1 day before he discovered Tradition? A Catholic who unfortunately had ignorance. Not a non-Catholic outside the Church.
Again, to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ all that is necessary is belief in the Incarnation, Trinity, and Redemption, and to be baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Everything else (being well catechized, being in the state of Grace) is secondary.
Being in the state of mortal sin makes you a dead member, but a member nevertheless. Sin only determines the virtue of Charity, not the virtue of Faith. Faith is believing God because he can neither deceive nor be deceived, and believing everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches.
-
The Black Mass is evil because Sacrilege is an intrinsic element in it.
Such as desecrating the host, hideous music, immodesty, and general impiety?
You can't have a pious attitude and participate in it.
What if you're ignorant, and don't know any better? What if a downs syndrome sufferer (with a mental capacity of a 6 year old, don't forget!), or an old lady of 95 shows up, and can't understand the backwards Latin? Surely God looks a the subjective and not the objective. Right?
The prayers are literally said backwards and if it's the worst of the worst, you can't have a child abused, murdered and cannibalized and somehow think you are offering homage to God.
So, among other things, ignoring and breaking rubrics on purpose contributes to its sacrilegious nature? Check.
The Novus Ordo is not intrinsically evil because it is intrinsically worship of God with all the elements necessary for a valid consecration.
So, as long as there's a valid consecration and it's "intrinsically worship of God", it can't be intrinsically evil. Gotcha.
It simply does not have the defenses built into it that the TLM adopted over the years.
Is that all? It's simply a matter of a little shoring its defenses up here and there, adding a little duct tape, and we're golden? You mean, like Fessio's "Reform of the Reform" movement? I think you're on the wrong forum.
A Knight isn't a Knight because he has armor. He should have armor but if he isn't always in his armor he is a Knight.
Ok.
The purpose of Bugnini and Paul VI and others were multiple and varied and they were not all malicious.
They were not all malicious, eh? Then by definition some of them must have been malicious. How many malicious purposes does it take?
Most modernists are not malicious as St. Pius X pointed out in Pascendi.
Perhaps, but their doctrines and that which is spawned by their doctrines are most certainly malicious (and intrinsically evil).
God does not hand down liturgies from Heaven.
You need to read the Old Testament. Specifically Leviticus and Numbers.
They develop over time by men adding and subtracting.
Are you saying the Novus Ordo was simply a (presumably organic) "development", and not a "New Order" of saying Mass?
The Novus Ordo is far more organized than the earliest liturgical forms of the Church.
Bull****.
Everything in the Novus Ordo as promulgated has its basis in Catholic liturgy, scripture and traditions of both east and west.
Is that why they dumped 70% of the offertory, changed virtually every prayer, created fancy new ones, and dropped nearly all the propers that deal with distinctly Catholic subjects like purgatory, sin, penance, etc.?
The alleged Protestant elements are Catholic elements that Protestants took with them. They did not cease to be Catholic.
I guess Archbishop Lefebvre didn't get that memo. If only he'd have known! We could have avoided this whole "operation survival" thing!
Quo Primun does not bind a Pope from offering another liturgy.
But it does specifically prohibit any Latin Rite priest from using said liturgy (presumably until a future pope gives him specific permission to do otherwise). Here's a link to Missale Romanum (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html). Let us know when you find the part where it gives any priest, Latin Rite or otherwise, permission to say mass according to the new missal. We'll wait.
Pius XII settled it in Mediator Dei when he said only the Pope is allowed to touch anything concerning the worship of God. He didn't make a caveat for Pro Quimum. He literally said a Pope can modify and even introduce new rites as he sees fit.
Are you seriously appealing to Mediator Dei to justify the New Mass? Have you even read the thing?
The TLM is a richer liturgy with a lot more potential for a person to subjectively extract graces and develop their faith with.
That's very generous of you. Paul VI said nearly the same thing in the opening paragraph of Missale Romanum, before he proceeded to make a mockery of it. "You're very beautiful, but...."
But obviously people were not doing that. So God has allowed the TLM to be suppressed and some Catholics have to work for it, and appreciate it.
:scratchchin:
But that doesn't mean that a Novus Ordo Catholic can't actually work with less and achieve a higher degree of sanctity than quite a few trad Catholics.
Hey! Sometimes less is more, right? I mean, at the end of the day, Conciliar Catholic, Trad Catholic... what's in a label? Why can't we all just, get along? Why can't we ... join forces? Why don't we... work together?
Bishop Fellay, is that you?
God cares more about the subjective state of the person's piety than the objective state of a person's practice.
But... but... earlier in this thread, Matthew tried to tell me that none of us can claim to speak for "The Almighty." I guess it's OK if you do it.
{snip}
You can attend the Novus Ordo with the mentality of the Widow of the "Widow's mite" and God will reward your faith.
By giving you the grace to get out of there, perhaps? What a silly notion! After all, the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass are just two expressions of the same Rite and all. You sound like an ordinary/extraordinary-form sorta guy.
What traditional Catholics have to develop is the attitude of the Widow with the TLM.
Preach it, brother Gerard!
One more point: Subjectivity is the interior understanding of the objective reality etc., etc., etc.
Whatever.
-
It is a Catholic rite because a Pope has the power to introduce new rites.
:facepalm:
A schismatic sect does not make a rite intrinsically evil.
Are you saying that the Novus Ordo sect is schismatic? Just checking.
There are already rites in the Church that developed outside of communion with Rome. The Syra Malankara rite and Syro Malabar rites developed after separation from Rome and were incorporated into the Church prior to Vatican II. So, prior to Vatican II the Church approved rites that were the product of truly schismatic sects.
What does that have to do with the Novus Ordo? That came AFTER Vatican II :)
RE: Cranmer's liturgy, first, it's not necessarily intrinsically evil just because it was part of an evil agenda by Cranmer.
Oh, silly people, of course it isn't. Just because it reflects the doctrine and beliefs of Protestantism, and eliminates a number of Catholic doctrines (Lex orandi, lex credendi), and is said outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff, that doesn't mean it's evil. What an outrageous notion!
The second point, is a Pope has the right to introduce or modify rites, only him, not Cranmer, but if he wants how Cranmer or St. John Chrysostom or the Syro Malabar Catholics wanted the ordering of the rite to be, it's legitimate.
Yes, because what really matters is, not Tradition, not the doctrine and liturgy of the ages, nor preserving and protecting the faith among the people, but whatever he feels like doing this week.
Secretary: "Your Holiness, did you sleep well?"
Pope: "Yes, George. I had an inspiration while I was sitting on the john. I feel like shaking things up a little bit. You know, putting some pizzazz into the spiritual lives of the people. I was reading on CathInfo and, according to Gerard of FE, whatever I want 'the ordering of the rite to be, it's legitimate'. I think I'll approve altar girls this morning. But after breakfast."
Cranmer's liturgy is also eminently fixable since the weaknesses and errors are ones of omission. All that is needed is an additional reinforcement on the sacrificial aspect of the priest and it is Catholic with the approval of the Pope.
Just a little duct tape, and it's worthy of "The Almighty."
If a liturgy is fixable, it is by definition not intrinsically evil.
Even a Black Mass is fixable :) It might take a couple of rolls of duct tape, but hey!
The Novus Ordo could theoretically be improved to the point where it addresses all of the current errors and if done right, with rubrical adjustments could be at least equal to the TLM.
Yup. Reform of the Reform. I'm sure the moderator will correct the errors of your ways, though.
So there are errors in the Novus Ordo? I thought if the pope wanted to shake things up after breakfast, it was legitimate? Are you saying the Catholic Church can give us erroneous Rites?
Hmmm....
-
Novus Ordo Catholics are not at any more risk of eternal loss.
Yes, that's why we're Trads and not Novus Ordo Catholics.
Wait a minute. You mean, I'm traveling an hour to get to a TL Mass every week, and it doesn't increase my risk of eternal loss? What the heck?
It's not our job to condemn them ipso facto.
But it's your job to condemn others ipso facto (sedevacantists, etc.,), right?
There are plenty of errors floating around in both traditionalist and Novus Ordo segments of the Church. Neo-Ultramontanism, Jansenism, Donatism, Apparition-chasing among some of the more common problems.
You forgot to include Modernism, Indifferentism, Syncretism, Ecuмenism, etc. But the important thing is that they mean well. Their subjective intentions have to be...
Nevermind.
There is no doctrine in traditional Catholicism that is not accepted officially in the Novus Ordo.
But there are plenty of doctrines condemned in "Traditional Catholicism" that are officially in the Novus Ordo, such as Modernism, Indifferentism, Syncretism, Ecuмenism, etc. But the important thing is that they mean well. Their subjective intentions have to be...
Nevermind. :)
Though it appears both Novus Ordo and traditionalists are picking and choosing which doctrines they want to emphasize and which ones to ignore.
Yes. It just appears that way. After all, we're one, big, happy Church!
So... could someone remind me again why are we opposing +Fellay and company signing a deal?
The sedevacantists are a different manner because they don't believe the Extraordinary Magisterium has infallibly declared the male-only priesthood. So, they are incrementally moving more and more into a definitive schism.
No comment.
:facepalm:
-
Paul VI's stated intentions are the only one that matter when it comes to the introduction or modification of a rite of the Church during his reign.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
Is that true for just Paul VI or everyone?
Does it matter whether his stated intentions were written in Missale Romanum, or is it OK if they were stated to a friend such as, oh... say, Jean Guitton?
Those are the stated intentions, whether there were traitors and others with their own agenda is neither here nor there as far as the legitimacy of the rite goes.
You have got to be the most gullible human being on CathInfo!
Does this thing about "stated intentions" just work for Paul VI, or does it work for anyone?
My stated intention here is to make you look good! :)
And whether or not Paul VI's intentions were naive and his efforts a failure is irrelevant to whether or not it was licit for him to do what he did.
All that matters is his (stated) intentions, right? Good intentions pave the road to heaven! Doesn't matter if he blew up the Church, or caused enormous distress among the faithful, etc. But the important thing is that he mean well. His subjective intentions have to be...
Wait! That "subjective intention" thing doesn't work anymore? The intentions now have to be STATED? Sheesh.
John XXIII had one set of stated intentions for Vatican II, he had LeFebvre on the schemata commission. His intentions from the opening speech never manifested themselves and instead the opposite occurred.
And whose fault was that? (Hint: He's name rhymes with "yawn")
Paul VI had a set of intentions declared for the Novus Ordo. It didn't work. He even admitted it. He thought it was going to be bright skies and it turned out to be dark clouds.
I'm going to tell you a big, fat, HUGE secret, Gerard of FE. This is a secret that only a FEW people know. Even fewer take it into account when dealing with life. Are you ready?
Shhhh... don't tell this to ANYONE. Are you ready? Wait for it....
People sometimes lie. Yes, that's right! Even popes sometimes lie.
Shhhh. Mum's the word.
-
That's just about all I have the stomach for.
So many posts defending and legitimizing the Novus Ordo.
Unbelievable.
-
That's just about all I have the stomach for.
So many posts defending and legitimizing the Novus Ordo.
Unbelievable.
Agreed, this is the discordant thought and sentimentality which comes from subjectivizing objective realities.
It is indeed unbelievable.
-
The lies just keep coming. Pretend trads that are more interested in being agitators than defending the truth.
The people holding the opinions expressed must have been out to lunch for over 30 years.
Oh the pearl clutching about Williamson! He actually said something that is consistent with what he has said numerous times for decades!
How could people have been deceived so?
This is the "Spirit of Traditionalism" manifested itself. It lives to exaggerate, oversimplify and emote for the purpose of ginning up trouble instead of dealing with the actual crisis in the Church.
It's a movement for the bored, who care little for the faith but are interested in conflict to spice up their lives.
-
That's just about all I have the stomach for.
So many posts defending and legitimizing the Novus Ordo.
Unbelievable.
You don't have the stomach for the truth.
You don't tell the truth about the Novus Ordo objectively.
Then when people call you on it, you distort what they say to fit your perverse narrative.
No wonder you don't have the stomach for it, it can only throw so much bilge upwards.
-
Novus Ordo Missae is certainly valid when celebrated properly and certainly there are people who receive graces through it. When Bishop Williamson spoke about the New Mass his mistake (in my opinion) was not to say that for some people going to the New Mass might be OK (the Novus Ordite wo has the faith but is ignorant of the problems with the New Mass should certainly keep attending it untill he finds out the truth), but that in an answer for explicit question about it he said that going to the New Mass might be OK - the only acceptable answer is "you should not attend it". For example, if I say that some people might be justifed by desire of confession, without actual confession to a priest, it is certainly true - the problem would start if I said to someone "you don't need to go to confession". One does not follow from the other.
The New Mass is wrong, and everyone aware of it should stay away from it, but if someone holds the faith but remains ignorant of these facts, it can be benefitial for him to attend the New Mass untill he or she finds out the truth - it is better than falling away completely and cutting yourself off the sacraments.
-
Paul VI's stated intentions are the only one that matter when it comes to the introduction or modification of a rite of the Church during his reign.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html
Is that true for just Paul VI or everyone?
When it comes to the unique power of the Pope, it's only the Pope's intentions that matter as far as intentions go.
Does it matter whether his stated intentions were written in Missale Romanum, or is it OK if they were stated to a friend such as, oh... say, Jean Guitton?
For legal force? Jean Guitton doesn't matter a wit.
Those are the stated intentions, whether there were traitors and others with their own agenda is neither here nor there as far as the legitimacy of the rite goes.
You have got to be the most gullible human being on CathInfo!
No. I'm actually the most skeptical of people. I'm not so gullible as to cherry pick my issues so as to create a cartoonish narrative that doesn't match reality.
Does this thing about "stated intentions" just work for Paul VI, or does it work for anyone?
My stated intention here is to make you look good! :)
Objectively you succeed in making me look good with your bad arguments. Whether you are sincere or not.
You are asking about Paul Vi's first person statement of intentions or anyone else's 3rd person testimony about what they say Paul VI's intentions were?
It seems you choose which intentions are true based on your agenda.
And whether or not Paul VI's intentions were naive and his efforts a failure is irrelevant to whether or not it was licit for him to do what he did.
All that matters is his (stated) intentions, right? Good intentions pave the road to heaven! Doesn't matter if he blew up the Church, or caused enormous distress among the faithful, etc. But the important thing is that he mean well. His subjective intentions have to be...
Hmm…so I wrote that his intentions are irrelevant and you read that as intentions are the only thing that matters.
Are you seriously insane?
You seem to doggedly avoid condemning Pius XII for stating that Paul VI had the right to do what he did.
Wait! That "subjective intention" thing doesn't work anymore? The intentions now have to be STATED? Sheesh.
Oh. So a person's stated intentions are the opposite of what they intend to do.
Got it.
Are there exceptions to this rule reserved only to you?
John XXIII had one set of stated intentions for Vatican II, he had LeFebvre on the schemata commission. His intentions from the opening speech never manifested themselves and instead the opposite occurred.
And whose fault was that? (Hint: He's name rhymes with "yawn")
The fault is obvious. Every Catholic in the world according to you.
Paul VI had a set of intentions declared for the Novus Ordo. It didn't work. He even admitted it. He thought it was going to be bright skies and it turned out to be dark clouds.
I'm going to tell you a big, fat, HUGE secret, Gerard of FE. This is a secret that only a FEW people know. Even fewer take it into account when dealing with life. Are you ready?
Shhhh... don't tell this to ANYONE. Are you ready? Wait for it....
People sometimes lie. Yes, that's right! Even popes sometimes lie.
Shhhh. Mum's the word.
[/quote]
(in whispered tones…)….I know. And here's an even bigger secret. Sometimes self-professed trads lie. Even saints have lied.
And to the same degree sometimes a liberal/ progressive will tell the truth that trads don't want to hear, even a liberal Pope will sometimes tell the truth.
shhh…...
-
Matthew,
The Novus Ordo is the most normal thing in the world to someone raised with it.
Relativism, Subjectivism, and Modernism are 'normal' parts of our society too. Doesn't mean God will not show them the truth if they have good will. But most do not have good will, which is a sad reality.
It's not relativism because the person is not equating it with what they don't know.
It's not subjectivism because it doesn't mean that a person believes there is no objective truth.
It's not modernism because it doesn't mean that a person in the Novus Ordo believes the truths of the faith evolve.
Are you just randomly throwing "isms" out to see what sticks?
I'm waiting for you to accuse them of Cubism or Racism next.
-
Matthew,
God wills all men to be saved and will enlighten those who have good will. I've talked to countless people who have converted from the novus ordo. They prayed to God to show them the truth and He did.
Protestants say the same thing who've left Catholicism. Just because they discovered something they think is wrong with the Novus Ordo does not mean they have correctly discovered the real errors. Also it does not mean they have discovered the truth of traditionalism, but rather have simply glommed onto it as a means to justify their errors.
They may have prayed that God show them the truth, but it may not be the case that they have responded to the truth or correctly responded to the truth revealed.
Smells and bells do not guarantee a traditional Catholic is orthodox in their beliefs.
-
Matthew,
Ok, he's still a catholic. But if we believe that the TLM is the True Mass, then if one converts to the TLM religion, one must confess that he did NOT attend the True Mass for as long as he attended the Novus Ordo. His level of guilt is irrelevant. Objectively, he sinned by not attending the true mass and not fuliflling his sunday obligation.
Is a Syro Malabar Catholic a "true Catholic" attending the "true mass"?
Is Syro Malabar Catholicism the same religion as "the TLM religion" or not?
You seem to admitting that Catholicism has a number of religions, if you claim there is a "TLM religion" but Novus Ordo Catholics are Catholics. So we have at least 3 religions, Syro Malabar, Novus Ordo and "the TLM".
You are actually the one sliding into relativism.
-
Wow, this thread is now officially, "out there".
All anyone needs to do, is to compare the True Mass to the new "mass", in so doing, you are comparing the True Mass to it's intended replacement, which is the easiest and most direct way to see the obvious. The obvious being of course that arguably, the only thing Catholic about the new "mass" is that the priest wears vestments, and I think a candle or two is set on the table.
That is the easiest way to see that one Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary and the other is a mockery of that Holy Sacrifice of Calvary.
-
Out there for certain! :roll-laugh1:
-
Wow, this thread is now officially, "out there".
All anyone needs to do, is to compare the True Mass to the new "mass", in so doing, you are comparing the True Mass to it's intended replacement, which is the easiest and most direct way to see the obvious. The obvious being of course that arguably, the only thing Catholic about the new "mass" is that the priest wears vestments, and I think a candle or two is set on the table.
That is the easiest way to see that one Mass is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary and the other is a mockery of that Holy Sacrifice of Calvary.
You are correct of course, but you must be careful! You might hurt someone's feelings.
Could we have passed through a Dinotopian wormhole and exited into the Conciliar Nebula?.........................
-
That's just about all I have the stomach for.
So many posts defending and legitimizing the Novus Ordo.
Unbelievable.
And yet would this be the case if Bishop Williamson hadn't made his comments?
I hope His Excellency comes to realize the damage that he has caused in the Resistance and publicly retracts his error. Too many people, including the owner of this forum, have performed mental somersaults in trying to defend his words. What they should be pushing for instead is a public retraction from His Excellency.
The lies just keep coming. Pretend trads that are more interested in being agitators than defending the truth.
The people holding the opinions expressed must have been out to lunch for over 30 years.
Oh the pearl clutching about Williamson! He actually said something that is consistent with what he has said numerous times for decades!
How could people have been deceived so?
This is the "Spirit of Traditionalism" manifested itself. It lives to exaggerate, oversimplify and emote for the purpose of ginning up trouble instead of dealing with the actual crisis in the Church.
It's a movement for the bored, who care little for the faith but are interested in conflict to spice up their lives.
Gerard,
This issue has already dealt with Archbishop Lefebvre, the beacon of light in the darkness of this age. The Archbishop said that the New Mass is bad in itself. The Resistance tries to maintain his position on the New Mass, Vatican II, and other things. You have said otherwise about the New Mass, so therefore I will argue with you simply by pointing to the Archbishop. I will not get into a deep theological debate. The issue has been settled as far as I am concerned.
-
Pax Vobis, you are the one in error.
One does not lose the virtue of Faith by committing mortal sin. Go look it up. I'll wait.
The virtue of Charity is lost -- that is Sanctifying Grace.
A member in mortal sin is a "dead member" but a member nonetheless. I'm the one keeping the true doctrine of the Catholic Faith.
You are some kind of sedevacantist.
This is what I get for allowing so many sedevacantists on this forum. But when I have occasion to think deeply about their attitude towards the Church, I realize why I'm not a sedevacantist, and why I'll never be one.
And while I appreciate your "line by line rebuttal" of my entire post, (as if I can't get anything right), I had to delete it because it was way off. The first several points you were barking up the wrong tree (things I would agree with, but you make it look like I disagreed with), and the last point was a clear-cut error that just embarrassed you, so I did you a favor.
My point about the Novus Ordo being normal to people was very specific. Someone said, "Don't they see how alien it all is" and I responded, "No, it's actually anything but alien to THEM". And there are many things around them which confirm them that IF they suspected any problems with the Novus Ordo or the Conciliar Church in general, they will likely think "it's just ME" and not a real problem.
-
You are correct, I mispoke. One does not lose the virtue of Faith through mortal sin (yet certain sins against Faith can weaken it immensely). However, the perfect operation of Faith requires sanctifying grace and the actuation of charity. A person in mortal sin, according to Trent, has a faith, which is not animated by charity. Therefore, as I stated correctly, sin weakens our faith.
-
When I first saw the TLM many years ago at an SSPX chapel, I was amazed at how much it reminded me of the Novus Ordo masses I attended in the early 1970s.
I noticed enormous differences of course, but I also noticed the enormous similarities and it made me aware of great differences between the Novus Ordo circa 1974 vs. 1996 or 2001.
Consequently, with the return of the TLM beyond the SSPX and the Indult, I'm amazed at how in some of the externals, the TLMs are sloppy compared to the Novus Ordos of the 1970s.
This is probably due to well trained faithful who knew how to behave along with well trained clergy that couldn't do a sloppy mass no matter how hard they tried, even if it was a Novus Ordo.
In some TLM places, you'll find chaos going to and from the Communion Rail, the endless wailing of babies and small children, endless variations on how the altar boys move, altar rail cloths, no altar rail cloths, filing to communion before, during or after the "Domine non sum dignus.." some female heads covered, some not, some men can't put on a tie to save their lives or their souls it seems. Chewing Holy Communion, going to communion and returning with badly folded hands or not bothering at all. Various forms of lining up for communion. This is at SSPX and Diocesant TLMs by the way.
Sloppiness was brought into the Novus Ordo, it didn't start with it. There were rushed and lazy TLMs prior to the Novus Ordo. Now there are sloppy Novus Ordos and sloppy TLMs as well as some good TLMs and a few (very few) good Novus Ordos.
What can be concluded is that so far over the last century, neither liturgy has been a "success" at rallying the faithful and fighting the material errors of the world and the theological errors running rampant in the Church.
The TLM rolled over with barely a whimper except from a few places and people. The Novus Ordo is soft, unstable and malleable to the point of uselessness if it's twisted far enough. I remember reading an article written the week of the official implementation of the Novus Ordo and a number of young people were expressing disappointment. Not in the rubrics or the changes, but that fact that the Novus Ordo wasn't any shorter in time and they weren't getting church over with any faster.
From looking at the state of traditionalism and the Novus Ordo as it has been utilized, it's apparent that the solution to the crisis isn't going to necessarily be something from either set of liturgical books by themselves.
-
I agree with Matthew. It is not about objective (relating to the object chosen) or subjective (relating to the subject who chooses) but about intrinsic (in itself) and extrinsic as we shall see below. I challenge any proponent of the opposing view to satisfactorily answer the following simple questions.
First, like it or not, here are a few statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre when the New Mass was implemented as recorded in Bishop Tissier's biography, http://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass (1) "Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation." (2) the New Mass "is ambivalent and ambiguous because one priest can say it with a totally Catholic faith in the sacrifice, etc., and another can say it with a different intention" (3) “it is an exaggeration to say that most of these Masses are invalid ... Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism.” While some claim - and others like Mr. Michael Davies deny - there was an evolution or a hardening in Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the New Mass later on, the statements above are incompatible with the view that the New Mass is intrinsically (in itself and in every circuмstance) sinful.
The correct position is that the New Mass is sinful extrinsically and often in practice, and therefore it is justified and sometimes necessary (after discerning God's calling) to make the principled decision to attend the true Mass exclusively. This is, as it were, a higher calling to a life of heroic sacrifice necessary for the restoration of Tradition in the Church and in the world. Those who have received and remained faithful to this call should rejoice, for a great crown awaits us if we persevere to the end without making hasty judgments about other things beyond our immediate duties. But truth is not in need of any embellishment or exaggeration, so it should not be thought necessary to overstate what is wrong with the New Mass. The questions -
1. When does a valid rite become intrinsically evil? Think this through and don't give "shoot from the hip" answers. Don't tell me anything forbidden by the rubrics is intrinsically sinful, for that is self-evidently false. A priest is commanded to do many things and forbidden to do many other things by the Popes and the Church when offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Quo Primum forbade many Missals, and none of those missals were intrinsically evil. If the priest disregards what the Church commands, he sins but the Mass does not become intrinsically evil. His omission is therefore an extrinsic evil. So, how much of an omission - or what sin of commission - makes a valid Mass intrinsically evil?
A possible answer for illustration - when there is strict heresy in the Mass, not merely ambiguity. All agree that a heretical Mass - let alone a blasphemous Satanic Black Mass - is an intrinsic evil. Heresy is therefore a sin of commission that makes even a valid rite intrinsically evil. So, again, what sin of omission would do it likewise? In this light, Archbishop Lefebvre related an incident on Cardinal Mindsentzy offering Holy Mass in prison saying no more than just the words of consecration. Would such a Mass be intrinsically evil? +ABL did not seem to think so.
-
2. How is it possible for every Bishop appointed by the Pope to offer a Mass that is not only intrinsically evil, as many of you rigorists maintain, but is as bad as or even worse than a Black Mass? How does this square with the indefectibility promised to the Teaching Church, as the Gospel itself, and all of traditional theology always taught it? The answer is that it cannot be squared, and therefore the authority of the Church teaching must lead you to the opposite conclusion - not the New Mass is intrinsically evil, therefore the Church teaching is not the Church. But rather, the Church teaching is indefectible by the divine promise, therefore the New Mass is not intrinsically evil.
Were it true what you practical sedevacantists and effective ecclesiavacantists maintain - it would follow that the Catholic and Apostolic Church, comprised of and identified by the Successor of Peter and the other Apostles in episcopal sees, the hierarchical episcopal college (ecclesia docens) is second to none, the greatest instrument of Satan in this world. Any rite universally used by the hierarchs in the Church cannot be intrinsically sinful, this is a truth of faith, a dogmatic fact against which there can be no argument.
He who cannot see that that is heretical to maintain and contrary to indefectibility, let him hear Van Noort who says, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain ... The Church was endowed with infallibility ... the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine ... Proof: From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (Auctorem fidei (DB 1571). A more detailed explanation,
"When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment: 1. “This law squares with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. “This law, considering all the circuмstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.
Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church's rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs [comment - this is why it can be legitimate to respectfully criticize the implementation of a rite, as even Pope Benedict XVI frequently did]. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature (comment - this is what is meant by intrinsic evil) conducive to the injury of souls."
Traditional theology calls this secondary or disciplinary infallibility, you can find it explained in any manual or even the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It is a truth so basic every Catholic would be expected to know it, but the exaggerations and embellishments of many have led to a point where it is no longer known, no longer believed, that the Church our Mother, the Immaculate Bride of God, cannot give stones to Her children who ask for bread, much less Satanic poison to children who ask for the Bread of Life. The only way forward for those who insist the New Mass is intrinsically evil is to either maintain that no, the Church can in fact give intrinsic evil or to say the Church teaching, the hierarchical episcopal college that has succeeded St. Peter and the Apostles in an unbroken line in episcopal sees going back to the Apostolic age, is not the Church and fall into ecclesia-vacantism, which is heretical. As Sherlock Holmes put it, when the impossible is eliminated, what remains must be the truth. We should know that when we have eliminated what is contrary to the Faith, the remaining conclusion is the correct one. And that is the truth proved by reason and authority alike, namely that the New Mass is extrinsically defective in comparison to the true Mass but is not intrinsically evil as a Black Mass would be.
-
2. How is it possible for every Bishop appointed by the Pope to offer a Mass that is not only intrinsically evil, as many of you rigorists maintain, but is as bad as or even worse than a Black Mass? How does this square with the indefectibility promised to the Teaching Church, as the Gospel itself, and all of traditional theology always taught it? The answer is that it cannot be squared, and therefore the authority of the Church teaching must lead you to the opposite conclusion - not the New Mass is intrinsically evil,
Sedevacantists would agree with this principle. And I agree with the SVs (and yourself) on this point. So that's really the point of contention, isn't it? Mostly R&R types would disagree with you regarding this principle. Bishop Williamson in the past has gotten around this using the non-promulgation argument, but that doesn't address your issue that all the Bishops appointed by the putative pope offer this Mass. Of course this fails to consider the Eastern Rite liturgies which suffer from no such defects. Your argument entirely contradicts the position taken by Bishop Williamson. He has argued that non-promulgation (as he sees it) suffices R&R to be able to maintain that the Conciliar Church uses a defective Rite of Mass.
Evil by definition is a privation of good, and the NOM is evil, instrinsically, based on positive defects ... as outlined in the Ottaviani intervention, criticisms with which I completely agree.
-
When does a valid rite become intrinsically evil?
1) You assume that it's valid.
2) Defects such as those outlined in the Ottaviani intervention can make the Mass positively evil.
Again, evil is by definition a privation of good. Black Masses obviously add positive blasphemy and are therefore obviously more gravely evil than the NOM, but the NOM can also be considered intrinsically evil due to its articulation of a Protestant liturgical theology (again, cf. Ottaviani Intervention). +Lefebvre himself called it a "bastard rite" of Mass that displeases God.
-
the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. ... To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Ergo, intrinsically evil.
I invite you all to re-read the Intervention:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm
-
When does a valid rite become intrinsically evil?
1) You assume that it's valid.
2) Defects such as those outlined in the Ottaviani intervention can make the Mass positively evil.
Again, evil is by definition a privation of good. Black Masses obviously add positive blasphemy and are therefore obviously more gravely evil than the NOM, but the NOM can also be considered intrinsically evil due to its articulation of a Protestant liturgical theology (again, cf. Ottaviani Intervention). +Lefebvre himself called it a "bastard rite" of Mass that displeases God.
Yes, there is much taking for granted that this ritual is valid. That is false as such.
Between the defects within and its authors admission that it was to be a rite that the Protestant heretics would feel comfortable using would make it not conformable to the Catholic Religion.
And when you add in the uncertainty of the New Order priesthood and its varying intentions there is no certainty that any given Novus Ordo "mass" is valid, which places doubt upon the would be sacrament.
The Church does not allow a Catholic to approach a doubtful or an uncertain sacrament under pain of Mortal sin.
Many of the features of this impious affair are the subject of prior condemnations of the Church. That alone renders it against the will and the mind of the Church.
One wonders at the weakness and worldliness of modern Catholics, when so many thousands of the English Martyrs died in the most horrid ways rather than attend what was essentially the same false ritual and mockery of the Catholic Mass. They knew what was Catholic and what was not and surrendered their lives for what was true and refused what was false.
Cranmer's "mass" was written and imposed by heretics, so was this one. The fact that they are almost identical is not coincidence. It is all the work of the Devil and his servants the Jews.
Anything that diminishes or hides the clear and precise representation of Christ's Holy Sacrifice as was given to us by the Church and Christ must be wicked and evil, because it is against Christ Himself.
He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
And the proof is in the scattering which has taken place since the council and the imposition of this banal Protestant drama upon a trusting and obedient Church.
-
the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. ... To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
Ergo, intrinsically evil.
I invite you all to re-read the Intervention:
https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm
Yet Ottaviani remained a faithful son of the Church. He could not say that the Novus Ordo Mass was invalid or intrinsically evil. How could he? The only way one can affirm that the N.O.M. is actually "intrinsically evil", or inherently sacrilegious (not merely inferior or massively abused by leftist liberal priests, but actually indeed evil) is to hold a sedevacantist (or sedeprivationist) stance AND be correct on that position, meaning that the See of Peter has been vacant since before Pope Paul VI was elected, so it was not a true Pope who promulgated it. Otherwise, one incurs in this canonical condemnation:
"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.”(Denz. 954)
The only way to get around this canon is to say that the Holy Roman Catholic Church did not promulgate this new rite, and thus does not use it.
-
And the proof is in the scattering which has taken place since the council and the imposition of this banal Protestant drama upon a trusting and obedient Church.
"Trusting and obedient Church?"
No. That's not it.
Lackluster, lazy, mechanistic, underzealous is more like it.
Conniving and cooperative and compromising is more accurate as well.
All the Novus Ordo is, is simply a manifestation of the crisis that was going on in the Church prior to the Council.
It's not too far to say that a good majority of Latin rite Catholics, loved being Catholics for reasons of family and culture but hated Catholicism.
-
Now that April's Fools Day has passed,
How does this square with the indefectibility promised to the Teaching Church, as the Gospel itself, and all of traditional theology always taught it? The answer is that it cannot be squared, and therefore the authority of the Church teaching must lead you to the opposite conclusion - not the New Mass is intrinsically evil,
The answer is quite simple, the New Order ritual is not a work of the Catholic Church, it is a work of men, and is not OF the Church but rather originates from a spirit quite alien to the Church.
To propose that it threatens the indefectibility of the Church, is to give it a legitimacy that it does not possess.
The similarity that it has to a Black Mass is that the Black Mass is the mockery of that belongs the Satanists, while the New Order is the mockery which belongs to the Judaized Modernists and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
You're right, Patricius. Well said.
To propose that it threatens the indefectibility of the Church, is to give it a legitimacy that it does not possess
Is it that you did not read or that you do not agree with Van Noort's explanation of the indefectibility of the Church? How do you square the doctrine that the Church can never universally use a rite that is intrinsically evil, be it a rite of holy orders, of Holy Mass, of exorcism, or anything of the like (from which we must draw the conclusion that the New rites - which I agree were improperly imposed - are extrinsically deficient, which is compatible with indefectibility, but not intrinsically evil, which is not) with the fact that every residential Bishop with teaching office in the Latin Church, including the Church of Rome, today has at least once used those rites? For the sake of full clarity, are you an Ecclesia-vacantist who believes there is no Magisterium today? Do you believe the local Church of Rome, as a particular Church, is indefectible as Pope Sixtus IV taught and as Msgr. Fenton explains here? https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=608
Yes, there is much taking for granted that this ritual is valid.
I take it then that you disagree also with Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, who states as the teaching of St. Thomas that the Words of Christ, "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are necessary and sufficient in themselves to effect transubstantiation. The reason for this is as follows, when God says, "Let there be light", those words of His are necessary and sufficient to effect the creation the light, for the Word of God brings to being everything it declares to be. In identical manner, the Word of Christ through His priest, and those words alone, suffice to effect the conversion of the whole substance of the Bread and the Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Our Lord.
The second proof is that offered by Bishop Williamson, although scorned by some on this forum - that from miracles. There have been well docuмented miracles where transubstantiation has actually happened that have even converted skeptical scientists, all the way from Lanciano in the 8th century (http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html) to this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC7RPJC4uDA) in the 20th. In each case, the Body and Blood of Our Lord is found under analysis to be in the Structure of a Heart (Our Lord's Sacred Heart in the Eucharist) and of the same blood type as that in the Shroud of Turin as describes in the links.
Both you and Ladislaus derided this the last time His Excellency mentioned it, as if nothing could be more absurd than a miracle as proof of God's presence. Well, you contradict Vatican I's decree on Faith and Reason on that, which speaks of miracles as "most certain signs ... demonstrating as they do the Omnipotence of God ... and well suited to the understanding of all". The Church traditionally held these Eucharistic miracles as incontrovertible proofs against the Protestant heretics of the Real Presence. Even the devil cannot effect transubstantiation any more than he can create, when God changes one substance into another, the first substance (in this case the bread) ceases to exist and the second (Our Lord's Most Holy Body and Blood) begins to inhere in the substance of the first. God alone can be the efficient cause of each and every act of transubstantiation, and so there must be valid priests and valid form in the New Mass; these miracles thus establish both that the New Mass and the new rite of priesthood are not per se invalid.
-
Ladislaus, no I did not take for granted that you would agree, knowing well your "doubtful" position in advance. I asked you a simple question of principle - forget the New Mass for a minute, we will come to application in a minute - in principle, when does a valid Mass become intrinsically evil? What defect is necessary to make the Infinitely Meritorious Sacrifice of Christ such? If a Mass with only the words of consecration would be a legitimate way to accomplish both Sacrifice and Sacrament, as Archbishop Lefebvre held, would anything short of the insertion of some heresy or blasphemy make such a Mass intrinsically evil? My answer is no. We need to settle this question in the abstract before we can see if it is verified in the concrete in the New Mass.
"The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament." http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
So, was it intrinsically evil to say Mass as Cardinal Mindszenty did or did necessity excuse it, meaning this would only have been extrinsically evil, evil only if there was no such extenuating circuмstance?
I agree with much of the Ottaviani intervention, I will comment on it after you answer me this. Both Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre who was instrumental in it later made statements about the New Mass that suggests they did not consider it to be intrinsically evil. Quo Primum certainly gives priests the right to say the true Mass exclusively, and Pope Benedict XVI confirmed it was never abrogated. A priest who comes to the awareness that it is thus still the standing law of the Church should recognize himself bound in conscience not to omit anything from the prescribed Missal of St. Pius V or exchange it for another. But, contrary to what some rigorists on here imagine, a valid Mass does not become intrinsically evil merely because of omission or ambiguity or other such defects, which God permitted as a chastisement, and is not incompatible with indefectibility, as the claim of intrinsic evil is.
-
1. When does a valid rite become intrinsically evil? Think this through and don't give "shoot from the hip" answers. Don't tell me anything forbidden by the rubrics is intrinsically sinful, for that is self-evidently false. A priest is commanded to do many things and forbidden to do many other things by the Popes and the Church when offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Quo Primum forbade many Missals, and none of those missals were intrinsically evil. If the priest disregards what the Church commands, he sins but the Mass does not become intrinsically evil. His omission is therefore an extrinsic evil. So, how much of an omission - or what sin of commission - makes a valid Mass intrinsically evil?
It is not a valid rite, either in its legal implementation or in its essence.
In order to be a true law, it is essential that not only what is being implemented be made known, but who is bound by it must also be made known. Missale Romanum absolutely fails on the second point. Paul VI publishes a new Missal, wishes that it be "accepted by the faithful", uses the terms "law", "decree", etc., but never indicates, gives permission or commands any priest, bishop, prelate, or anyone else, to use it. Because it does not do this, the previous law enacted in Quo Primum (quoted several time above and ignored by all) stands. Its usage is positively forbidden and is, therefore, a serious violation of standing Church law and is, consequently, intrinsically evil.
It is not a Catholic rite and was implemented, not by the authority of the Church, but by deception and implication.
The Catholic Mass, as the Council of Trent taught so clearly (session XXII), is a propitiatory sacrifice, not merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. A propitiatory sacrifice is one which is offered for the satisfaction and remission of sins.
CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
Nowhere in the text of the Novus Ordo, not even in "Eucharistic Prayer 1", is the Novus Ordo ever offered as a "propitiatory sacrifice", for the satisfaction of sin, the remission of sin, etc. There are mentions of the "forgiveness of sins" (forgiveness is an entirely different concept from remission), but never satisfaction for them or remission of them. The consecration may be valid, but as the Novus Ordo is never offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, it does not fulfill the definition of what the Mass is, or what Christ instituted the Mass to be. This omission constitutes an intrinsic evil, not merely extrinsic. It is, therefore, not a Mass at all, but a deceptive, sacrilegious parody of the True Mass.
2. How is it possible for every Bishop appointed by the Pope to offer a Mass that is not only intrinsically evil, as many of you rigorists maintain, but is as bad as or even worse than a Black Mass? How does this square with the indefectibility promised to the Teaching Church, as the Gospel itself, and all of traditional theology always taught it? The answer is that it cannot be squared, and therefore the authority of the Church teaching must lead you to the opposite conclusion - not the New Mass is intrinsically evil, therefore the Church teaching is not the Church. But rather, the Church teaching is indefectible by the divine promise, therefore the New Mass is not intrinsically evil.
First, as Ladislaus pointed out, this is a Latin rite issue, not a universal issue.
Secondly, even if it were an universal issue, because no true law binding, obliging, or permitting them to use the New Mass exists, it does not touch at all upon the indefectibility of the Church. The fact that all of the LATIN RITE bishops choose to ignore the law or are deceived has no bearing on the indefectibility of the Church, either.
-
Let's not forget that 90% of the catholic world was an Arian heretic (to some degree) at one point. Did the gates hell prevail then? No.
-
As stated by Trent and codified by Pius V the Holy Mass as received and approved by the Church was/is a clear and orthodox presentation of the Catholic Faith.
Now, no one can argue that the New Order ceremony is not a recession from that clarity and soundness due to the fact that what was clear becomes less so. What was undeniably Catholic becomes ambiguously Catholic and is easily seen as being favorable to the Protestant heretics, considering that it is almost identical to their services.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”
One can easily draw the necessary conclusion from these facts.
-
The Syro Malabar rite developed completely outside of the Catholic Church.
It was received by the Holy See and approved in 1932.
The Novus Ordo may be a lackluster rite and did not live up to the hype at all.
But Pope Paul VI was not bound by Quo Primum and he had supreme authority over the Church. Vatican I states it, Pius XII reiterates it and specifically outlines the unique power of the Pope.
Quo Primum actually abrogates received and approved rites of the Church of less than 200 years old and Pius V abrogated that law for the Ambrosian rite.
Canon law does not apply to the Pope.
He can change it or ignore it at will. The Pope is Supreme when it comes to the governance of the Church.
That doesn't mean he can't be resisted, but let's not play silly games trying to trap him with legal arguments.
Paul VI received and approved the Novus Ordo, officially. He did not abrogate the TLM. He did "obrogate" part of Quo Primum.
-
Gerard, Im glad you're on this site because we need someone like you - an expert in Canon law, theology, church history and the liturgy all rolled into one. I guess I can throw away all the books I have by authors who spent hundreds of hours researching/writing the exact opposite of what you say.
-
The Syro Malabar rite developed completely outside of the Catholic Church.
It was received by the Holy See and approved in 1932.
The Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar rite belongs to the Chaldean liturgical family. From around the 4th Century to the 16th Century, the mass in the Syro-Malabr rite was celebrated in the Aramaic(East Syriac) language . But at the Daimper Synod in 1599, changes were made in the Liturgy and the liturgy was made to conform to the Latin rite . But with the restoration of the Liturgy that took place in 1962, the Liturgy of the Pre-Diamper began to be used. Now, the Liturgy is being celebrated in Malayalam. The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari, which is one of the oldest Eucharistic prayers in the Catolic Church, is used in the Syro-Malabar Liturgy.
So we see this rite dates back as in use for almost 1600 years in Chaldean Christian Churches and was made conformable to the Catholic Latin rite. It is ancient and to my knowledge was never used by heretical sects.
On the other hand, we have the New Order of Paul VI, which was assembled by modernist lay "experts"' and a number of heretic "pastors" over a few months, which was more or less cobbled together in a back room and presented by a problematic pope as a rite of the Catholic Church with an equal dignity to that which ABL called the Mass of the Ages.
We have one, which has a 15-16 hundred year history within the greater Christian Church at large and which developed from within a segment of the Church of antiquity and then we have another, which in its essentials, has been in use for some few hundred years among the heretical sects.
And yet in the pro-conciliar corners they are put forth as equal in legitimacy, stature, and orthodoxy. This is the error and the deception of the conciliar apologists. To misuse and misapply Catholic elements and teaching so as to propose a parity of Catholic Tradition and alien Novelty.
Pope Pius XII when speaking against the innovators who would seek to undermine his authority to maintain orthodoxy and control, in liturgical matters is represented as having declared a pope's right of authority to create and institute novelty in the Liturgy and approve the very non-papal interference that he was against.
The rest follows along these same patterns, and if indeed a miracle were to be found among these false services, it would be an exhibition of God's omnipotent power over evil and in spite of the sacrilege of mockery, certainly not because of it.
A bit of research and common sense and one can see through such slights of hand and show that God will not be mocked without consequence.
"What shall a Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? What other choice can he make if some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity [Tradition] which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty." Saint Vincent of Lerins c. 445 A.D
"Who has lost and who has won in the struggle -- the one who keeps the premises [buildings] or the one who keeps the Faith? The Faith obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,... rouse yourselves, brethren,... seeing them now seized upon by aliens. ~ St. Athanasius, 371 (during the Arian Heresy)
If I have against me all the Bishops, I have with me all the Saints and Doctors of the Church. -St. Thomas Aquinas
-
Gerard, Im glad you're on this site because we need someone like you - an expert in Canon law, theology, church history and the liturgy all rolled into one. I guess I can throw away all the books I have by authors who spent hundreds of hours researching/writing the exact opposite of what you say.
That's great, but unfortunately, I'm not a plumber, so if you have to turn on a faucet or use the potty, you'll have to call one.
You don't necessarily have to throw away all of the books you have. The best thing to do is read with a healthy skepticism and the ability to question premises and double check facts.
You can read "The Pope, The Council and the Mass" and know it's coming at you from a particular perspective, you can also read "The Great Facade" and know it's from another angle. When there is a conflict, you go and weigh the two arguments and see if one holds better or if neither of them are accurate.
-
So we see this rite dates back as in use for almost 1600 years in Chaldean Christian Churches and was made conformable to the Catholic Latin rite. It is ancient and to my knowledge was never used by heretical sects.
No. You seem to equate a "liturgical family"' with a "rite."
The rite was changed significantly enough by schismatics outside of Communion with Rome to require Rome to create 2 distinct Churches coming from the Chaldean rite. The Syro-Malankara and the Syro-Malabar Churches.
On the other hand, we have the New Order of Paul VI, which was assembled by modernist lay "experts"' and a number of heretic "pastors" over a few months, which was more or less cobbled together in a back room and presented by a problematic pope as a rite of the Catholic Church with an equal dignity to that which ABL called the Mass of the Ages.
Regardless of its weaknesses, the Novus Ordo was introduced under the valid authority of a reigning Pope.
To discount that is to defy the clear teaching of Pius XII on the supremacy of the Pope to modify or introduce new rites to the Church.
We have one, which has a 15-16 hundred year history within the greater Christian Church at large and which developed from within a segment of the Church of antiquity and then we have another, which in its essentials, has been in use for some few hundred years among the heretical sects.
Again, you've got the history wrong. Syro Malabar is to the Chaldean rite what the Novus Ordo is to the TLM. The difference being that legally the TLM is more traditional as it descended from the Pope vs. a Jerry-rigged rite that was accepted and received by the Church after the fact.
And yet in the pro-conciliar corners they are put forth as equal in legitimacy, stature, and orthodoxy.
That's arguable. Certainly more arguable as to whether it's equal to a Black Mass.
This is the error and the deception of the conciliar apologists. To misuse and misapply Catholic elements and teaching so as to propose a parity of Catholic Tradition and alien Novelty.
Deception is calling anyone who doesn't buy into the ridiculous hyperbole and exaggerated rhetoric against the errors of the day an "apologist" for them.
It's not being an apologist if a woman who has loose morals (eg. Elizabth Zelda or EZ for short) is falsely accused of being a Prostitute. You don't have to defend EZ's loose morals to denounce the mischaracterizing of her as a Prostitute to be false.
Pope Pius XII when speaking against the innovators who would seek to undermine his authority to maintain orthodoxy and control, in liturgical matters is represented as having declared a pope's right of authority to create and institute novelty in the Liturgy and approve the very non-papal interference that he was against.
Pius XII reaffirmed the Pope's God-given authority. How Popes exercise that authority is a matter of their own prudence. Pius XII was against archeologism but LLeo XIII was in favor of it especially for the Eastern Churches and he was against Latinization of the Easterns.
The rest follows along these same patterns, and if indeed a miracle were to be found among these false services, it would be an exhibition of God's omnipotent power over evil and in spite of the sacrilege of mockery, certainly not because of it.
Now you come off as a Pentecostal with the "gift" of discernment.
A bit of research and common sense and one can see through such slights of hand and show that God will not be mocked without consequence.
A little more research proves that your assertions are rather cartoonish compared to the reality and complexities of the very fallible human element that has been within the Church both in the post and pre-conciliar periods going back to the Apostles themselves.
-
Regardless of its weaknesses, the Novus Ordo was introduced under the valid authority of a reigning Pope.
So say you.
-
Ladislaus, no I did not take for granted that you would agree, knowing well your "doubtful" position in advance. I asked you a simple question of principle - forget the New Mass for a minute, we will come to application in a minute - in principle, when does a valid Mass become intrinsically evil? What defect is necessary to make the Infinitely Meritorious Sacrifice of Christ such?
I would consider a Rite which promotes Protestant attitudes towards and definitions of the Mass, the priesthood, etc. to be intrinsically evil, or, rather, intrinsically defective. And the Church's indefectibility would prevent the Church from promulgating such a defective Rite.
In any case, if, as you claim, the NOM is only extrinsically defective, and Vatican II consists entirely of ambiguities, then the SSPX should, if commanded, offer the NOM in such a way as to render it Catholic, and should apply the hermeneutic of continuity to V2 and move along ... WITHIN the Holy Catholic Church. I would actually rather respect your opinion if you weren't operating in what would by your principles be a schismatic group. You should go to a Motu Mass or an Eastern Rite Liturgy or whatever and stop promoting the SSPX schism. In other words, by your principles, there are absolutely no grounds for severing communion with and canonical submission to the Church.
I consider the Church's indefectibility to be much broader. I do not believe it compatible with the Church's indefectibility for the Church to promulgate and to use what +Lefebvre referred to as a "Bastard Rite" of Mass concocted with Protestant principles in mind.
-
Indeed, Nishant, I am a doubist. I am open to the possibility that the NOM does not positively displease God ... since I am obviously operating under my own private judgment on the matter. But if I were to resolve my doubt in favor of the NOM, then I would hasten immediately back into communion with the Church.
-
So if the famous St. Paul vs. St. Peter had erupted into a full-fledged Crisis (if it had pleased God to allow such a thing; thankfully that wasn't the case!)
If it wasn't intrinsically evil to give too much attention and love to Jєωιѕн sensibilities, a Catholic should have gone along with St. Peter even though he was objectively wrong and "to be blamed"?
I don't agree with you at all.
I understand your position since you've elucidated it many times here on CathInfo. But I disagree. Even if I knew with certainty that the Novus Ordo wasn't intrinsically evil, I would still avoid it for many other reasons.
I don't need a freemasonic pope, a non-Pope, or an intrinsically evil Novus Ordo Mass to justify my Traditional Catholic behavior and stance. My Trad-ness isn't that fragile.
I know that we have a right to the Tridentine Mass because Quo Primum canonized it as a Mass that can be used forever (I'm not saying all future pope's hands were tied from making minute changes or OTHER rites; that is also an error I don't agree with)
And we can know that the Novus Ordo destroys the faith, and is dangerous, by reason of the evidence of our eyes. Especially today in 2016. We have 45 years of history now to prove what happens with a steady diet of Novus Ordo.
And I don't believe the Indult can be "good" whereas the formal and proximate cause for that "good" be something "evil" like the "schism" of Archbishop Lefebvre's principled stand for Tradition. If he were truly schismatic and evil, he wouldn't be doing the same thing WITHOUT permission that the Indult is doing WITH permission. That doesn't even make sense.
Obviously there is some primal difference between the two. Perhaps it is the rejection of the Novus Ordo Mass?
-
But if I were to resolve my doubt in favor of the NOM, then I would hasten immediately back into communion with the Church.
I'm sorry to hear that your Traditionalism is so tenuous.
Reminds me of GGreg talking about "turning in his Trad card". When a person throws that threat around all the time, it is rather disturbing.
I, on the other hand, would never do such a thing. I know that I'm already part of the Church. I don't need to beg "forgiveness" from a bunch of modernists who are leading the Church into destruction and oblivion, and who (wittingly or not) do the work of the Freemasons, Communists and Illuminati, working towards One World Government and One World Religion of man.
That's why I look down on the Indult. Those people seek a rubber stamp on their hand saying they are "good little boys" whereas they don't need any such thing. Traditional Catholics are nothing other than REAL Catholics that
A) have the Faith
B) want to keep the Faith
C) work to keep the Faith with all prudence and wisdom
and
D) maintain the timeless traditions which are part and parcel of that Faith, in terms of doctrine, practices, liturgy, and culture.
Communion with the Church is all about One God, One Faith, One Church, One Baptism.
If you're a part of that, you're part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Regardless of any Crisis in the Church, or the presence/absence of a smiley face rubber stamp on your right hand.
The reality -- God's point of view -- is all that I am concerned with. I couldn't care less what a bunch of erring modernists think about me.
St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for heresy. But the reality is that she was a saint, and that came out in the end. We now honor her as a canonized Saint. God's reality is all that matters, not appearances.
The Pope has no right or power to punish good Catholics. Period. When he attempts to do so, he over-steps his authority and acts as a weak, shameful man. Nothing more. He can't wield the power of Christ against Christ. It doesn't work that way.
-
A Black Mass sounds an exciting thing (albeit wrong and demonic obviously). The Novus Ordo Missae is usually tedious if it isn't cringe inducing.
-
Regardless of its weaknesses, the Novus Ordo was introduced under the valid authority of a reigning Pope.
So say you.
I say so but even if I didn't say so, it still happened.
-
I say so but even if I didn't say so, it still happened.
:rolleyes:
-
Bonum est ex integra causa, malum ex quocuмque defectu.
A thing is good if ALL its elements are good; bad if it has even one defect.
-
Yes, but eating candy is bad for your teeth and for your health in general. And that badness isn't from an external source, but rather because it has so much processed sugar and little else in it. Candy is lacking more than one "good", so it is evil. The aim of candy is concupiscence and pleasure, so the end is evil. So you could say that eating candy is INTRINSICALLY evil.
Ergo, you can't, under any circuмstances, morally justify eating candy, any more than you could justify having an abortion or attending a Black Mass.
-
Ergo, you can't, under any circuмstances, morally justify eating candy, any more than you could justify having an abortion or attending a Black Mass.
So did I just commit a mortal sin when I ate a brownie today? I remember reading that they served cake at the Little Flower's convent. Was that sinful?
-
Yes, but eating candy is bad for your teeth and for your health in general. And that badness isn't from an external source, but rather because it has so much processed sugar and little else in it. Candy is lacking more than one "good", so it is evil. The aim of candy is concupiscence and pleasure, so the end is evil. So you could say that eating candy is INTRINSICALLY evil.
Ergo, you can't, under any circuмstances, morally justify eating candy, any more than you could justify having an abortion or attending a Black Mass.
Goodness.
Firstly, sugar is good. God created it to be what it is, and it serves its purpose exactly as God intends it to.
Secondly, the lawful satisfaction of concupiscence and the enjoyment of the pleasures of this life are not in themselves evil ends. All things created by God are good and and their use is good when used according to their lawful purpose. It is the ABUSE of that purpose that poses the problem.
Thirdly, even if your analogy had some relation the topic, we're talking about the Novus Ordo Missae, which is defective in its essence (not a propitiatory sacrifice), its origin and purpose (was formulated under the influence of modernism, intended to advance the heresy of ecuмenism, is antagonistic of Catholic doctrine by purposeful omissions, etc.,) and in its legal status (see multiple posts above).
-
Thirdly, even if your analogy had some relation the topic, we're talking about the Novus Ordo Missae, which is defective in its essence (not a propitiatory sacrifice), its origin and purpose (was formulated under the influence of modernism, intended to advance the heresy of ecuмenism, is antagonistic of Catholic doctrine by purposeful omissions, etc.,) and in its legal status (see multiple posts above).
Actually the Orate Fratres is in the Novus Ordo, so it is even in truncated form, declared to be a propitiatory sacrifice. So its essence is Catholic.
Ecuмenism is not a heresy by the way. Ecuмenism is a policy done both rightly and wrongly.
The Anglican Liturgy is actually antagonistic towards Catholic doctrine. Omissions in certain spots are not positively antagonistic in the Novus Ordo.
The Pope had the legal right to introduce a new rite of Mass or a "modification" of the old one depending on how one wants to view its relation to the 1962 missal.
-
Ergo, you can't, under any circuмstances, morally justify eating candy, any more than you could justify having an abortion or attending a Black Mass.
So did I just commit a mortal sin when I ate a brownie today? I remember reading that they served cake at the Little Flower's convent. Was that sinful?
Just to be clear, I was making a point. I don't actually believe eating candy is sinful.
-
Actually the Orate Fratres is in the Novus Ordo, so it is even in truncated form, declared to be a propitiatory sacrifice. So its essence is Catholic.
You truly are a bafoon.
Priest (aloud): Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.
1. Review the definition of propitiatory.
2. Go back to Fish Eaters.
Ecuмenism is not a heresy by the way. Ecuмenism is a policy done both rightly and wrongly.
:facepalm:
The Anglican Liturgy is actually antagonistic towards Catholic doctrine. Omissions in certain spots are not positively antagonistic in the Novus Ordo.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
The Pope had the legal right to introduce a new rite of Mass or a "modification" of the old one depending on how one wants to view its relation to the 1962 missal.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Go away. I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Matthew.
-
Sorry pal. The aspect of propitiation has been tuned down in the NOM rite, but a Mass is a Mass. Our Lord's Masses at the Last Cene and at Emmaus, and Cardinal Mindzenty's Mass in his prison cell, had only the wordfs of consecration. Yet they were valid Masses. (Even if Our Lord's Masses were said at a table). Being valid Masses, they automatically included the four aspects of the un-bloody sacrifice of the Altar, of which propitiation (also called atonement) is a part. The others being Adoration, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. Every valid Mass contains these four aspects, even if the prayers surrounding the Consecration are absent.
The aspect of propitiation hasn't been "tuned down" at the Novus Ordo. It has been eliminated, pal.
I invite you to prove your assertion that Our Lord's Masses at the last supper and at Emmaus consisted only of the words of Consecration.
You need to make a distinction between a valid consecration and a valid mass. A black mass, a true black mass, has a valid consecration. It is said by an apostate priest. The entire mass is said backwards with the exception of the consecration. So, according to your definition, a black mass is a valid mass of adoration, thanksgiving, supplication, etc,.
In every sacrifice, Patricius, two things are required. The destruction of the victim (in the mass, mystically accomplished by the separate consecrations of the body/blood), and the OFFERING of that victim (in the Mass, this takes place at the offertory). Simple destruction of the victim is just that, destruction of the victim. Show where the Novus Ordo is OFFERED as a propitiatory sacrifice.
You also ignored the other issues I brought up (ecuмenism, modernism, etc.).
-
Yes, but eating candy is bad for your teeth and for your health in general. And that badness isn't from an external source, but rather because it has so much processed sugar and little else in it. Candy is lacking more than one "good", so it is evil. The aim of candy is concupiscence and pleasure, so the end is evil. So you could say that eating candy is INTRINSICALLY evil.
Ergo, you can't, under any circuмstances, morally justify eating candy, any more than you could justify having an abortion or attending a Black Mass.
Goodness.
Firstly, sugar is good. God created it to be what it is, and it serves its purpose exactly as God intends it to.
Secondly, the lawful satisfaction of concupiscence and the enjoyment of the pleasures of this life are not in themselves evil ends. All things created by God are good and and their use is good when used according to their lawful purpose. It is the ABUSE of that purpose that poses the problem.
Thirdly, even if your analogy had some relation the topic, we're talking about the Novus Ordo Missae, which is defective in its essence (not a propitiatory sacrifice), its origin and purpose (was formulated under the influence of modernism, intended to advance the heresy of ecuмenism, is antagonistic of Catholic doctrine by purposeful omissions, etc.,) and in its legal status (see multiple posts above).
Sorry pal. The aspect of propitiation has been tuned down in the NOM rite, but a Mass is a Mass. Our Lord's Masses at the Last Cene and at Emmaus, and Cardinal Mindzenty's Mass in his prison cell, had only the wordfs of consecration. Yet they were valid Masses. (Even if Our Lord's Masses were said at a table). Being valid Masses, they automatically included the four aspects of the un-bloody sacrifice of the Altar, of which propitiation (also called atonement) is a part. The others being Adoration, Thanksgiving, and Supplication. Every valid Mass contains these four aspects, even if the prayers surrounding the Consecration are absent.
I do not understand how it is possible that so many trads think that the Mass means the Consecration.
The True Mass typically begins with the sign of the cross before the prayers at the foot of the altar and ends at the end of the Last Gospel. The Consecration occurs within the Mass, but it is not itself the Mass.
-
But if I were to resolve my doubt in favor of the NOM, then I would hasten immediately back into communion with the Church.
I'm sorry to hear that your Traditionalism is so tenuous.
And, for my part, am so sorry to hear that you CATHOLICISM is so tenuous. This reveals more than anything the pernicious fruits of R&R. No, if the NOM does not displease God and V2 amounts to little more than some ambiguities which can be understood in a Catholic sense, there is absolutely ZERO justification for refusing communion with and canonical submission to the CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, the HOLY FATHER.
I, on the other hand, would never do such a thing. I know that I'm already part of the Church.
Again, if there's nothing wrong with the NOM and V2 which cannot be resolve by applying the proper "hermeneutic", then you are ABSOLUTELY NOT PART OF THE CHURCH.
That's why I look down on the Indult. Those people seek a rubber stamp on their hand saying they are "good little boys" whereas they don't need any such thing. Traditional Catholics are nothing other than REAL Catholics that
A) have the Faith
B) want to keep the Faith
C) work to keep the Faith with all prudence and wisdom
and
D) maintain the timeless traditions which are part and parcel of that Faith, in terms of doctrine, practices, liturgy, and culture.
Communion with the Church is all about One God, One Faith, One Church, One Baptism.
Seems that you missed something, my friend.
Unam Sanctam[/i]]We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Do you forget that the Church is a VISIBLE SOCIETY? You cannot belong to it simply by profession of the faith and maintaining traditions. You must be SUBJECT TO THE POPE in order to belong to the Church.
THIS kind of non-Catholic crap is the reason that I wholesale reject the pernicious fruits of R&R. You honestly sound more like a Prot than a Catholic when you define communion with the Church without any reference whatsoever to the Holy See and to the Pope.
The reality -- God's point of view -- is all that I am concerned with. I couldn't care less what a bunch of erring modernists think about me.
Question is, of course, whether your perspective on God's point of view really lines up objectively with God's actual point of view.
-
Ecuмenism according to the Catholic Church is the return to communion of those who have separated from Her, and this by the renouncing of heresy and error which placed the parties in question out side of the Church.
Ecuмenism according to the conciliar entity is receding from the Churches dogmas and doctrines or hiding them from the non-Catholics, while allowing them to continue their heresies and errors and then proposing that the Church has some form of imperfect communion with them. That is what the conciliarists practice and that on many levels is objectively heretical.
The very idea of some "imperfect" or partial communion with those who are outside of Catholic unity is in itself a heretical idea.
Different policies indeed! Different Churches yes, as the second instance is not even Catholic.
Gerard from FE said:
The Anglican Liturgy is actually antagonistic towards Catholic doctrine. Omissions in certain spots are not positively antagonistic in the Novus Ordo.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
This fellow needs to read the Book of Common prayer, they are almost identical.
The Lutheran heretics and others who deny the sacrifice used the Novus Ordo, that says it all.
Proof in the pudding.
-
Ladislaus,
This reveals more than anything the pernicious fruits of R&R. No, if the NOM does not displease God and V2 amounts to little more than some ambiguities which can be understood in a Catholic sense, there is absolutely ZERO justification for refusing communion with and canonical submission to the CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, the HOLY FATHER.
If this were to be true then attending the True Mass would be no more than a preference for "smells and bells".
Personally, I find it an impossibility that the Church would have given two rites to Her children, one good and wonderful and another deficient and lacking doctrinal clarity or just plain bad.(or one that is favorable to heretics)
When John opened the windows common sense was the first thing to fly out.
-
Ecuмenism according to the Catholic Church is the return to communion of those who have separated from Her, and this by the renouncing of heresy and error which placed the parties in question out side of the Church.
That's not ecuмenism, that's conversion, ie. the proper end of ecuмenism.
Ecuмenism according to the conciliar entity is receding from the Churches dogmas and doctrines or hiding them from the non-Catholics, while allowing them to continue their heresies and errors and then proposing that the Church has some form of imperfect communion with them. That is what the conciliarists practice and that on many levels is objectively heretical.
"the conciliar entity"???? That's a fancy way of refusing to distinguish the Church in her official teachings from the failures and errors of Churchmen, which is nothing exclusive to Vatican II.
The "imperfect communion" is an imperfect term to describe the real relationship differences among Catholics, baptized non-Catholics and non-baptized non Catholics.
The very idea of some "imperfect" or partial communion with those who are outside of Catholic unity is in itself a heretical idea.
Except for the fact that there is only one Baptism and an example of a child Baptized in a Protestant or Orthodox Church who dies without having attained the use of reason, dies as a Catholic member of the Catholic Church even though they are formally members of a non-Catholic sect.
Different policies indeed! Different Churches yes, as the second instance is not even Catholic.
No. Not true, you simply take it in an unCatholic way.
Gerard from FE said:
The Anglican Liturgy is actually antagonistic towards Catholic doctrine. Omissions in certain spots are not positively antagonistic in the Novus Ordo.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
This fellow needs to read the Book of Common prayer, they are almost identical.
The Lutheran heretics and others who deny the sacrifice used the Novus Ordo, that says it all.
Proof in the pudding.
The difference between "almost identical" and "identical" is the difference between true and false.
Here's an article that points out the proper argument.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2014/08/15/the-novus-ordo-despite-epii-is-an-orthodox-and-valid-mass-but-the-way-it-was-introduced-was-part-of-the-hermeneutic-of-rupture/
-
Gerard, I do not know if you are aware of it but, almost all of your argumentation is straight out of the conciliar apologists playbook.
The very same arguments that were used twenty years ago.
They are not only unconvincing, they are objectively untrue.
You completely leave the conciliar heresy, which has engulfed the Church, out of your propositions.
By the way, Protestants who have reached the age of consent and remain Protestant are outside of the Church, and have no relationship to Her. The same is true for Mohametans and Jews. They are not part of the Church in some undefined way as the false council proposes.
"See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
This is the belief of the Catholic Church, the contrary is the teaching and doctrine of the conciliar church. They cannot be the same. The Church does not contradict Her solemn teaching and Her Magisterium.
The above mentioned heretics are the kind of men that Paul VI chose to fabricate the New Order "mass". Men who "hold not the Faith of the Father and the Son" and you propose that it was a work of the Church.
-
Gerard, I do not know if you are aware of it but, almost all of your argumentation is straight out of the conciliar apologists playbook.
The very same arguments that were used twenty years ago.
They are not only unconvincing, they are objectively untrue.
1) Not everything a conciliar apologist is untrue.
2) Actually my arguments are true. You don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable argument. You simply make an unfounded assertion.
You completely leave the conciliar heresy, which has engulfed the Church, out of your propositions.
There is a conciliar crisis, not a conciliar heresy. Heresies are not defined nor declared by laymen.
By the way, Protestants who have reached the age of consent and remain Protestant are outside of the Church, and have no relationship to Her.
But children who have not reached the age of reason and the mentally unequipped are Catholics. You dodge it by mentioning the people I'm not talking about.
It's a simple truth, why can't you admit it? Are you angry that Lutheran babies don't burn in Hell when they die?
BTW, Are Protestants Baptized twice when they convert to Catholicism?
The same is true for Mohametans and Jews. They are not part of the Church in some undefined way as the false council proposes.
Are Muslims and Jews baptized when they convert to Catholicism or not?
"See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
St. Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. I forget which Pope it was who warned the faithful that the Magisterium was superior to any Doctor of the Church and he even named Augustine.
This is the belief of the Catholic Church, the contrary is the teaching and doctrine of the conciliar church. They cannot be the same. The Church does not contradict Her solemn teaching and Her Magisterium.
St. Augustine is not the Magisterium of the Church. The Church teaches that souls do not die. Augustine is speaking poetically of the loss of Heaven.
The above mentioned heretics are the kind of men that Paul VI chose to fabricate the New Order "mass". Men who "hold not the Faith of the Father and the Son" and you propose that it was a work of the Church.
That's not what the Church teaches, this is, "Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power."
-
Ladislaus,
This reveals more than anything the pernicious fruits of R&R. No, if the NOM does not displease God and V2 amounts to little more than some ambiguities which can be understood in a Catholic sense, there is absolutely ZERO justification for refusing communion with and canonical submission to the CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, the HOLY FATHER.
If this were to be true then attending the True Mass would be no more than a preference for "smells and bells".
Personally, I find it an impossibility that the Church would have given two rites to Her children, one good and wonderful and another deficient and lacking doctrinal clarity or just plain bad.(or one that is favorable to heretics)
When John opened the windows common sense was the first thing to fly out.
It makes perfect sense. Why waste a good liturgy on people that take it for granted and benefit even in their laziness? Give them limited access to that liturgy and give them an inferior liturgy to reflect their apathy and those that work for it, will be given graces for persevering in more difficult circuмstances.
-
Gerard,
You illogic is going further and further from reality.
There is indeed a conciliar heresy, it is Modernism, (defined by a Catholic Pope), which is the source of the crisis. It is the belief and teaching of salvation outside of the Church and the sacraments which leads to almost all other errors and heresy.
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
It makes perfect sense. Why waste a good liturgy on people that take it for granted and benefit even in their laziness? Give them limited access to that liturgy and give them an inferior liturgy to reflect their apathy and those that work for it, will be given graces for persevering in more difficult circuмstances.
One can only wonder which quadrant of the galaxy that thought came from?....or which divine oracle has made this judgement?
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
St. Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. I forget which Pope it was who warned the faithful that the Magisterium was superior to any Doctor of the Church and he even named Augustine.
Quote:
This is the belief of the Catholic Church, the contrary is the teaching and doctrine of the conciliar church. They cannot be the same. The Church does not contradict Her solemn teaching and Her Magisterium.
St. Augustine is not the Magisterium of the Church. The Church teaches that souls do not die. Augustine is speaking poetically of the loss of Heaven.
.
Well my learned friend, in this case they do hold up because the excerpted passages are from Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum in which he canonizes Augustine's word in a Magisterial docuмent. In this case he is the Magisterium according to the good Pope Leo. Perhaps he was just being poetic as well.
No partial or imperfect communion with the Church. You are either in the Church or you are outside of the Church. There is no half way.
Canon Hesse has explained this quite clearly on a number of occasions. You just do not hear what you do not want to believe.
And the council is not speaking just about children illicitly Baptized by means of a sacrament which is only proper to the Catholic Church, the council is speaking about entire sects and false churches having this partial union with the Catholic Church because the Protestants used the sacrament. It is a lie. Baptism has nothing to do with the heresy and error which excludes them from the Church.
-
Gerard,
You illogic is going further and further from reality.
There is indeed a conciliar heresy, it is Modernism, (defined by a Catholic Pope), which is the source of the crisis. It is the belief and teaching of salvation outside of the Church and the sacraments which leads to almost all other errors and heresy.
Setting aside the expected insult, you don't know what you are talking about.
Modernism is a confusion incorporating a number of heresies. It is not a formal heresy. You've obviously never actually really read the encyclical Pascendi.
That is why St. Pius X could not condemn it with an anathema, but he did the next best thing possible with the Anti-Modernist oath.
Vatican II had nothing to do with the dissent from EENS. That was done in the glorious days of the 1950s (i.e. pre-Vatican II) when Fr. Feeney was sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.
So, no. Your heresy is pre-conciliar. Stop trying to pass the buck.
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
Well my learned friend, in this case they do hold up because the excerpted passages are from Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum in which he canonizes Augustine's word in a Magisterial docuмent.
An encyclical is not necessarily a Magisterial docuмent and even in a Magisterial encyclical, not every word is Magisterial.
I pointed out that Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. We live in a day and age where detached limbs can be re-attached.
Theologically, we also know that souls don't die. Augustine knew this as well but he was being poetic in his imagery about damnation.
In this case he is the Magisterium according to the good Pope Leo. Perhaps he was just being poetic as well.
Pope Leo confused a lot of people with some of his images of the Church as a "perfect society."
No partial or imperfect communion with the Church. You are either in the Church or you are outside of the Church. There is no half way.
You can be materially in the Church and or formally in the Church just as you can be formally in the Church and be a material heretic.
Canon Hesse has explained this quite clearly on a number of occasions. You just do not hear what you do not want to believe.
And what rite was Canon Hesse ordained under? Oh that's right, the one you presume to judge the validity of according to your embrace of Donatist heresies.
And the council is not speaking just about children illicitly Baptized by means of a sacrament which is only proper to the Catholic Church, the council is speaking about entire sects and false churches having this partial union with the Catholic Church because the Protestants used the sacrament. It is a lie. Baptism has nothing to do with the heresy and error which excludes them from the Church.
The council talks about a lot things and in a sloppy way. It's got slippery language that liberals try to pass off as dissenting when objectively it's not. Your reading of the Council docuмents is as dishonest as the liberals, you just condemn the straw man that they praise.
The fact is, there is an objective difference between the Baptized and the non-Baptized. God provides grace for all men to attain salvation if they truly have good will. An infusion of grace and knowledge is all that is necessary for a Protestant or Orthodox to re-enter the Church on their deathbed. For a pagan, there would have to be a Baptism provided as well for them to enter the Church for the first time.
Didn't you ever learn any of this straightforward Catholic teaching?
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
An encyclical is not necessarily a Magisterial docuмent and even in a Magisterial encyclical, not every word is Magisterial.
Well this one was but perhaps PiusXII's were not magisterial either........ :shocked:
I pointed out that Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. We live in a day and age where detached limbs can be re-attached.
In that case, perhaps we can call upon a few surgeons to save the Protestant souls and put them back into the Church............. :roll-laugh1:
Theologically, we also know that souls don't die. Augustine knew this as well but he was being poetic in his imagery about damnation.
Did he tell you that? I wonder if the souls in Hell are hearing poetry as they suffer?
:roll-laugh1:
-
Gerard,
I don't get why you are even here and why you continue to argue against the traditional mindset if you're not a traditional catholic. I'm so confused by your viewpoints, which are anything but traditional:
1) you think most of the Church's problems started before V2 (some did, I agree, but not most),
2) you don't think V2 is heretical or even quasi-heretical
3) you think the NO mass is valid, therefore ok to attend
4) you think the NO liturgy can be fixed, therefore it's ok to attend
5) you are pro +Williamson and pro Feeney, but your views on the mass/EENS contradict these guys' views on the NO and EENS.
Honest question - are you here just for the lively debate/argumentation, because it never seems like you are trying to reach a consensus or an agreement on an issue? Your posts usually seem to cause a never ending debate because you constantly change the subject, or introduce tangential topics. I, for one, enjoy many of your posts but it's hard to have a debate with you because you're always on the "offensive" or "defensive" or whatever. Just curious.
-
Where's Patricius, Matthew, Nishant, etc.? None of them have called the Fish Eater out on anything.
I've been waiting for these staunch defenders of truth and orthodoxy to at least give a wrist slap or something over the drivel the Fish Eater has been dropping around here. He's actively defending ecuмenism, performs some amazing contortions to defend the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae, attempts to exonerate Paul VI, reduces modernism to mere "confusion" and not a "formal" heresy, etc.
Just so long as you don't say the Novus Ordo is evil, I guess.
:rolleyes:
-
Where's Patricius, Matthew, Nishant, etc.? None of them have called the Fish Eater out on anything.
I've been waiting for these staunch defenders of truth and orthodoxy to at least give a wrist slap or something over the drivel the Fish Eater has been dropping around here. He's actively defending ecuмenism, performs some amazing contortions to defend the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae, attempts to exonerate Paul VI, reduces modernism to mere "confusion" and not a "formal" heresy, etc.
Just so long as you don't say the Novus Ordo is evil, I guess.
:rolleyes:
I have better things to do than argue armchair theology all day. I have a life.
And I don't have any more time for this thread, at least not for a few days.
-
Where's Patricius, Matthew, Nishant, etc.? None of them have called the Fish Eater out on anything.
I've been waiting for these staunch defenders of truth and orthodoxy to at least give a wrist slap or something over the drivel the Fish Eater has been dropping around here. He's actively defending ecuмenism, performs some amazing contortions to defend the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae, attempts to exonerate Paul VI, reduces modernism to mere "confusion" and not a "formal" heresy, etc.
Just so long as you don't say the Novus Ordo is evil, I guess.
:rolleyes:
I have better things to do than argue armchair theology all day. I have a life.
And I don't have any more time for this thread, at least not for a few days.
You don't have to be an armchair theologian on the issue of the New Mass. Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that it is bad in itself. All you have to do is agree with him if you claim to be faithful to him and conclude that what Bishop Williamson said is not in accord with the Archbishop.
-
I have better things to do than argue armchair theology all day. I have a life.
And I don't have any more time for this thread, at least not for a few days.
I understand. It's just that he's been at it for the past 10 days.
I think I'm going to bail, too.
If you feed the fish, they keep coming back.
-
Gerard,
I don't get why you are even here and why you continue to argue against the traditional mindset if you're not a traditional catholic.
I am a traditional Catholic. What is going on here and why I'm posting is because there is a cartoonish exaggerated traditionalism being promoted by people that seem to make up Catholicism on the fly and it consists of only emotional rhetoric and theological words that they don't seem to understand.
I'm so confused by your viewpoints, which are anything but traditional:
You may be confused but my viewpoints are completely traditional and Catholic.
1) you think most of the Church's problems started before V2 (some did, I agree, but not most),
We can go down a list if you prefer to supply one and we'll dissect each problem and find it's roots.
2) you don't think V2 is heretical or even quasi-heretical
This is what I mean, there is no such thing as "quasi-heretical" it either is or isn't heresy, which means "to make a choice" and must be deliberate and obstinate.
Vatican II and the Church over history is rife with errors, not heresy.
3) you think the NO mass is valid, therefore ok to attend
A valid NO mass may be okay to attend for some but it is not optimal. Many, many NO masses are not okay to attend for anybody because of the sacrilegious abuses.
4) you think the NO liturgy can be fixed, therefore it's ok to attend
If a Pope with some skill were to give the Novus Ordo an overhaul, he could make it a magnificent liturgy. We already have venerable liturgies that were modified by saints and they have their names on them to this day. Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom.
5) you are pro +Williamson and pro Feeney, but your views on the mass/EENS contradict these guys' views on the NO and EENS.
No they don't. I've provided quotes going back to the 1980s from Williamson warning against the exaggeration of anyone and everyone in the Novus Ordo not being Catholic or not being able to keep the faith.
Feeney's position is mine. Anyone who is saved is saved in the Catholic Church. how they get into the Catholic Church is God's method but somehow they got in and were baptized with water.
Honest question - are you here just for the lively debate/argumentation, because it never seems like you are trying to reach a consensus or an agreement on an issue?
I simply just point out the truth and bring people's errors to light. Obviously people aren't interested in the truth because when you point out that they are wrong, they don't concede, they give a "hurumph…" and simply go on repeating their screeds against heresies they don't understand, and adhere to doctrines that the Church hasn't proclaimed.
Your posts usually seem to cause a never ending debate because you constantly change the subject, or introduce tangential topics.
Show me some examples. From my perspective it seems people are always trying to dodge the issues discussed by reframing and distorting my positions.
I, for one, enjoy many of your posts but it's hard to have a debate with you because you're always on the "offensive" or "defensive" or whatever. Just curious.
I'm on the offensive when I'm correcting an error.
I'm on the defensive when I'm defending the truth from being corrupted by straw man arguments, non-sequiturs, no true scotsman, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all of the other logical fallacies are used against me and the arguments I present.
I always concede when I'm proven wrong and I work very hard to keep that at a minimum since I have to account for what I've written and I also don't like to waste time.
I simply choose not to post when something is not on a subject I'm equipped to engage in. So, I'm content to read and learn from other posters and follow up on subjects so that I can eventually discuss them with confidence.
Back in my neo-Catholic days I simply lurked for a few years. That was what convinced me traditionalism was correct in understanding the crisis and providing the proper remedies for stopping it. It wasn't until JPII added the "Luminous Mysteries" to the Rosary that I actually started posting because it was such a boneheaded move.
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
An encyclical is not necessarily a Magisterial docuмent and even in a Magisterial encyclical, not every word is Magisterial.
Well this one was but perhaps PiusXII's were not magisterial either........ :shocked:
Gee…you'd think there might be a criteria for being able to discern what actually makes a pronouncement magisterial.
I pointed out that Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. We live in a day and age where detached limbs can be re-attached.
In that case, perhaps we can call upon a few surgeons to save the Protestant souls and put them back into the Church............. :roll-laugh1:
The Church does have Doctors you know. :roll-laugh2:
Theologically, we also know that souls don't die. Augustine knew this as well but he was being poetic in his imagery about damnation.
Did he tell you that? I wonder if the souls in Hell are hearing poetry as they suffer?
:roll-laugh1:
So you think maybe he wasn't being poetic and they simply died and are not in Hell? Fr. Barron might find your insights fascinating.
:roll-laugh1:
-
Gerard,
I don't get why you are even here and why you continue to argue against the traditional mindset if you're not a traditional catholic.
I am a traditional Catholic. What is going on here and why I'm posting is because there is a cartoonish exaggerated traditionalism being promoted by people that seem to make up Catholicism on the fly and it consists of only emotional rhetoric and theological words that they don't seem to understand.
I'm so confused by your viewpoints, which are anything but traditional:
You may be confused but my viewpoints are completely traditional and Catholic.
1) you think most of the Church's problems started before V2 (some did, I agree, but not most),
We can go down a list if you prefer to supply one and we'll dissect each problem and find it's roots.
2) you don't think V2 is heretical or even quasi-heretical
This is what I mean, there is no such thing as "quasi-heretical" it either is or isn't heresy, which means "to make a choice" and must be deliberate and obstinate.
Vatican II and the Church over history is rife with errors, not heresy.
3) you think the NO mass is valid, therefore ok to attend
A valid NO mass may be okay to attend for some but it is not optimal. Many, many NO masses are not okay to attend for anybody because of the sacrilegious abuses.
4) you think the NO liturgy can be fixed, therefore it's ok to attend
If a Pope with some skill were to give the Novus Ordo an overhaul, he could make it a magnificent liturgy. We already have venerable liturgies that were modified by saints and they have their names on them to this day. Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom.
5) you are pro +Williamson and pro Feeney, but your views on the mass/EENS contradict these guys' views on the NO and EENS.
No they don't. I've provided quotes going back to the 1980s from Williamson warning against the exaggeration of anyone and everyone in the Novus Ordo not being Catholic or not being able to keep the faith.
Feeney's position is mine. Anyone who is saved is saved in the Catholic Church. how they get into the Catholic Church is God's method but somehow they got in and were baptized with water.
Honest question - are you here just for the lively debate/argumentation, because it never seems like you are trying to reach a consensus or an agreement on an issue?
I simply just point out the truth and bring people's errors to light. Obviously people aren't interested in the truth because when you point out that they are wrong, they don't concede, they give a "hurumph…" and simply go on repeating their screeds against heresies they don't understand, and adhere to doctrines that the Church hasn't proclaimed.
Your posts usually seem to cause a never ending debate because you constantly change the subject, or introduce tangential topics.
Show me some examples. From my perspective it seems people are always trying to dodge the issues discussed by reframing and distorting my positions.
I, for one, enjoy many of your posts but it's hard to have a debate with you because you're always on the "offensive" or "defensive" or whatever. Just curious.
I'm on the offensive when I'm correcting an error.
I'm on the defensive when I'm defending the truth from being corrupted by straw man arguments, non-sequiturs, no true scotsman, post hoc ergo propter hoc and all of the other logical fallacies are used against me and the arguments I present.
I always concede when I'm proven wrong and I work very hard to keep that at a minimum since I have to account for what I've written and I also don't like to waste time.
I simply choose not to post when something is not on a subject I'm equipped to engage in. So, I'm content to read and learn from other posters and follow up on subjects so that I can eventually discuss them with confidence.
Back in my neo-Catholic days I simply lurked for a few years. That was what convinced me traditionalism was correct in understanding the crisis and providing the proper remedies for stopping it. It wasn't until JPII added the "Luminous Mysteries" to the Rosary that I actually started posting because it was such a boneheaded move.
-
Gerard of Fish Eaters,
An encyclical is not necessarily a Magisterial docuмent and even in a Magisterial encyclical, not every word is Magisterial.
Well this one was but perhaps PiusXII's were not magisterial either........ :shocked:
Gee…you'd think there might be a criteria for being able to discern what actually makes a pronouncement magisterial.
I pointed out that Augustine's analogies don't always hold up. We live in a day and age where detached limbs can be re-attached.
In that case, perhaps we can call upon a few surgeons to save the Protestant souls and put them back into the Church............. :roll-laugh1:
The Church does have Doctors you know. :roll-laugh2:
Theologically, we also know that souls don't die. Augustine knew this as well but he was being poetic in his imagery about damnation.
Did he tell you that? I wonder if the souls in Hell are hearing poetry as they suffer?
:roll-laugh1:
So you think maybe he wasn't being poetic and they simply died and are not in Hell? Fr. Barron might find your insights fascinating.
:roll-laugh1:
If you say so Gerard, I've just run out of fish flakes.......bye
-
Where's Patricius, Matthew, Nishant, etc.? None of them have called the Fish Eater out on anything.
I've been waiting for these staunch defenders of truth and orthodoxy to at least give a wrist slap or something over the TRUTH drivel the Fish Eater has been dropping around here. He's actively defending DEFINING ecuмenism, performs DEBUNKS some amazing contortions to defend the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae PETRINE PRIMACY, attempts to exonerate EXAMINE FAIRLY Paul VI, reduces modernism to mere "confusion" and not a "formal" heresy, etc. CLARIFIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORMAL HERESY AND ERROR.
Just so long as you don't say the Novus Ordo is evil WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO MAKE A REAL ARGUMENT, I guess.
:rolleyes:
That's what has to be done to get back to what I actually do, from what utter, false bullsh&%t comes out in response.
Now I've got the added charm of your pathetic whining.
"Waaahhh…..I can't stop him from raining on the rancid calumny parade"
By all means, go find someone who can make a cogent argument and allow me to get into a rational discussion with someone who won't whine, lie or simply thinks truth is in how much hyperbolic nuttery one tosses around.
-
:clown:
:sleep:
-
Where's Patricius, Matthew, Nishant, etc.? None of them have called the Fish Eater out on anything.
I've been waiting for these staunch defenders of truth and orthodoxy to at least give a wrist slap or something over the drivel the Fish Eater has been dropping around here. He's actively defending ecuмenism, performs some amazing contortions to defend the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae, attempts to exonerate Paul VI, reduces modernism to mere "confusion" and not a "formal" heresy, etc.
Just so long as you don't say the Novus Ordo is evil, I guess.
:rolleyes:
ihsv, the stuff Gerard is talking is pure compromise. It is the same talk that has been happening among compromisers since the revolution began and will likely continue till it God finally sees fit to end it. Gerard does not see it that way and neither did the other billions of compromisers who were instrumental in the ushering in of the new faith as they were doing their part to eradicate the true faith during the infancy of the revolution.
Imagine today being the late 1960s and a group of laypeople and seminarians, distraught and concerned about the revolution, go to +ABL for help, only to find +ABL has the exact same mentality as Gerard.
If that would have been the case, those laypeople and seminarians would have been sent back home greatly disappointed, and the result would have meant that either we would have no traditional Mass or faith today, or God would have had to choose some other courageous Catholic to stand up for Him.
-
ihsv, the stuff Gerard is talking is pure compromise. It is the same talk that has been happening among compromisers since the revolution began and will likely continue till it God finally sees fit to end it. Gerard does not see it that way and neither did the other billions of compromisers who were instrumental in the ushering in of the new faith as they were doing their part to eradicate the true faith during the infancy of the revolution.
Imagine today being the late 1960s and a group of laypeople and seminarians, distraught and concerned about the revolution, go to +ABL for help, only to find +ABL has the exact same mentality as Gerard.
If that would have been the case, those laypeople and seminarians would have been sent back home greatly disappointed, and the result would have meant that either we would have no traditional Mass or faith today, or God would have had to choose some other courageous Catholic to stand up for Him.
Walking a balance between extreme errors is not a compromise, that is holding to the truth.
By your standards LeFebvre was a compromiser, he wasn't willing to reject John XXIII's missal in favor of the 1945 or 56 missals.
LeFebvre originally did allow the Novus Ordo to be attended by the Seminarians.
He also "compromised" by stating that the Novus Ordo was not invalid nor heretical but a "danger" because it "leads slowly to heresy."
The absurd ideas presented by the hysterical, low information trads around here is the equivalent of someone cutting the mold off of a block of cheddar and eating the good cheese is a "compromise."
-
By your standards LeFebvre was a compromiser, he wasn't willing to reject John XXIII's missal in favor of the 1945 or 56 missals. ...LeFebvre originally did allow the Novus Ordo to be attended by the Seminarians...He also "compromised" by stating that the Novus Ordo was not invalid nor heretical but a "danger" because it "leads slowly to heresy." "
Yes, by my standards, which are based on Quo Primum and Ottaviani, +ABL did compromise. Accepting/Rejecting the 62 missal is irrelevent, as the changes in it are not essential, only accidental. Allowing attendance at the novus ordo was wrong, as it still is today. Though, it was not his responsibility to declare the NO "invalid", as only the Church can properly make this decision. He did say it's validity was 'doubtful', which is in agreement with Ottaviani, who declared:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
Ottaviani also said in Chapter VI:
We have limited ourselves above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete study...would be a vast undertaking.
He continued in Chapter VI, which shows that those who stick with Tradition 100% are not "extreme" catholics, as you suggest, but are following Trent fully, completely and obediently.
It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.
Those who have compromised on the novus ordo have "chosen" a path which is not consistent with Trent or with the True Faith.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
-
It is all in the presentation,
The one presents the same facts in a way that mitigates the conciliar departures from Catholicism and lowers the standard of orthodoxy for conciliar errors.
The other presents the same facts in a manner that condemns the conciliar defection by the use of the Church's own wisdom and Tradition, and maintains the standard that the Church has always held.
It is obvious which has appealed the voice of the Church as his advocate.
-
By your standards LeFebvre was a compromiser, he wasn't willing to reject John XXIII's missal in favor of the 1945 or 56 missals. ...LeFebvre originally did allow the Novus Ordo to be attended by the Seminarians...He also "compromised" by stating that the Novus Ordo was not invalid nor heretical but a "danger" because it "leads slowly to heresy."
Yes, by my standards, which are based on Quo Primum and Ottaviani, +ABL did compromise. Accepting/Rejecting the 62 missal is irrelevent, as the changes in it are not essential, only accidental. Allowing attendance at the novus ordo was wrong, as it still is today.
Your standards are wrong. You misread Quo Primum and you overestimate it's authority and consequently you deny the authority of Pius XII in Mediator Dei.
Ottaviani himself was a compromiser both before and after the Council and the Novus Ordo.
The Critical Analysis of the Novus Ordo with Bacci and Ottaviani names attached is itself the subject of criticism and analysis as being overly emotional and exaggerated.
There are a number of points in it that a person can say, "yes that's accurate." and "No, this is wrong."
Though, it was not his responsibility to declare the NO "invalid", as only the Church can properly make this decision. He did say it's validity was 'doubtful', which is in agreement with Ottaviani, who declared:
1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
Except for the fact that Modernism was specifically designed to undermine the faith in a way that Thomism and all of the defenses against heresy that Trent had built up were not sufficient.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_096_Ottaviani_Betray.html
Responding to a question of the journalist, Cardinal Ottaviani declared:
"I am a soldier who watches over the gold reserve. Do you think I would fulfill my duty by arguing, abandoning my post, turning a blind eye? My son, 75 years are 75 years! I lived them defending certain principles and certain laws. If you tell the old soldier that the laws are going to change, it is obvious that as an old soldier he will do everything to keep them from changing.
"But if, nonetheless, they change, God will certainly give him the strength to place himself in the defense of the new treasure in which he believes. Once the new laws become the treasure of the Church, an enrichment of the gold reserve, then only one principle counts: to serve the Church. And this service means to be faithful to her laws."
(Alfredo Ottaviani, Interview to Corriere della Sera, October 28, 1965, apud Henri Fesquet, Le Journal du Concile, Foulcalier: Robert Morel, 1966, p. 1019)
He continued in Chapter VI, which shows that those who stick with Tradition 100% are not "extreme" catholics, as you suggest, but are following Trent fully, completely and obediently.
The people I'm calling "extreme" are not people who stick with Tradition 100%. They exaggerate traditions, they ignore nuances in tradition and they don't' acknowledge the history of the Church that shows that tradition is a living thing passed on and changed by necessity to be more effective. Thomism was once the "novelty" that the Augustinians fought against tooth and nail. And the Franciscans at one point fought against almost all intellectual pursuit in the Church.
It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose.
Those who have compromised on the novus ordo have "chosen" a path which is not consistent with Trent or with the True Faith.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
[/quote]
As stated above, the Church did not begin with Trent and Trent did not evaluate every permutation and philosophical and mystical approach to the Faith. The Byzantine's never adopted Trent's philosophical formulations, but they were and still are practicing the True Faith, just as every Latin Catholic both before Trent, after Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II was equipped to do.
Each Council had it's benefits and shortcomings and new errors arose in reaction to them. Vatican II was obviously the worst of them and least effective. But even Ratzinger admitted that some Councils had turned out to be a waste of time.
He never went so far as to conclude that Vatican II was one of them, but it's obvious to people now, that it failed to address any real problems and confused and or ignored a lot of issues that did need to be dealt with.
-
It is all in the presentation,
The one presents the same facts in a way that mitigates the conciliar departures from Catholicism and lowers the standard of orthodoxy for conciliar errors.
The other presents the same facts in a manner that condemns the conciliar defection by the use of the Church's own wisdom and Tradition, and maintains the standard that the Church has always held.
It is obvious which has appealed the voice of the Church as his advocate.
What is obvious is your attempt to engage in straw man argumentation.
You actually don't prove any point you make, you set up a false dilemma, you make leading statements that are not true and you fail to ever bring up specific examples.
It's a fantasy argument to provide cover for a fantasy version of Catholicism.
To make an analogy, it's as if a ship gets hit by an Iceberg and you ignore the part of the Iceberg that is below the surface and punched holes in the lower decks.
You ignore the problems in the lower decks and lament that the upper decks no longer look the same and therefore it must be a different ship. And since you didn't see the lower decks get hit, they must be there and everything must be peachy keen with them.
-
:barf:
:sleep:
-
Getting back to the original note here, the novus ordo is much more evil than a Black Mass, because everyone knows the Black Mass is the worship of the devil and the novus ordo is a deception. And who is the great deceiver?
To be a Catholic we all know that God can not deceive us nor can His Church. "You are either with me or against me"...
The novus ordo is a service that the mainstream person believing he is fulfilling his obligation by attending a Catholic service, but the fruits prove that it is void of grace and therefore Satanic. Any grace given to the laity attending the novus ordo would be from their faithfulness to Our Lady's rosary and scapular, not the novus ordo, which was the creation of the evil one.
-
But, MyrnaM, for Heaven sakes! You're forgetting Pius XII and "Mediator Dei"!!!! If you would only read this docuмent it would explain everything! I think it even allows Pope Francis to tell the world that your "conscience" decides all morality.
-
It is all in the presentation,
The one presents the same facts in a way that mitigates the conciliar departures from Catholicism and lowers the standard of orthodoxy for conciliar errors.
The other presents the same facts in a manner that condemns the conciliar defection by the use of the Church's own wisdom and Tradition, and maintains the standard that the Church has always held.
It is obvious which has appealed the voice of the Church as his advocate.
What is obvious is your attempt to engage in straw man argumentation.
You actually don't prove any point you make, you set up a false dilemma, you make leading statements that are not true and you fail to ever bring up specific examples.
It's a fantasy argument to provide cover for a fantasy version of Catholicism.
To make an analogy, it's as if a ship gets hit by an Iceberg and you ignore the part of the Iceberg that is below the surface and punched holes in the lower decks.
You ignore the problems in the lower decks and lament that the upper decks no longer look the same and therefore it must be a different ship. And since you didn't see the lower decks get hit, they must be there and everything must be peachy keen with them.
I observed the dichotomy of the two approaches, other's words not mine.
Forum members can do so as well, and decide for themselves if my observations are accurate.
-
Exactly, MyrnaM.
In order to be a True Mass (a re-presentation of Calvary), it must be offered for the same ends as the sacrifice of the Cross, one of which is atonement for sin, as a propitiatory sacrifice. The New Mass absolutely does not fulfill this end.
In the Catholic Mass, its propitiatory nature is clearly expressed in the Suscipe and elsewhere:
Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless Victim, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.
The Novus Ordo Missae does not do this, and I challenge anyone here to prove otherwise.
Whether the consecration is valid or not is irrelevant. The Novus Ordo Missae lacks this essential characteristic of the Mass as instituted and ordained by Christ and, like the protestant services it mimics, is no Mass at all.
The modernist revolutionaries removed virtually the entire offertory from the Novus Ordo Missae, and followed the playbook of Martin Luther who said:
“That utter abomination follows which forces all that precedes in the Mass into its service and is, therefore, called the Offertory. From here on, almost everything smacks and savors of sacrifice … Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon and retain only that which is pure and holy, and so order our mass.” (Martin Luther, Formula Missa, 1523)
The Novus Ordo is not merely bad, deficient, problematic, or whatever other halfhearted adjective you can come up with. Call it for what it is. The Novus Ordo Missae is illegal, is immoral, is not Catholic, is no Mass at all, and is The Great Sacrilege.
-
:barf:
:sleep:
I thought you were going to bail on this discussion.
I guess you misunderstand your own writings as well as Trent, Quo Primum and anything else it seems.
-
Getting back to the original note here, the novus ordo is much more evil than a Black Mass, because everyone knows the Black Mass is the worship of the devil and the novus ordo is a deception. And who is the great deceiver?
To be a Catholic we all know that God can not deceive us nor can His Church. "You are either with me or against me"...
The novus ordo is a service that the mainstream person believing he is fulfilling his obligation by attending a Catholic service, but the fruits prove that it is void of grace and therefore Satanic. Any grace given to the laity attending the novus ordo would be from their faithfulness to Our Lady's rosary and scapular, not the novus ordo, which was the creation of the evil one.
Wait, so you think a Black Mass in which in its full form, a baby boy is abused, murdered and cannibalized in conjunction with the blasphemy and sacrilege of a valid Eucharist is "less evil" than a Novus Ordo?
That is one of the sickest, most perverse, most Satanic things I have ever read on any forum anywhere.
My God in Heaven you have a real demon on you.
I just stopped typing and said prayers to St. Michael, the BVM and an Our Father for you.
I would suggest others who read this do the same.
-
"Be ye hot (true mass) or cold (black mass), the lukewarm (novus ordo) I will vomit from My mouth."
-
I observed the dichotomy of the two approaches, other's words not mine.
Forum members can do so as well, and decide for themselves if my observations are accurate.
Yet you substitute my words for your own and misrepresent me.
If I say to a liberal, "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are wrong" the liberal replies, "Okay, you hate gαys."
That's what you do.
You must be malicious because you can't be ignorant. I've demonstrated where you are wrong. You're refusal to concede to the truth only betrays your malice.
-
:barf:
:sleep:
I thought you were going to bail on this discussion.
I guess you misunderstand your own writings as well as Trent, Quo Primum and anything else it seems.
:sleep:
-
Exactly, MyrnaM.
In order to be a True Mass (a re-presentation of Calvary), it must be offered for the same ends as the sacrifice of the Cross, one of which is atonement for sin, as a propitiatory sacrifice. The New Mass absolutely does not fulfill this end.
In the Catholic Mass, its propitiatory nature is clearly expressed in the Suscipe and elsewhere:
Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless Victim, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.
The Novus Ordo Missae does not do this, and I challenge anyone here to prove otherwise.
Whether the consecration is valid or not is irrelevant. The Novus Ordo Missae lacks this essential characteristic of the Mass as instituted and ordained by Christ and, like the protestant services it mimics, is no Mass at all.
The modernist revolutionaries removed virtually the entire offertory from the Novus Ordo Missae, and followed the playbook of Martin Luther who said:
“That utter abomination follows which forces all that precedes in the Mass into its service and is, therefore, called the Offertory. From here on, almost everything smacks and savors of sacrifice … Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon and retain only that which is pure and holy, and so order our mass.” (Martin Luther, Formula Missa, 1523)
The Novus Ordo is not merely bad, deficient, problematic, or whatever other halfhearted adjective you can come up with. Call it for what it is. The Novus Ordo Missae is illegal, is immoral, is not Catholic, is no Mass at all, and is The Great Sacrilege.
The problem is you're wrong.
And you defy anyone to show you otherwise is precisely that. I can show you otherwise and you'll still be defiant.
Funny how making the association with Martin Luther is supposed to be a proof of something when it isn't an appropriate form of argument.
The signs of the Eucharist being a sacrifice is the essence not the placement in the Offertory.
Here's one example that proves your "absolutely does not" in reality, absolutely does.
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
we proclaim his resurrection
and his ascension to your right hand,
and as we await his coming in glory,
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
-
ihsv, the stuff Gerard is talking is pure compromise. It is the same talk that has been happening among compromisers since the revolution began and will likely continue till it God finally sees fit to end it. Gerard does not see it that way and neither did the other billions of compromisers who were instrumental in the ushering in of the new faith as they were doing their part to eradicate the true faith during the infancy of the revolution.
Imagine today being the late 1960s and a group of laypeople and seminarians, distraught and concerned about the revolution, go to +ABL for help, only to find +ABL has the exact same mentality as Gerard.
If that would have been the case, those laypeople and seminarians would have been sent back home greatly disappointed, and the result would have meant that either we would have no traditional Mass or faith today, or God would have had to choose some other courageous Catholic to stand up for Him.
Walking a balance between extreme errors is not a compromise, that is holding to the truth.
By your standards LeFebvre was a compromiser, he wasn't willing to reject John XXIII's missal in favor of the 1945 or 56 missals.
LeFebvre originally did allow the Novus Ordo to be attended by the Seminarians.
He also "compromised" by stating that the Novus Ordo was not invalid nor heretical but a "danger" because it "leads slowly to heresy."
The absurd ideas presented by the hysterical, low information trads around here is the equivalent of someone cutting the mold off of a block of cheddar and eating the good cheese is a "compromise."
There is only one extreme error, which is the new faith of the conciliar church, as such, there is no balancing between truth and lies - it is one or it is the other. It is you who are trying to walk the balance between the two, in so doing, you have chosen compromise as your foundation.
+ABL was no compromiser by any standards, if we have the faith, we know this by his fruits. While true that due to the circuмstances of the day that even he was initially taken in by the lies, he was no compromiser, not by any measure - again, this is known by those who have the faith from his fruits.
-
I observed the dichotomy of the two approaches, other's words not mine.
Forum members can do so as well, and decide for themselves if my observations are accurate.
Yet you substitute my words for your own and misrepresent me.
If I say to a liberal, "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are wrong" the liberal replies, "Okay, you hate gαys."
That's what you do.
You must be malicious because you can't be ignorant. I've demonstrated where you are wrong. You're refusal to concede to the truth only betrays your malice.
Does anyone know what happened to the dancing bananas?
-
Getting back to the original note here, the novus ordo is much more evil than a Black Mass, because everyone knows the Black Mass is the worship of the devil and the novus ordo is a deception. And who is the great deceiver?
To be a Catholic we all know that God can not deceive us nor can His Church. "You are either with me or against me"...
The novus ordo is a service that the mainstream person believing he is fulfilling his obligation by attending a Catholic service, but the fruits prove that it is void of grace and therefore Satanic. Any grace given to the laity attending the novus ordo would be from their faithfulness to Our Lady's rosary and scapular, not the novus ordo, which was the creation of the evil one.
Wait, so you think a Black Mass in which in its full form, a baby boy is abused, murdered and cannibalized in conjunction with the blasphemy and sacrilege of a valid Eucharist is "less evil" than a Novus Ordo?
That is one of the sickest, most perverse, most Satanic things I have ever read on any forum anywhere.
My God in Heaven you have a real demon on you.
I just stopped typing and said prayers to St. Michael, the BVM and an Our Father for you.
I would suggest others who read this do the same.
I appreciate the prayers and thank you for that.
Now that you mention it, one thought came to my mind, today with the novus ordo, if nothing else there will NOT be a sacrilege of a VALID Eucharist, but only a wafer of sort when taken from the novus ordo deceptions.
The abuse of children as you say mentioned in the Black Mass you witnessed, so sorry that happened and yes, sick. Sick also the abuse of altar boys within the novus ordo, also sick. Don't you agree?
-
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
Is that what the Holy Mass is, a celebration of a memorial and remembrance?
It sounds like it was authored at the Wiesenthal Center, very Jєωιѕн that.
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
I do not see a word about propitiation or the sins of the living or the dead, or sin at all.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
And there is you code language for ecuмenism and Protestant inclusion into the "one body"
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
Wait a minute! who is the sacrifice in this "mass"? Oh! I forgot..Vatican II...it is the PEOPLE.
All and all, very much the same. :surprised:
This is all like a jar of RAGU sauce, you can't see it but Gerard says, "it's in there"
-
I appreciate the prayers and thank you for that.
Now that you mention it, one thought came to my mind, today with the novus ordo, if nothing else there will NOT be a sacrilege of a VALID Eucharist, but only a wafer of sort when taken from the novus ordo deceptions.
The abuse of children as you say mentioned in the Black Mass you witnessed, so sorry that happened and yes, sick. Sick also the abuse of altar boys within the novus ordo, also sick. Don't you agree?
I've never been to a black mass just as I've never been to Fatima.
That thought that "came to your mind." No doubt it came from the demonic.
The abuse of anyone, children, boys, girls, men and women is sinful whether it happened in the pre-conciliar Church, during Vatican II or after in both Novus Ordo and traditionalist organizations.
You certainly aren't excusing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse in trad communities are you?
-
I observed the dichotomy of the two approaches, other's words not mine.
Forum members can do so as well, and decide for themselves if my observations are accurate.
Yet you substitute my words for your own and misrepresent me.
If I say to a liberal, "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ acts are wrong" the liberal replies, "Okay, you hate gαys."
That's what you do.
You must be malicious because you can't be ignorant. I've demonstrated where you are wrong. You're refusal to concede to the truth only betrays your malice.
Does anyone know what happened to the dancing bananas?
Check the seat of your chair.
-
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
Is that what the Holy Mass is, a celebration of a memorial and remembrance?
It sounds like it was authored at the Wiesenthal Center, very Jєωιѕн that.
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
I do not see a word about propitiation or the sins of the living or the dead, or sin at all.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
And there is you code language for ecuмenism and Protestant inclusion into the "one body"
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
Wait a minute! who is the sacrifice in this "mass"? Oh! I forgot..Vatican II...it is the PEOPLE.
All and all, very much the same. :surprised:
This is all like a jar of RAGU sauce, you can't see it but Gerard says, "it's in there"
Also I noticed wherever he copied and pasted it from, Sacred words are left uncapitalized reducing Holy words to naught. I am sure that he did not type this, he would have known better. Had to be copy and paste! Gerard be careful next time I realize mistakes happen to us all but this is a bit telling!
-
I appreciate the prayers and thank you for that.
Now that you mention it, one thought came to my mind, today with the novus ordo, if nothing else there will NOT be a sacrilege of a VALID Eucharist, but only a wafer of sort when taken from the novus ordo deceptions.
The abuse of children as you say mentioned in the Black Mass you witnessed, so sorry that happened and yes, sick. Sick also the abuse of altar boys within the novus ordo, also sick. Don't you agree?
I've never been to a black mass just as I've never been to Fatima.
That thought that "came to your mind." No doubt it came from the demonic.
The abuse of anyone, children, boys, girls, men and women is sinful whether it happened in the pre-conciliar Church, during Vatican II or after in both Novus Ordo and traditionalist organizations.
You certainly aren't excusing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ abuse in trad communities are you?
No way, do I excuse sin of any sort, especially when it is committed in malice, even Jesus had His Judas, didn't He?
Yet, since Vatican II and the omittance of teachings or exaggerations of truths the devil is having his HayDay in the world. Or do you suppose the world is better now with the novus ordo if so, how so?
-
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
Is that what the Holy Mass is, a celebration of a memorial and remembrance?
It sounds like it was authored at the Wiesenthal Center, very Jєωιѕн that.
By that reckoning the Creed sounds very "Jєωιѕн."
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
I do not see a word about propitiation or the sins of the living or the dead, or sin at all.
Go through the missal, it's obvious you don't want to see. All of the elements are there for a propitiatory sacrifice. It's an altar, not a table no matter what it looks like in different parishes, (Byzantine altars look like tables by the way and the main altar in St. Peter's)
The Orate Fratres is there, the Confiteor is there, the Creed is there, the Our Father is there, the Agnus Dei is there. All of the Eucharistic prayers mention sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, the consecration itself designates the purpose of the Mass "for the forgiveness of sins"
It's idiotic to claim the prayers and the gestures are not part of the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
And there is you code language for ecuмenism and Protestant inclusion into the "one body"
Calling something a "code" is simply a way to castigate something unjustly without being able to prove your point.
And if you really want to be technical, Orthodox babies are given the Eucharist when they are Catholics at Baptism.
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
Wait a minute! who is the sacrifice in this "mass"? Oh! I forgot..Vatican II...it is the PEOPLE.
All and all, very much the same. :surprised:
This is all like a jar of RAGU sauce, you can't see it but Gerard says, "it's in there"
Stop making a damn fool of yourself. You apparently have no knowledge nor curiosity, and probably no belief in the legitimacy of Eastern Catholicism or St. Paul for that matter. " I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service."
In fact, it seems you don't even know the TLM. " grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity,"
Do you know what Divinization is? It's only the whole purpose God has created us for.
-
No way, do I excuse sin of any sort, especially when it is committed in malice, even Jesus had His Judas, didn't He?
Yet, since Vatican II and the omittance of teachings or exaggerations of truths the devil is having his HayDay in the world. Or do you suppose the world is better now with the novus ordo if so, how so?
Vatican II is just the exposing of the disease that had lingered there for so long. Charles Coulombe once stated comparing the pre-Vatican II Church with the post Vatican II Church as having cancer in two different stages.
Does a person with cancer long for stage 2 cancer when they are stage 3 or 4 or do they wish the whole awful disease was out of their system?
The pre-concilar Church also engaged in dissidence, omitted or downplayed teachings and exaggerated others to the point of distortion.
If you want to get a bird's eye view of the crisis, you have to join Vatican I with Vatican II.
Without the dissent and exaggeration of the Neo-Ultramontantiss after Vatican I, you could not have had Vatican II.
-
To keep our faith we need peace in our life and show
it by good example then we will find the path God wills.
-
Gerard old boy,
Many of your replies are a list of non sequitur statements.
I suggest that you stay within the bounds of the conciliar church, and I will remain in the Catholic Church of Tradition and we should have no further disagreements.
:rahrah:
The best that I could manage now that the bananas seem to have gone missing.................
-
No way, do I excuse sin of any sort, especially when it is committed in malice, even Jesus had His Judas, didn't He?
Yet, since Vatican II and the omittance of teachings or exaggerations of truths the devil is having his HayDay in the world. Or do you suppose the world is better now with the novus ordo if so, how so?
Vatican II is just the exposing of the disease that had lingered there for so long. Charles Coulombe once stated comparing the pre-Vatican II Church with the post Vatican II Church as having cancer in two different stages.
Does a person with cancer long for stage 2 cancer when they are stage 3 or 4 or do they wish the whole awful disease was out of their system?
The pre-concilar Church also engaged in dissidence, omitted or downplayed teachings and exaggerated others to the point of distortion.
If you want to get a bird's eye view of the crisis, you have to join Vatican I with Vatican II.
Without the dissent and exaggeration of the Neo-Ultramontantiss after Vatican I, you could not have had Vatican II.
Charles Coulombe (?) who!
The Church from the beginning has always been attacked by the evil one, which is why if you read the encyclicals of past popes, they were mainly composed to rid the heretics from without and within the Catholic Church. There is nothing new about that; every one of Faith knows this or should know it. The difference is the past popes wrote and fought against the heresies, today the conciliar popes explain the heretics.
Prior to Vatican II, the papacy held the keys to the Kingdom; today the conciliar popes hold the keys to the kingdom of the world. The KEYS God gave to St. Peter are keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdom of this earth as in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, the NO, the New Order, coined by the Freemasons who occupy the Vatican today.
You seem to forget that the Church is a Divine Institution, not a human institution, and the Church does not commingle both truth and error. Just because there have been heretics spreading their errors in the past only proves that in spite of them, the Church and the teachings have and will always be spotless, even the Antipopes in the past have been Catholic. Not so today, and those Traditionalist who claim loyalty to the conciliarists are only weak and cowardly they want their cake and eat it too, even though their cake is filled with worms and does not rise, but falls.
-
Exactly, MyrnaM.
In order to be a True Mass (a re-presentation of Calvary), it must be offered for the same ends as the sacrifice of the Cross, one of which is atonement for sin, as a propitiatory sacrifice. The New Mass absolutely does not fulfill this end.
In the Catholic Mass, its propitiatory nature is clearly expressed in the Suscipe and elsewhere:
Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless Victim, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.
The Novus Ordo Missae does not do this, and I challenge anyone here to prove otherwise.
Whether the consecration is valid or not is irrelevant. The Novus Ordo Missae lacks this essential characteristic of the Mass as instituted and ordained by Christ and, like the protestant services it mimics, is no Mass at all.
The modernist revolutionaries removed virtually the entire offertory from the Novus Ordo Missae, and followed the playbook of Martin Luther who said:
“That utter abomination follows which forces all that precedes in the Mass into its service and is, therefore, called the Offertory. From here on, almost everything smacks and savors of sacrifice … Let us, therefore, repudiate everything that smacks of sacrifice, together with the entire canon and retain only that which is pure and holy, and so order our mass.” (Martin Luther, Formula Missa, 1523)
The Novus Ordo is not merely bad, deficient, problematic, or whatever other halfhearted adjective you can come up with. Call it for what it is. The Novus Ordo Missae is illegal, is immoral, is not Catholic, is no Mass at all, and is The Great Sacrilege.
The problem is you're wrong.
And you defy anyone to show you otherwise is precisely that. I can show you otherwise and you'll still be defiant.
Funny how making the association with Martin Luther is supposed to be a proof of something when it isn't an appropriate form of argument.
The signs of the Eucharist being a sacrifice is the essence not the placement in the Offertory.
Here's one example that proves your "absolutely does not" in reality, absolutely does.
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
we proclaim his resurrection
and his ascension to your right hand,
and as we await his coming in glory,
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
Oh. My. Goodness.
And I even bolded the important parts. :facepalm:
Here's ihsv's three-step plan to improve your abysmally poor reading comprehension skills.
1. Review the definition of propitiatory.
2. Re-read my last post. Slowly. Three times.
3. Repeat the above steps until it clicks.
-
Gerard is living proof there there is indeed such a thing as invincible ignorance.
I'm not going to accuse Gerard of being a special needs individual for fear of insulting others in this world who may be mentally challenged. However, I'll lay it out AGAIN for the benefit of the rest of the board, and will emphasize the important parts in the admittedly vain attempt of aiding Gerard in improving his fledgling reading comprehension "talents".
1. The Catholic Mass, as per session XXII of Trent, is a propitiatory sacrifice, which essentially means it is offered as atonement for sin, satisfaction of punishments incurred due to sin, appeasement of the Justice of God, etc. The key word or concept is propitiatory, not sacrifice.
2. Our fish friend quotes the text of the Novus Ordo and thinks because it mentions the word "sacrifice", he's made some kind of point. His quote is utterly void of the concept of propitiation and, as a response to my post, is a shining example of his finesse in wollowing in irrelevancies.
3. Because the Novus Ordo is never offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, it is not a Catholic Mass. It does not fulfill this essential end (propitiation, atonement for sin, satisfaction, appeasement, etc.,) of the Mass as instituted by Christ, and is therefore not the same sacrifice as that which was offered on Calvary. It is a blasphemous mimicry of the True Mass, and by its omission (whether deliberate or accidental) of this essential concept, embodies the Protestant notion that the Mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice.
4. I repeat my challenge to anyone to prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is a propitiatory sacrifice.
(Gerard, repeat after me: "Propitiatory. Propitiatory. Propitiatory." Got it? I hope so. Now, try again.)
-
Btw, in anticipation of Gerard's inability to grasp basic distinctions, I would point out that "forgiveness " and "salvation" are NOT the same concept(s) as propitiation, remission of sins, atonement, appeasement, etc. Not even close.
Carry on.
-
Gerard old boy,
Many of your replies are a list of non sequitur statements.
That is, like most of your statements and unsupported assertion.
You never have the balls to prove anything you state.
I suggest that you stay within the bounds of the conciliar church, and I will remain in the Catholic Church of Tradition and we should have no further disagreements.
What makes you think your suggestions have any merit at all and why should anyone heed your advice?
You don't back anything up.
:rahrah:
The best that I could manage now that the bananas seem to have gone missing.................
-
Charles Coulombe (?) who!
You'd do well to read or listen to some of his work.
The Church from the beginning has always been attacked by the evil one, which is why if you read the encyclicals of past popes, they were mainly composed to rid the heretics from without and within the Catholic Church. There is nothing new about that; every one of Faith knows this or should know it. The difference is the past popes wrote and fought against the heresies, today the conciliar popes explain the heretics.
You're making sweeping generalizations and you're not making a point.
Has the Church infallibly declared through the Papacy that the ordination of women is not something possible? Or did that not happen?
Prior to Vatican II, the papacy held the keys to the Kingdom; today the conciliar popes hold the keys to the kingdom of the world. The KEYS God gave to St. Peter are keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdom of this earth as in the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr, the NO, the New Order, coined by the Freemasons who occupy the Vatican today.
So, you aren't talking about anything concrete just your musings. Got it.
You seem to forget that the Church is a Divine Institution, not a human institution, and the Church does not commingle both truth and error. Just because there have been heretics spreading their errors in the past only proves that in spite of them, the Church and the teachings have and will always be spotless, even the Antipopes in the past have been Catholic. Not so today, and those Traditionalist who claim loyalty to the conciliarists are only weak and cowardly they want their cake and eat it too, even though their cake is filled with worms and does not rise, but falls.
The Church is both human and Divine. Canon Law is not a revelation, wheat and tares, truth and error are always getting tangled up together.
The Arian heresy was Pre-Vatican II you know and it lasted for 3 centuries.
You seem to want fairy tale stories to cope with the crisis instead of real history and real ecclesiology.
So, try to come up with something specific to discuss instead of your unsupported assertions and vague references that sound like the most liberal of clerics today.
-
IHSV, I appreciate your answers and just want to let you know I have not forgotten this thread. I will reply to you in detail later.
-
IHSV, I appreciate your answers and just want to let you know I have not forgotten this thread. I will reply to you in detail later.
Nishant, not a problem.
I was just wondering if you plan on responding to any of Gerard's blubbering along the way. I'm sure you have noticed his conciliarist tendencies, and I'm just amazed that those items appear to be ignored by so many on the opposite side of this discussion.
-
IHSV, I appreciate your answers and just want to let you know I have not forgotten this thread. I will reply to you in detail later.
Nishant, not a problem.
I was just wondering if you plan on responding to any of Gerard's blubbering along the way. I'm sure you have noticed his conciliarist tendencies, and I'm just amazed that those items appear to be ignored by so many on the opposite side of this discussion.
I agree and appreciate your knowledge and look forward to others that might contribute on the side of God.
Gerard's blubbering are definitely offensive to pious ears, and empty of substance, just words like an empty tin can rolling around making noise.
-
Therefore, O Lord,
as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember christ’s Death
and his descent to the realm of the dead,
we proclaim his resurrection
and his ascension to your right hand,
and as we await his coming in glory,
we offer you his Body and Blood,
the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice
which you yourself have provided for your church, and grant in your loving kindness
to all who partake of this one Bread and one chalice that, gathered into one body by the holy spirit,
they may truly become a living sacrifice in christ
to the praise of your glory.
Oh. My. Goodness.
And I even bolded the important parts. :facepalm:
[/quote]
It seems you do not have the capability to be objective.
You seem blind to understanding the Paschal mystery in any Catholic Liturgy.
You can't see the Paschal mystery as the propitiatory sacrifice or you simply don't understand atonement.
Here's ihsv's three-step plan to improve your abysmally poor reading comprehension skills.
1. Review the definition of propitiatory.
2. Re-read my last post. Slowly. Three times.
3. Repeat the above steps until it clicks
Done and done.
You don't know what you are discussing.
-
IHSV, I appreciate your answers and just want to let you know I have not forgotten this thread. I will reply to you in detail later.
Nishant, not a problem.
I was just wondering if you plan on responding to any of Gerard's blubbering along the way. I'm sure you have noticed his conciliarist tendencies, and I'm just amazed that those items appear to be ignored by so many on the opposite side of this discussion.
OH this is hilarious!
You are true to type.
I feel honored to be the vehicle for the emergence of the "NEO-TRAD"
The whole game of the "conversation" around me is the type of tripe that Pete Vera and the old Lidless Eye Inquisition types used to play.
They were simply smells and bells Neo-Catholics who had a smattering of traditionalism, became enamored with the SSPX and then, because they had a lousy Neo-Ultrmontanist formation, ended back in the Novus Ordo because they couldn't bring themselves to go Sedevacantist.
I'm almost nostalgic.
But to the point, you haven't proven a single one of your allegations. You've simply made unsupported assertions and been unwilling to back them up.
Because of that, you've simply engaged in ad hominem and straw man attacks.
Try for something real.
-
IHSV, I appreciate your answers and just want to let you know I have not forgotten this thread. I will reply to you in detail later.
Nishant, not a problem.
I was just wondering if you plan on responding to any of Gerard's blubbering along the way. I'm sure you have noticed his conciliarist tendencies, and I'm just amazed that those items appear to be ignored by so many on the opposite side of this discussion.
I agree and appreciate your knowledge and look forward to others that might contribute on the side of God.
Gerard's blubbering are definitely offensive to pious ears, and empty of substance, just words like an empty tin can rolling around making noise.
Wow. You can't seem to shake that demon.
It compels you to lie boldly.
You've got the real thing on you, not just an acidic personality.
I would recommend you find an Exorcist.
-
Hey Gerard,
If the new offertory prayer means the same thing as the old one, why was it changed?
Or maybe you're "seeing" things which aren't there, since you grew up with a good catholic education and you understand the purpose of the mass.
For those who are younger, who had next to no catholic education (even though they went to catholic schools) and who have never read the "old" offertory prayers, they will NOT see the "pascal mystery" or "propitiation" in the same way that you do. They will see it as symbolism since the prayer says:
- memorial
- remembrance of Christ's death
- look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice you have have provided (past tense)
p.s. If the new mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, can you give us an example, from the prayers?
-
Because of that, you've simply engaged in ad hominem and straw man attacks.
Try for something real.
Look in the mirror YOU are the one saying I have a devil! I also have an angel that squashes my devil each day that I pray, I know this because I Trust in God and His UNCHANGING Church.
Any normal person will tell you the people who made the changes are the ones who left, they left the ones who stayed firm to the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.
As far as the Arian heresy goes I quote Hilaire Belloc, "It is often said that all heresies die. This may be true in the very long run but it is not necessarily true within any given period of time. It is not even true that the vital principle of a heresy necessarily loses strength with time". Proven today with the Conciliarist who aim it is to try again to destroy the Divinity of Christ, the difference is today the person the mainstream claims is the pope is the very person promoting the heresy again.
However, we are at peace because we know the end of the story.
-
That s something am very conscious of, relatives who are novus ordo and of a certain age, still have the 'old ' Faith, and believe what they always believed, but will make excuses for younger members, because its a different world ect, they don't even know its themselves who have given up on The Faith.
-
Because of that, you've simply engaged in ad hominem and straw man attacks.
Try for something real.
Look in the mirror YOU are the one saying I have a devil! I also have an angel that squashes my devil each day that I pray, I know this because I Trust in God and His UNCHANGING Church.
Any normal person will tell you the people who made the changes are the ones who left, they left the ones who stayed firm to the teachings of the Deposit of Faith.
As far as the Arian heresy goes I quote Hilaire Belloc, "It is often said that all heresies die. This may be true in the very long run but it is not necessarily true within any given period of time. It is not even true that the vital principle of a heresy necessarily loses strength with time". Proven today with the Conciliarist who aim it is to try again to destroy the Divinity of Christ, the difference is today the person the mainstream claims is the pope is the very person promoting the heresy again.
However, we are at peace because we know the end of the story.
Okay, you're a sedevacantist. You belong to the Neo Ultramontanist sect that denies the Catholic Church, through the Pope has infallibly defined the male only priesthood and the impossibility of female ordination.
Here's the lugubrious fact, no changes have been made to the Depositi of Faith.
And finally, an ad hominem is not stating a fact that you've got a devil oppressing you. You don't and shouldn't even deny it. I'm simply stating that you are buckling under its influence. It's certainly not your Guardian Angel that is encouraging you to state things that are false.
-
Okay, you're a sedevacantist. You belong to the Neo Ultramontanist sect that denies the Catholic Church, through the Pope has infallibly defined the male only priesthood and the impossibility of female ordination.
Here's the lugubrious fact, no changes have been made to the Depositi of Faith.
And finally, an ad hominem is not stating a fact that you've got a devil oppressing you. You don't and shouldn't even deny it. I'm simply stating that you are buckling under its influence. It's certainly not your Guardian Angel that is encouraging you to state things that are false.
In the eyes of God, I belong to the Roman Catholic Faith, who denies nothing of what the Church teaches, unlike your NOPE who denies the First Commandment of God, and accepts strange gods as "can't we all just get along" type attitude. That certainly is a big change and contradicts past True popes.
I may make mistakes but I do not state anything the Church does not teach if anyone states things falsely have you read your Francis lately.
-
Gerard old boy,
Many of your replies are a list of non sequitur statements.
That is, like most of your statements and unsupported assertion.
You never have the balls to prove anything you state.
I suggest that you stay within the bounds of the conciliar church, and I will remain in the Catholic Church of Tradition and we should have no further disagreements.
What makes you think your suggestions have any merit at all and why should anyone heed your advice?
You don't back anything up.
:rahrah:
The best that I could manage now that the bananas seem to have gone missing.................
Gerard, please curb your habit of resulting to vulgarity.
You the man who has proven nothing, criticizes others............. :facepalm:
-
Myrna dear, ignore the conciliar heckler. He is interested in nothing other than trying to convince the gullible that the New Order religion is the same as the "old" religion and that the New Order ritual is essentially an equal of the Catholic Mass, with a few less bells.
It is all the same hogwash that the conciliarists have been hawking since the council and John Paul the Great.
Gerard has seized upon Bishop Williamson's misstep to insert his own pro Novus Ordo anti pre-Vatican II propaganda.
We have been trying to wake this fellow up but it seems that he is caught in an unbreakable loop of conciliar narcolepsy.
He has no respect for anyone who does not accept his opinions as fact, including Popes and Councils.
-
Hey Gerard,
If the new offertory prayer means the same thing as the old one, why was it changed?
Or maybe you're "seeing" things which aren't there, since you grew up with a good catholic education and you understand the purpose of the mass.
For those who are younger, who had next to no catholic education (even though they went to catholic schools) and who have never read the "old" offertory prayers, they will NOT see the "pascal mystery" or "propitiation" in the same way that you do. They will see it as symbolism since the prayer says:
- memorial
- remembrance of Christ's death
- look, O Lord, upon the sacrifice you have have provided (past tense)
p.s. If the new mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, can you give us an example, from the prayers?
Establish some parameters on what you consider denotes a propitiatory sacrifice in a Catholic liturgy.
What is at question is not the motivation for any changes in form, but what the forms convey.
Both the TLM and the Novus Ordo require some Catholic teaching to understand, a person off the street would think most of it in either liturgy is gibberish.
-
Gerard, please curb your habit of resulting to vulgarity.
You the man who has proven nothing, criticizes others............. :facepalm:
I will when you start telling the truth. How's that?
I've got nothing to prove, the burden of proof isn't on me.
What assertions have you made that you've backed up and proven?
None.
-
Myrna dear, ignore the conciliar heckler. He is interested in nothing other than trying to convince the gullible that the New Order religion is the same as the "old" religion and that the New Order ritual is essentially an equal of the Catholic Mass, with a few less bells.
It is all the same hogwash that the conciliarists have been hawking since the council and John Paul the Great.
Gerard has seized upon Bishop Williamson's misstep to insert his own pro Novus Ordo anti pre-Vatican II propaganda.
We have been trying to wake this fellow up but it seems that he is caught in an unbreakable loop of conciliar narcolepsy.
He has no respect for anyone who does not accept his opinions as fact, including Popes and Councils.
Let's see….
Shots at me instead of the arguments…check.
Straw man arguments…check
Flat out lies…check.
Faiure to address any arguments..check.
Failure to back up assertions…check.
Nothing new here.
The Neo-Trads are as predictable as the Neo-Catholics of the Novus Ordo.
-
It seems you do not have the capability to be objective.
You seem blind to understanding the Paschal mystery in any Catholic Liturgy.
You can't see the Paschal mystery as the propitiatory sacrifice or you simply don't understand atonement.
I see you dodged the challenge and ignored my post concerning propitiation and the Mass, focusing instead on a reply I made to Nishant. You are such a weasel that I doubt anyone reading this thread missed what you did.
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The Novus Ordo Missae absolutely does not do this, and consequently is not a Catholic Mass at all. I challenge Gerard to prove otherwise.
If you're right, it shouldn't be that hard.
Anyone else who wishes to press Gerard to respond to the challenge is welcome to do so.
-
Myrna dear, ignore the conciliar heckler. He is interested in nothing other than trying to convince the gullible that the New Order religion is the same as the "old" religion and that the New Order ritual is essentially an equal of the Catholic Mass, with a few less bells.
It is all the same hogwash that the conciliarists have been hawking since the council and John Paul the Great.
Gerard has seized upon Bishop Williamson's misstep to insert his own pro Novus Ordo anti pre-Vatican II propaganda.
We have been trying to wake this fellow up but it seems that he is caught in an unbreakable loop of conciliar narcolepsy.
He has no respect for anyone who does not accept his opinions as fact, including Popes and Councils.
Let's see….
Shots at me instead of the arguments…check.
Straw man arguments…check
Flat out lies…check.
Faiure to address any arguments..check.
Failure to back up assertions…check.
Nothing new here.
The Neo-Trads are as predictable as the Neo-Catholics of the Novus Ordo.
Gerard,
You have no worthwhile arguments.
From everything you say, you are a neo-Catholic.
-
It seems you do not have the capability to be objective.
You seem blind to understanding the Paschal mystery in any Catholic Liturgy.
You can't see the Paschal mystery as the propitiatory sacrifice or you simply don't understand atonement.
I see you dodged the challenge and ignored my post concerning propitiation and the Mass, focusing instead on a reply I made to Nishant. You are such a weasel that I doubt anyone reading this thread missed what you did.
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The Novus Ordo Missae absolutely does not do this, and consequently is not a Catholic Mass at all. I challenge Gerard to prove otherwise.
If you're right, it shouldn't be that hard.
Anyone else who wishes to press Gerard to respond to the challenge is welcome to do so.
Well, I will join in the press. He who accuses everyone else of not addressing his issues, let him answer your direct question here and now.
-
He absolutely won't because he can't.
His teacher is his new religion founded by the devil and the devil is clever in his deceit, speaking always ambiguously, from both sides of his snake-like slitted tongue.
Can anyone here with one ounce of grace believe the novus ordo is of God?
If not, stop defending it!
-
Okay, you're a sedevacantist. You belong to the Neo Ultramontanist sect that denies the Catholic Church, through the Pope has infallibly defined the male only priesthood and the impossibility of female ordination.
Here's the lugubrious fact, no changes have been made to the Depositi of Faith.
And finally, an ad hominem is not stating a fact that you've got a devil oppressing you. You don't and shouldn't even deny it. I'm simply stating that you are buckling under its influence. It's certainly not your Guardian Angel that is encouraging you to state things that are false.
In the eyes of God, I belong to the Roman Catholic Faith, who denies nothing of what the Church teaches, unlike your NOPE who denies the First Commandment of God, and accepts strange gods as "can't we all just get along" type attitude. That certainly is a big change and contradicts past True popes.
I may make mistakes but I do not state anything the Church does not teach if anyone states things falsely have you read your Francis lately.
No. You are an obstinate material heretic.
Stop fooling yourself and face up to what you are doing and path you are going down.
You are a Neo-Ultramontanist with a bizarrely inflated understanding the papacy in defiance of the definition of the First Vatican Council.
You sit in judgement on the interior disposition of Popes in defiance of St. Pius X's encyclical "Pascendi"
And you positively deny that the Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II of inglorious memory infallibly declared that the Catholic Church does not possess the power to ordain women.
You are no different in attitude than the most liberal of prelates who deny this exercise of the extraordinary infallible magisterium of the Pope.
It's no wonder that the demonic influence always engenders this Protestant-style of nastiness and invidiousness towards true traditional Catholics.
-
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
Gerard,
Please focus. Please ignore everything else and focus on the 'propitiatory' question.
-
You sit in judgement on the interior disposition of Popes in defiance of St. Pius X's encyclical "Pascendi"
That might be true if we had a True pope today! Even the Anti-popes were Catholic, this Francis is not a pope at all, so your complaint about me is false. In the mind of the True Catholic Church of which I place myself under including all True Popes through St. Peter.
Who BTW, St. Peter would not even recognize your new founded religion, you pass off as Catholic.
-
Come on, Gerard. Stop evading.
Show where the Novus Ordo Missae is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice.
-
Gerard,
You have no worthwhile arguments.
From everything you say, you are a neo-Catholic.
Prove it.
Provide direct quotes from me to prove your assertion.
Since you can't, you won't and you'll be just as unresponsive as every other topic you pontificate about yet don't provide a single supporting reason for.
In other words, you lie.
I would have hoped that you would have had the integrity of your own word and would not badger me with your idiocy like you had determined before.
But it seems you can't like a typical weakling 1950s Catholic.
You will bitch and moan but you won't lift a finger and do a lick of real work.
The only finger you lift is one to point the blame for Vatican II at everyone but yourself.
-
Gerard appears to be getting a little angry, desperate to deflect the topic. We're discussing the Novus Ordo Missae, remember?
Show where the Novus Ordo Missae is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice.
-
Does anybody know why the html tags are working for me one minute and then they are not working when I try to post?
-
Oh well, I'm not going to waste a good half hour's work, you'll have to sift through it despite the tags not working.
Come on, Gerard. Stop evading.
Show where the Novus Ordo Missae is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice.
There’s no evasion. (maybe I’ll go back over the thread and collect the dodged questions I’ve posed that have been genuinely evaded. )
I'm sorry, I am sort of going at least 4 against 1 here and there are some issues with the html tags not working periodically.
I’ll deal with the fact that I’ve already provided evidence that you’ve incorrectly rejected with yet another fallacy.
And I will point out below that you engage in the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance with your unsupported assertions.
Gerard is living proof there there is indeed such a thing as invincible ignorance.
Pathetic insult, not worth diving into.
I'm not going to accuse Gerard of being a special needs individual for fear of insulting others in this world who may be mentally challenged.
Clever, but don't worry, I take care of several mentally handicapped people. They don't make the errors you do and they utilize common sense. And they don’t enage in any of the gyrations that some people around her use to get out of being wrong. They are honest and its refreshing after dealing with this lunacy.
However, I'll lay it out AGAIN for the benefit of the rest of the board, and will emphasize the important parts in the admittedly vain attempt of aiding Gerard in improving his fledgling reading comprehension "talents".
Don't throw stones in glass houses. I'm not the person engaging in straw man arguments.
Here’s where you set yourself up for the fall.
1. The Catholic Mass, as per session XXII of Trent, is a propitiatory sacrifice,
which essentially means it is offered
"Look with favor on your Church's offering…"
...as atonement for sin, satisfaction of punishments incurred due to sin, appeasement of the Justice of God, etc.
all of which is contained in the phrase…"and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself."
Reconcile: VERB
restore friendly relations between: 
"she wanted to be reconciled with her father" · [more]
synonyms: settle one's differences · make (one's) peace · make up · [more]




Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator
The key word or concept is propitiatory, not sacrifice.
I’m curious, so I’ll take advantage of your vast knowledge, tell me, what kind of propitiation is not a sacrifice of some kind?
Don’t evade it, just answer the question.
2. Our fish friend quotes the text of the Novus Ordo and thinks because it mentions the word "sacrifice", he's made some kind of point. His quote is utterly void of the concept of propitiation and, as a response to my post, is a shining example of his finesse in wollowing in irrelevancies.
That' really kind of an imbecilic rant on your part.
You prattle on about what I “think” and then display utter ignorance.
The text I quoted originally is not utterly void of propitiation.
I mean seriously, you can’t possibly be so stupid to think that you could simply ignore the elements you want to by not highlilghting them in red?
Therefore, O Lord, as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption,
You do know what redemption is, don’t you?
we remember christ’s Death and his descent to the realm of the dead,
we proclaim his resurrection and his ascension to your right hand,
and as we await his coming in glory,
You do know what the Lord said about “in remembrance” right?
we offer you his Body and Blood, the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Present tense. We offer you His Body and Blood (not a symbol) but rather “THE sacrifice...ACCEPTABLE ( ie propitious, appeasing, favorable) to you...which brings salvation ( ie. expiation, atonement, redemption,etc)
3. Because the Novus Ordo is never o......m
That was all just a useless rant, rendered null by the fact that you have been proven wrong. Again.
4. I repeat my challenge to anyone to prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is a propitiatory sacrifice.
It’s already been done. Twice now. But it should be noted, this is the stunt where you shift the burden of proof against anyone who disputes your unsupported allegation.
And since you actually refuse to engage in the discussion, you can keep dodging using the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance.
So I have had to take the burden of proof that is logically yours and go about disproving a negative assertion.
The reason for this, is because I can and have disproved your assertions.
You have no recourse but to be honest and honorably concede or dodge and be a dishonest shameful loser.
-
You sit in judgement on the interior disposition of Popes in defiance of St. Pius X's encyclical "Pascendi"
That might be true if we had a True pope today! Even the Anti-popes were Catholic, this Francis is not a pope at all, so your complaint about me is false. In the mind of the True Catholic Church of which I place myself under including all True Popes through St. Peter.
Who BTW, St. Peter would not even recognize your new founded religion, you pass off as Catholic.
Now the tags work. Nuts.
You don't place yourself under the True Church, you make yourself the arbiter of what is the True Church.
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
I don't have to defend Francis, I don't like him a bit, he's definitely not what I would call a "good" Pope. But he is for better or worse, Pope.
Only the Neo-Ultramontanist in their prime error can go into the mental contortions to declare him either a "blessing" or an Anti-Pope.
-
Gerard appears to be getting a little angry, desperate to deflect the topic. We're discussing the Novus Ordo Missae, remember?
Show where the Novus Ordo Missae is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice.
Making false accusations against me is the method of deflection at work.
So, is your stunt of making an unsupported negative assertion and demanding someone prove you wrong.
You set yourself up as the judge when the burden of proof is on you.
So, you can make excuses and dodge conceding.
But, I've taken the bait twice and proven you wrong twice.
I've rebutted your previous dodge from my original text and provided a second example.
{I'm sorry the html tags didn't work again in my reply to you. I've tried multiple times but they don't work and then they do. Myrna's demon must be on the attack. )
But it's there and you've been proven wrong.
-
He absolutely won't because he can't
His teacher is his new religion founded by the devil and the devil is clever in his deceit, speaking always ambiguously, from both sides of his snake-like slitted tongue.
Can anyone here with one ounce of grace believe the novus ordo is of God?
If not, stop defending it!
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
You keep asking rhetorical questions that rely on false, fantasy based premises.
-
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
I don't have to defend Francis, I don't like him a bit, he's definitely not what I would call a "good" Pope. But he is for better or worse, Pope.
Only the Neo-Ultramontanist in their prime error can go into the mental contortions to declare him either a "blessing" or an Anti-Pope.
St. Peter would know!
Francis is not even an Anti-Pope, they were Catholic, and he is not.
BTW ... I notice when I post here and you are in the posting screen, look at the bottom BEFORE YOU PRESS REPLY, sometimes that box below where it says: Convert emoticons into images? and below that it says Format MbCode? sometimes that one about the MbCode is not checked, it should be checked for tags to work, so check the box and the tags should work. Otherwise, maybe it's your guardian angel who doesn't like what you are posting here. :laugh1:
-
Gerard,
Please focus. Please ignore everything else and focus on the 'propitiatory' question.
Since you ignored my condition that you provide the parameters for what constitutes propitiation in a liturgy, I'll assume you agree with ihsv's "concept" of it.
You'll notice that the quoted texts offer the Sacrifice of Redemption by Christ on the Cross for the purpose of reconciling God and man.
-
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
I don't have to defend Francis, I don't like him a bit, he's definitely not what I would call a "good" Pope. But he is for better or worse, Pope.
Only the Neo-Ultramontanist in their prime error can go into the mental contortions to declare him either a "blessing" or an Anti-Pope.
St. Peter would know!
Francis is not even an Anti-Pope, they were Catholic, and he is not.
BTW ... I notice when I post here and you are in the posting screen, look at the bottom BEFORE YOU PRESS REPLY, sometimes that box below where it says: Convert emoticons into images? and below that it says Format MbCode? sometimes that one about the MbCode is not checked, it should be checked for tags to work, so check the box and the tags should work. Otherwise, maybe it's your guardian angel who doesn't like what you are posting here. :laugh1:
Thanks for the tip but I've tried that.
I've said a prayer to St. Micheal and things seem to be working now.
-
Oh well, I'm not going to waste a good half hour's work, you'll have to sift through it despite the tags not working.
Come on, Gerard. Stop evading.
Show where the Novus Ordo Missae is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice.
There’s no evasion. (maybe I’ll go back over the thread and collect the dodged questions I’ve posed that have been genuinely evaded. )
I'm sorry, I am sort of going at least 4 against 1 here and there are some issues with the html tags not working periodically.
I’ll deal with the fact that I’ve already provided evidence that you’ve incorrectly rejected with yet another fallacy.
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
As traditional Catholics, our total religious effort is for the preservation of the Catholic faith, as such, we are particularly mindful that we carry on a kind of crusade for the True Mass. The reason for this is because it is through the supplantation of the True Mass that the enemies of the Church have succeeded to such a great extent as we see today, in despoiling the people of their Catholic belief, their understanding of the faith, nearly all things sacred and even of their piety.
The result is that people practically do not know what they’re supposed to believe, have no idea what they’re doing at the new mass and certainly they do not understand that they’re doing something objectively wicked in attending the new mass.
As for being as sacrificial as the True Mass, the new mass presents an altogether different orientation, a completely radical about face - and we know this because we can examine any change that was introduced.
You must always remember that the reasons given for the new mass, was not to make it more holy or sacrificial, you must remember that everything that was done, was on the excuse that "the people will prefer it this way", that "it will suit the people’s taste", that "they will understand it better", "they will get more out of it".
So if in fact, here or there, a character or two of a sacrificial nature surfaces within the new mass, it is a necessary accident of the ambiguous humanistic service which was purposely not eliminated in it's entirety, rather it purposely remains to pacify the compromisers as they search for reasons to compromise.
-
I haven't read all of this topic, but I've been amazed that this topic has continued for so long.
Instead of asking, "Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass?", I'd like to know what people think of any of the Protestant Last Supper Services. Are Protestant Last Supper Services evil like a Black Mass?
I've never really read any credible traditional Catholic compare the Novus Ordo to a Black Mass, but I have read many credible traditional Catholics who compare--or equate--the Novus Ordo to a Protestant Last Supper Service.
It would seem that whatever the answer to this question is, the same answer would apply to the Novus Ordo.
-
Gerard,
You have no worthwhile arguments.
From everything you say, you are a neo-Catholic.
Prove it.
Provide direct quotes from me to prove your assertion.
Since you can't, you won't and you'll be just as unresponsive as every other topic you pontificate about yet don't provide a single supporting reason for.
In other words, you lie.
I would have hoped that you would have had the integrity of your own word and would not badger me with your idiocy like you had determined before.
But it seems you can't like a typical weakling 1950s Catholic.
You will bitch and moan but you won't lift a finger and do a lick of real work.
The only finger you lift is one to point the blame for Vatican II at everyone but yourself.
There you are again with your pre-conciliar Catholic obsession, or should we say, hatred?
Answer the question that was put to you and stop diverting. You have put your money in the Novus Ordo basket, now defend it, stop dancing, and stop abusing others with your slurs.
-
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
Modernist. No, they are most certainly not man-made. They were developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit using many elements handed down from Tradition, a large portion of which derive from God's directives in the Old Testament (cf. How Christ said the First Mass). That's like saying that Sacred Scriptures are "man-made" because they were penned by men.
Begone, modernist!
-
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
Modernist. No, they are most certainly not man-made. They were developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit using many elements handed down from Tradition, a large portion of which derive from God's directives in the Old Testament (cf. How Christ said the First Mass). That's like saying that Sacred Scriptures are "man-made" because they were penned by men.
Begone, modernist!
Indeed! The mask is off.
Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God.
-
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
Modernist. No, they are most certainly not man-made. They were developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit using many elements handed down from Tradition, a large portion of which derive from God's directives in the Old Testament (cf. How Christ said the First Mass). That's like saying that Sacred Scriptures are "man-made" because they were penned by men.
Begone, modernist!
Something I never thought would happen to me, lately, I have been giving Ladislaus frequent thumbs up! :stare:
-
Gerard,
You have no worthwhile arguments.
From everything you say, you are a neo-Catholic.
Prove it.
Provide direct quotes from me to prove your assertion.
Since you can't, you won't and you'll be just as unresponsive as every other topic you pontificate about yet don't provide a single supporting reason for.
In other words, you lie.
I would have hoped that you would have had the integrity of your own word and would not badger me with your idiocy like you had determined before.
But it seems you can't like a typical weakling 1950s Catholic.
You will bitch and moan but you won't lift a finger and do a lick of real work.
The only finger you lift is one to point the blame for Vatican II at everyone but yourself.
There you are again with your pre-conciliar Catholic obsession, or should we say, hatred?
There you are again with your straw man arguments.
Any criticism is met with an exaggerated reframing.
If I'm opposed to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, the response is, "Oh, you hate gαys."
I point out that things weren't as rosy and innocent in the pre-concilar era and it's therefore "hatred."
The fact is, the hatred is part of your dominion, I don't hate the pre-or post Vatican II Church or era. I don't hate my Mother when she's under attack and I certainly don't pretend she was not under attack when she was.
Answer the question that was put to you and stop diverting.
Hiilarious coming from you. Go back and answer every question I've posed to you and you've ignored.
You have put your money in the Novus Ordo basket, now defend it, stop dancing, and stop abusing others with your slurs.
When did I "put my money in the Novus Ordo basket" Oh that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you, you get to misrepresent.
Do something different and post something truthful and useful and shock us all.
-
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
Modernist. No, they are most certainly not man-made. They were developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit using many elements handed down from Tradition, a large portion of which derive from God's directives in the Old Testament (cf. How Christ said the First Mass). That's like saying that Sacred Scriptures are "man-made" because they were penned by men.
Begone, modernist!
That's an idiotic argument. You don't know what modernism is obviously and you are claiming essentially that the Liturgical rites of the Church are Divinely Revealed.
Revelation closed with the death of St. John the Apostle.
If you think liturgies "evolve" over time through the continuing revelation of God, you are the modernist.
If what you claim is true, St. Pius V would have not had the authority to suppress valid rites less than 200 years old.
Begone Ignoramus!
-
I see only one idiot here, and he comes from FE.
I was drawing an ANALOGY between the Sacred Scriptures and the Liturgical Development in the Church ... to point out that human instrumentality does not equate to human creation. God developed the Liturgy in the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit. You claim essentially that these are concocted by man and can be altered by man at a whim. St. Pius V did not concoct a liturgy out of thin air; his activities and the activities of all the actual legitimate popes throughout history represent aspects of the Holy Spirit's activity in developing the liturgy. Now, we know you think that the Holy Spirit used Paul VI in the exact same way, but most of us actual Traditional Catholics would beg to differ.
And I know exactly what modernism is, thank you. And I know a modernist when I see one ... FE.
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
As traditional Catholics, our total religious effort is for the preservation of the Catholic faith, as such, we are particularly mindful that we carry on a kind of crusade for the True Mass.
1962? 1954? 1570? The Sarum variant? The Ambrosian? You have to deal with some realities about what exactly traditional Catholcis are going to defend.
The reason for this is because it is through the supplantation of the True Mass that the enemies of the Church have succeeded to such a great extent as we see today, in despoiling the people of their Catholic belief, their understanding of the faith, nearly all things sacred and even of their piety.
No. That's a contributing reason, not the main one. There was no Novus Ordo when Fr. Feeney was unjustly persecuted by Church authorities for defending the dogma of the Church.
Evolution, Jansenism, Modernism, Relativism, Progressivism all were attacks on the Church that made the liturgy ineffective.
The proof is the lack of any real defense of the liturgy on a wide scale. Camps, LeFebvre, The Agatha Christie Indult and a few individual priests only took up the fight and closed the barn doors after most of the horses were gone.
The result is that people practically do not know what they’re supposed to believe, have no idea what they’re doing at the new mass and certainly they do not understand that they’re doing something objectively wicked in attending the new mass.
It's not objectively wicked. That's what the whole "intrinsically evil" argument was about earlier.
No one has proven the case that it's objectively wicked or intrinsically evil.
It doesn't mean it's a great idea, it doesn't mean that the architects of it weren't of varying degrees of malice. But none of that denotes the intrinsic character of something.
As for being as sacrificial as the True Mass, the new mass presents an altogether different orientation, a completely radical about face - and we know this because we can examine any change that was introduced.
No. You are talking about liturgical emphasis, the sacrifice is the sacrifice. The surrounding prayers and rites are simply elements that make one conducive towards receiving. A Maronite liturgy might be better in one aspect than the Byzantine or the Coptic and less so in another aspect.
You must always remember that the reasons given for the new mass, was not to make it more holy or sacrificial, you must remember that everything that was done, was on the excuse that "the people will prefer it this way", that "it will suit the people’s taste", that "they will understand it better", "they will get more out of it".
People can lie or tell the truth about "reasons" and that is irrelevant to the thing itself.
I'm sure Pius XII's intentions were noble in addressing the liturgical issues of his day by encouraging the dialogue Mass and changing the Holy Week rites.
So if in fact, here or there, a character or two of a sacrificial nature surfaces within the new mass, it is a necessary accident of the ambiguous humanistic service which was purposely not eliminated in it's entirety, rather it purposely remains to pacify the compromisers as they search for reasons to compromise.
Now isn't that moving the goal posts on this thread? ihsv trumpet that there was ABSOLUTELY no propitiation going on in the Novus Ordo.
Now, that the sacrifice of propitiation has been shown to be present, now the argument is about the "degree.'
So we've shifted from change in kind to change in degree without any concession on the wrongness of those calling the Novus Ordo "intrinsically" evil.
-
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
And ... let's throw in a touch of antiquarianism for good measure. Well done, FE.
-
Gerard from FE said:
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
Surely Saint Peter would have an impossible time recognizing the heretical concililiar popes as his successors ?
One must ask the question, what would have happened if a group of errant Bishops had proposed the Novus Ordo, just as it is, at Trent?
No doubt, that there would be an ensuing rush to gather firewood.
Think about it. In earlier times the Church would never have tolerated any of this nonsense.
The Novus Ordo was aimed at changing the belief of the Faithful, softening the belief in the real presence and making them more favorable to Protestants. The proof?
It did just that, it is history.
In that it cannot be anything other than evil.
-
If what you claim is true, St. Pius V would have not had the authority to suppress valid rites less than 200 years old.
It is a very great lie in our times that Pius V "created" a new rite. He didn't create anything; he RESTORED the liturgy to the way that Christ had instituted it and to the essentials that had developed from the Church fathers' and early monks. As he stated in the beginning of Quo Primum:
We gladly turned our mind... to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy...and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers.
The reason he suppressed the liturgies which were less than 200 yrs old is because they (read: men) had added/subtracted ceremonies/prayers which, though done through devotion, had caused a weakening of unity in the Church. The various rites had become too different, so the uniform nature of Mass was being lost. Pius V codified the liturgy for the Latin Church to bring back unity of prayer and worship.
He did not change the liturgies of the eastern churches since (in my opinion) their cultures had always varied with the latin church, so the difference in the liturgy was to be expected and was not a scandal or a contradiction.
Now, enter the novus ordo, which introduced to the latin church the unity-destroying rubics and optional prayers and we have what we see today: liturgical chaos, a lack of unity and therefore we have (almost) lost the 'catholic' character, which is that the Faith is supposed to be 'universal'; now it is not. The novus ordo is a problem just because of this fact alone.
-
I see only one idiot here, and he comes from FE.
You see what you want to see and are willfully blind about the rest.
I was drawing an ANALOGY between the Sacred Scriptures and the Liturgical Development in the Church ... to point out that human instrumentality does not equate to human creation.
Scriptures didn't "develop" they were revealed to the writers. People didn't add to the Scriptures in order to "develop" them.
God developed the Liturgy in the Church through the activity of the Holy Spirit.
No. God instituted the Sacraments and their form. The liturgy was developed by Churchmen and it was a trial and error procedure over a vast amount of time.
The operation of the Holy Ghost and His distribution of actual graces is His business, Churchmen do their best if they are of good will to conform to the will of the Holy Ghost, but that does not guarantee where, how and to what extent or for how long the Holy Ghost wills anything or permits anything.
You claim essentially that these are concocted by man and can be altered by man at a whim.
Not any man but a reigning Pope. For good or ill.
St. Pius V did not concoct a liturgy out of thin air;
I didn't say he did. I said he suppressed numerous liturgies in 1570.
They were valid, accepted and received rites of the Church.
his activities and the activities of all the actual legitimate popes throughout history represent aspects of the Holy Spirit's activity in developing the liturgy.
Until you say otherwise. Right? You seem to think the Holy Ghost can't punish the unfaithful Catholics of the 1950s who didn't appreciate the TLM and so He saddled them with a second rate liturgy to make them work harder for His graces.
Now, we know you think that the Holy Spirit used Paul VI in the exact same way, but most of us actual Traditional Catholics would beg to differ.
You mean Neo-trads.
And I know exactly what modernism is, thank you. And I know a modernist when I see one ... FE.
No. You don't.
-
The question can not be answered because the novus ordo does not atone for our sins, and furthermore the new religion has lost all sense of sin. There are no sins anymore except in the case of hurting your neighbor, forget about sins of hurting God.
The enemy has purposely removed any atonement of sin, since the new religion is the worship of man, not God. All the changes have been for the benefit of Man, none for the benefit of God.
What is Francis telling the world today, all sense of sin is gone. Forgive everyone not only forgive but forget the "sin", that is old fashioned, we are enlightened and the only time he says something Catholic is when mankind is hurt.
-
Surely Saint Peter would have an impossible time recognizing the heretical concililiar popes as his successors ?
Do you think he would recognize Julius II, John X, Alexander V, Formosus, Stephen VII as his successors?
It doesn't even matter because Christ the Lord is the one who recognizes them for the good and the bad that they are.
One must ask the question, what would have happened if a group of errant Bishops had proposed the Novus Ordo, just as it is, at Trent?
No doubt, that there would be an ensuing rush to gather firewood.
Not really. A good number of things in the Novus Ordo are simply Catholic elements that were discarded prior to or in the revising of the missal by St. Pius V
The bidding prayers were entirely Catholic and the Protestants retained them and the Church discarded them. It's entirely within the Church's power to restore them.
Think about it. In earlier times the Church would never have tolerated any of this nonsense.
Yes it did. I forget which King it was that road his horse down the aisle of the Church to get Communion. And a number of Kings put pressure on the Pope to allow them to self-communicate under both kinds.
The Church tolerated married clergy in the East to the point where people in both the East and West believe that married clergy is not an abuse.
The Novus Ordo was aimed at changing the belief of the Faithful, softening the belief in the real presence and making them more favorable to Protestants. The proof?
It did just that, it is history.
That was the intention of some reformers. If it were that simple the Novus Ordo of 1974 would still be the liturgy of today. But change after change was forced onto the Churches that go beyond the missal to promote the liberal agenda.
In 1981 the Novus Ordo Churches were still packed. If anything, Communion in the Hand is what undermined the faith and reduced people's belief and they started to drift away in vast numbers.
In that it cannot be anything other than evil.
Yes it can.
-
Scriptures didn't "develop" they were revealed to the writers. People didn't add to the Scriptures in order to "develop" them.
Evidently the term "analogy" fails to register itself with your brain.
The liturgy was developed by Churchmen and it was a trial and error procedure over a vast amount of time.
bzzzt. God, in his Providence, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, USED Holy Scripture, Old Testament traditions (which He Himself instituted), and various other human instrumental causes to develop the Sacred Liturgy. You are a foaming-at-the-mouth modernist.
-
The question can not be answered because the novus ordo does not atone for our sins, and furthermore the new religion has lost all sense of sin. There are no sins anymore except in the case of hurting your neighbor, forget about sins of hurting God.
The question was answered. A valid consecration is the sacrifice of Calvary, that is what reconciles man to God and atones for sin.
The enemy has purposely removed any atonement of sin, since the new religion is the worship of man, not God. All the changes have been for the benefit of Man, none for the benefit of God.
God doesn't need us at all. God needs no benefit at all. The liturgy, the sacrifice of Calvary, redemption and salvation are all for Man, not God.
What is Francis telling the world today, all sense of sin is gone. Forgive everyone not only forgive but forget the "sin", that is old fashioned, we are enlightened and the only time he says something Catholic is when mankind is hurt.
Popes can be evil and idiots. What's your point? They can also end up doing the right things on occasion. Leo X was a horrible Pope, but he excommunicated Luther and condemned 40 of the 95 thesis (which tells you Luther was right about a number of things. It doesn't justify his schism and heresy, but it's an accurate statement on the reality. )
-
Scriptures didn't "develop" they were revealed to the writers. People didn't add to the Scriptures in order to "develop" them.
Evidently the term "analogy" fails to register itself with your brain.
It does. But your analogy fails.
The liturgy was developed by Churchmen and it was a trial and error procedure over a vast amount of time.
bzzzt. God, in his Providence, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, USED Holy Scripture, Old Testament traditions (which He Himself instituted), and various other human instrumental causes to develop the Sacred Liturgy. You are a foaming-at-the-mouth modernist.
psst. You don't know what you're talking about. And you don't understand what modernism is.
You sound like a Neo-Catholic Charismatic.
And you're ignoring the fact that St. Pius V suppressed a number of valid, received and approved liturgies.
-
Gerard from FE said:
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
Surely Saint Peter would have an impossible time recognizing the heretical concililiar popes as his successors ?
One must ask the question, what would have happened if a group of errant Bishops had proposed the Novus Ordo, just as it is, at Trent?
No doubt, that there would be an ensuing rush to gather firewood.
Think about it. In earlier times the Church would never have tolerated any of this nonsense.
The Novus Ordo was aimed at changing the belief of the Faithful, softening the belief in the real presence and making them more favorable to Protestants. The proof?
It did just that, it is history.
In that it cannot be anything other than evil.
This is very true. Without saying a word to the Catholics in the pews, their belief in and demeanor in front of the Blessed Sacrament was changed. As well as their understanding of the Mass. Now, it is a meal. The emphasis is on fellowship. The highlight of the Mass for most is the sign of peace.
Catholics left in the pews who are old enough to know better have forgotten what they once knew.
-
Gerard from FE said:
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
Surely Saint Peter would have an impossible time recognizing the heretical concililiar popes as his successors ?
One must ask the question, what would have happened if a group of errant Bishops had proposed the Novus Ordo, just as it is, at Trent?
No doubt, that there would be an ensuing rush to gather firewood.
Think about it. In earlier times the Church would never have tolerated any of this nonsense.
The Novus Ordo was aimed at changing the belief of the Faithful, softening the belief in the real presence and making them more favorable to Protestants. The proof?
It did just that, it is history.
In that it cannot be anything other than evil.
This is very true. Without saying a word to the Catholics in the pews, their belief in and demeanor in front of the Blessed Sacrament was changed. As well as their understanding of the Mass. Now, it is a meal. The emphasis is on fellowship. The highlight of the Mass for most is the sign of peace.
Catholics left in the pews who are old enough to know better have forgotten what they once knew.
I remember the Novus Ordo in my archdiocese in the 1970s. Communion on the tongue, at the rail, the women wore head coverings, girls wore beanies for school masses, the priests were impeccable with their care for the Eucharist. The protocols for receiving communion were efficient and organized.
The reverence and behavior were more well-ordered than most TLMs I've been to since I've started attending them for about 14 years now, SSPX, Indult, diocesan, FSSP and others.
Whatever the intentions of some of the architects, it wasn't enough and novelty after novelty was foisted on top of the Novus Ordo to push the progressive agenda, but despite all of that, there are people utilizing the Novus Ordo for good.
They are doing their best in less than ideal circuмstances. They are not attending a Black Mass and worshipping Satan or Lucifer.
-
Gerard from FE said:
St. Peter would not have recognized St. Peter's square or anything like Trent and the liturgy he would recognize would not be particularly similar to the TLM or the Novus Ordo or any other rite, He would only recognize the essentials.
Surely Saint Peter would have an impossible time recognizing the heretical concililiar popes as his successors ?
One must ask the question, what would have happened if a group of errant Bishops had proposed the Novus Ordo, just as it is, at Trent?
No doubt, that there would be an ensuing rush to gather firewood.
Think about it. In earlier times the Church would never have tolerated any of this nonsense.
The Novus Ordo was aimed at changing the belief of the Faithful, softening the belief in the real presence and making them more favorable to Protestants. The proof?
It did just that, it is history.
In that it cannot be anything other than evil.
This is very true. Without saying a word to the Catholics in the pews, their belief in and demeanor in front of the Blessed Sacrament was changed. As well as their understanding of the Mass. Now, it is a meal. The emphasis is on fellowship. The highlight of the Mass for most is the sign of peace.
Catholics left in the pews who are old enough to know better have forgotten what they once knew.
I remember the Novus Ordo in my archdiocese in the 1970s. Communion on the tongue, at the rail, the women wore head coverings, girls wore beanies for school masses, the priests were impeccable with their care for the Eucharist. The protocols for receiving communion were efficient and organized.
The reverence and behavior were more well-ordered than most TLMs I've been to since I've started attending them for about 14 years now, SSPX, Indult, diocesan, FSSP and others.
Whatever the intentions of some of the architects, it wasn't enough and novelty after novelty was foisted on top of the Novus Ordo to push the progressive agenda, but despite all of that, there are people utilizing the Novus Ordo for good.
They are doing their best in less than ideal circuмstances. They are not attending a Black Mass and worshipping Satan or Lucifer.
You don't have to tell me what it was like. I was there and am probably much older than you.
You must have been in a wonderful archdiocese, because the archdiocese I was in was gone by 1975. And whatever parish we found that had any reverence left didn't last long. The bishop saw to that. The priest was hauled out and a younger, more with-it type was put in his place.
-
The question can not be answered because the novus ordo does not atone for our sins, and furthermore the new religion has lost all sense of sin. There are no sins anymore except in the case of hurting your neighbor, forget about sins of hurting God.
The question was answered. A valid consecration is the sacrifice of Calvary, that is what reconciles man to God and atones for sin.
The enemy has purposely removed any atonement of sin, since the new religion is the worship of man, not God. All the changes have been for the benefit of Man, none for the benefit of God.
God doesn't need us at all. God needs no benefit at all. The liturgy, the sacrifice of Calvary, redemption and salvation are all for Man, not God.
I agree God does not need us, but we are obligated to give God the highest honor, the highest adoration, the highest praise, perfect thanksgiving offered to the Father, the accomplishment of propitiation, reparation, and reconciliation.
When a True priest properly ordained in the Old Sacrament of Holy Orders, he honors God. Yes, just as Thomas a Kempis in his Imitation of Christ says, “The Holy Mass is always offered up for all the faithful” but do you deny, that God deserves the highest worship man could offer to Him?
The result of the false mass as Alexandria and others explained to you is nothing more than a party, or banquet for the purpose of unity of all false religions of all mankind.
My answer is above in blue.
We live now with the changes and Vatican II, known as the new religion the false doctrine which reinterprets man's standing as God's servant and turns him into God's partner. Man's sinful nature is forgotten, per Francis, YOUR POPE ... and God is robbed of the honor DUE TO HIM, in favor of paying tribute to man.
No matter how much you dislike Francis, you believe by your words of disgust for him that that places you in a favorable position much like the Traditional Catholics you came here to discredit.
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vinces.
As traditional Catholics, our total religious effort is for the preservation of the Catholic faith, as such, we are particularly mindful that we carry on a kind of crusade for the True Mass.
1962? 1954? 1570? The Sarum variant? The Ambrosian? You have to deal with some realities about what exactly traditional Catholcis are going to defend.
Hopefully you are only acting ridiculous in your attempt to be a smart aleck. The True Mass is the Tridentine Mass, the new "mass" is the Novus Ordo service. The True Mass is God centered, the new "mass" is man centered.
Every change that was made was motivated by the idea that man must be elevated so that he thinks of himself as important. And if in the process, Christ must be degraded, or the sacred species man handled, or the Church scoured and emptied, well, that is a necessary thing that must be done. So it should be no wonder that most NOers do not even know what the Real Presence even is.
The reason for this is because it is through the supplantation of the True Mass that the enemies of the Church have succeeded to such a great extent as we see today, in despoiling the people of their Catholic belief, their understanding of the faith, nearly all things sacred and even of their piety.
No. That's a contributing reason, not the main one. There was no Novus Ordo when Fr. Feeney was unjustly persecuted by Church authorities for defending the dogma of the Church.
Evolution, Jansenism, Modernism, Relativism, Progressivism all were attacks on the Church that made the liturgy ineffective.
The proof is the lack of any real defense of the liturgy on a wide scale. Camps, LeFebvre, The Agatha Christie Indult and a few individual priests only took up the fight and closed the barn doors after most of the horses were gone.
You are wrong here. True that the NO was in the works before Fr. Feeney, before Pope St. Pius X even, but it was not until they finally succeeded in replacing the True Mass with their new "mass" that we saw the despoiling the people, deprived of their Lex orandi therefore of their Catholic belief, their understanding of the faith, nearly all things sacred and even of their piety. Prior to that, the enemy was hidden, largely underground, our faith like our Mass remained True until they replaced it with the new "mass".
The result is that people practically do not know what they’re supposed to believe, have no idea what they’re doing at the new mass and certainly they do not understand that they’re doing something objectively wicked in attending the new mass.
It's not objectively wicked. That's what the whole "intrinsically evil" argument was about earlier.
No one has proven the case that it's objectively wicked or intrinsically evil.
It doesn't mean it's a great idea, it doesn't mean that the architects of it weren't of varying degrees of malice. But none of that denotes the intrinsic character of something.
It is objectively wicked and is proven by it's fruits i.e. the closed Churches, schools and convents, the drastic decline in vocations, the rampant loss of faith among NOers, and on and on.
As for being as sacrificial as the True Mass, the new mass presents an altogether different orientation, a completely radical about face - and we know this because we can examine any change that was introduced.
No. You are talking about liturgical emphasis, the sacrifice is the sacrifice. The surrounding prayers and rites are simply elements that make one conducive towards receiving. A Maronite liturgy might be better in one aspect than the Byzantine or the Coptic and less so in another aspect.
No, I am talking about the new mass being something COMPLETELY different, completely foreign to Catholics. Because it is indisputably something COMPLETELY different, the sacrificial nature is gone - to put it another way, the new mass has the same sacrificial nature as any Lutheran service.
You must always remember that the reasons given for the new mass, was not to make it more holy or sacrificial, you must remember that everything that was done, was on the excuse that "the people will prefer it this way", that "it will suit the people’s taste", that "they will understand it better", "they will get more out of it".
People can lie or tell the truth about "reasons" and that is irrelevant to the thing itself.
I'm sure Pius XII's intentions were noble in addressing the liturgical issues of his day by encouraging the dialogue Mass and changing the Holy Week rites.
Whatever his intentions matters not. What matters is the new mass of PPVI was purposely perpetrated upon the largely lethargic Catholic population who believed the pope was always infallible.
So if in fact, here or there, a character or two of a sacrificial nature surfaces within the new mass, it is a necessary accident of the ambiguous humanistic service which was purposely not eliminated in it's entirety, rather it purposely remains to pacify the compromisers as they search for reasons to compromise.
Now isn't that moving the goal posts on this thread? ihsv trumpet that there was ABSOLUTELY no propitiation going on in the Novus Ordo.
Now, that the sacrifice of propitiation has been shown to be present, now the argument is about the "degree.'
So we've shifted from change in kind to change in degree without any concession on the wrongness of those calling the Novus Ordo "intrinsically" evil.
There is no propitiation happening, you, as one of the compromisers, see the word "sacrifice" and are immediately pacified as I said. That's why I said that "a character or two of a sacrificial nature surfaces", which does not mean the new mass has a sacrificial nature.
-
As I said many months ago when the man from Fisheaters surfaced on this board. The New Order is not a work of the Catholic Church, and it is not Catholic.
In all ways it is a product of the Church's enemies and has accomplished their desires to destroy the Church which is now controlled and overshadowed by the conciliar heresy of modernism.
There is a reason that most members are here and not at Fish Eaters. Gerard is a prime example.
He continues to fling at us the same thing that Bishop Williamson stepped in a few months back.
-
1. The Catholic Mass, as per session XXII of Trent, is a propitiatory sacrifice, which essentially means it is offered
"Look with favor on your Church's offering…"
The Mass is offered by the PRIEST, not the Church. The Priest, in persona christi, must offer the sacrifice. Wallowing in irrelevancies.
...as atonement for sin, satisfaction of punishments incurred due to sin, appeasement of the Justice of God, etc.
all of which is contained in the phrase…"and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself."
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
What an unbelievable series of mental gymnastics! You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, do you? You have zero credibility.
1. Reconciliation is NOT atonement for sin, satisfaction of punishments, etc. A soul who is reconciled to God must STILL MAKE SATISFACTION FOR HIS SINS, something for which the Novus Ordo is never offered.
2. As an aside, this drivel asks God to SEE (look at, gaze upon) the "victim", and then makes a passing comment about a past event, the actual death of Christ 2000 years ago (whose death HAS reconciled..."), clearly not discussing the present "sacrifice." You bring wallowing in irrelevancies to a new level.
3. Since we're already "reconciled" (whose death has reconciled us...), why even bother with "offering" anything to begin with?
Reconcile: VERB
restore friendly relations between: 
"she wanted to be reconciled with her father" · 
synonyms: settle one's differences · make (one's) peace · make up · 




Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator
You royal dufus, reconciliation IS NOT propitiation. You are utterly clueless about this topic.
Use a Catholic dictionary next time, you modernist clown.
2. Our fish friend quotes the text of the Novus Ordo and thinks because it mentions the word "sacrifice", he's made some kind of point. His quote is utterly void of the concept of propitiation and, as a response to my post, is a shining example of his finesse in wollowing in irrelevancies.
Therefore, O Lord, as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption,
You do know what redemption is, don’t you?
I know what redemption is, and I know what propitiation is. I also know that redemption and propitiation are NOT the same thing at all. You clearly don't, genius.
Each sin that is committed MUST be repaired, the justice of God MUST be appeased, and the punishment due to sin MUST be paid in full. THAT must be accomplished over and over, as often as sin is committed. This is one of the principal purposes of the Mass, and the New Mass is never offered for these ends.
we remember christ’s Death and his descent to the realm of the dead,
we proclaim his resurrection and his ascension to your right hand,
and as we await his coming in glory,
You do know what the Lord said about “in remembrance” right?
Pure modernistic, meaningless drivel. What part of this has anything to do with making reparation for sins, appeasing the justice of God, or making satisfaction for the punishments due to sin?
we offer you his Body and Blood, the sacrifice acceptable to you
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Present tense. We offer you His Body and Blood (not a symbol) but rather “THE sacrifice...ACCEPTABLE ( ie propitious, appeasing, favorable) to you...which brings salvation ( ie. expiation, atonement, redemption,etc)
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
You pompous, dishonest weasel. The terms "Acceptable" and "salvation" are NOT synonyms for propitiation, expiation, atonement, making reparation for sins, appeasing the justice of God, or making satisfaction for the punishments due to sin, or anything of the kind.
Un-flipping-believable.
:facepalm:
The True Mass is specifically offered as a propitiatory sacrifice, in accordance with what is taught in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The Novus Ordo Missae absolutely does not do this, and consequently is not a Catholic Mass at all.
-
I'm genuinely tired of cleaning Gerard's vomit off my screen.
Like any fish outside of his element, after three days he starts to stink and no one wants to be around him.
-
Gerard are you a plant? As in, "infiltrator"? (As in a kind of anti-Catholic communist?) Your Catholic theology is wanting and your insistence and stubbornness in asserting it makes you suspect.
-
ihsv:
I'm genuinely tired of cleaning Gerard's vomit off my screen.
Like any fish outside of his element, after three days he starts to stink and no one wants to be around him.
This is the first time I've looked in on this topic. Wow! What's going on around here? Gerard, I think I understand and basically agree with you. But you've sure made some enemies among some of the more ferocious trads on this forum.
How ihsv washes your vomit off his computer screen must be a sight to behold. The imagination can hardly deal with it. Be assured though,Gerard. You're not half as rotten as some of these ultra hyper trads say you are. In fact, I think I might even enjoy your company. :rolleyes:
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
I mentioned that the Cross was a human invention and was never intended to be a symbol of victory.
So……the lesson learned is that the intentions of men…are not necessarily determinative of the ends they achieve. God has a say so.
By the way, you couldn't refute my argument, ever and I'm not defending the Novus Ordo per se, I'm refuting false arguments against it. They make traditional Catholics look like fools.
As traditional Catholics, our total religious effort is for the preservation of the Catholic faith, as such, we are particularly mindful that we carry on a kind of crusade for the True Mass.
1962? 1954? 1570? The Sarum variant? The Ambrosian? You have to deal with some realities about what exactly traditional Catholcis are going to defend.
Hopefully you are only acting ridiculous in your attempt to be a smart aleck. The True Mass is the Tridentine Mass, the new "mass" is the Novus Ordo service. The True Mass is God centered, the new "mass" is man centered.
Every change that was made was motivated by the idea that man must be elevated so that he thinks of himself as important.
Really? So when the bidding prayers were in the TLM it was to promote the idea that man must be elevated so that he thinks of himself as important?
And if in the process, Christ must be degraded, or the sacred species man handled, or the Church scoured and emptied, well, that is a necessary thing that must be done.
The Novus Ordo doesn't call for that. It definitely needs to have some rubrical reinforcements added, and the optional sign of peace eliminated, but plenty of priests revere the Lord in the Eucharist at the Novus Ordo. In the early days, the priests were still holding the thumb and index fingers together.
So it should be no wonder that most NOers do not even know what the Real Presence even is.
See my previous post about Communion in the hand. But you say, "most" that means that "some" do know what the Real Presence is.
We're making progress, because the kooks around here that have to push everything to "11" would be saying "ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THE NOVUS ORDO KNOWS WHAT THE REAL PRESENCE IS!!!!"
You are wrong here. True that the NO was in the works before Fr. Feeney, before Pope St. Pius X even, but it was not until they finally succeeded in replacing the True Mass with their new "mass" that we saw the despoiling the people, deprived of their Lex orandi therefore of their Catholic belief, their understanding of the faith, nearly all things sacred and even of their piety. Prior to that, the enemy was hidden, largely underground, our faith like our Mass remained True until they replaced it with the new "mass".
Nope. If the Church were what it was supposed to have been. Every diocese would have rejected the Novus Ordo the way Campos did.
The truth is, the vast majority of the Catholics of the Latin rite did not think it was worth fighting for.
It is objectively wicked and is proven by it's fruits i.e. the closed Churches, schools and convents, the drastic decline in vocations, the rampant loss of faith among NOers, and on and on.
It's not objectively wicked. You can argue just as validly that Vatican II is the "fruit" of the pre-concilar Church of the first half of the 20th century.
Was the pre-conciliar Church objectively wicked? No. But it obviously was lacking in essential areas for God to allow the progressives to gain the upper hand and scourge the Church goers (I won't say "faithful")
No, I am talking about the new mass being something COMPLETELY different, completely foreign to Catholics. Because it is indisputably something COMPLETELY different, the sacrificial nature is gone - to put it another way, the new mass has the same sacrificial nature as any Lutheran service.
No. That is objectively wrong. I've proven it on this very thread in the last few pages.
And from a personal anecdote, if it was so COMPLETELY different, why when I first attended was I reminded of the Novus Ordo of the early 1970s that I attended? And why were there so many elements that I recognized from the Novus Ordo circa 2002?
Whatever his intentions matters not. What matters is the new mass of PPVI was purposely perpetrated upon the largely lethargic Catholic population who believed the pope was always infallible.
So, Pius XII gets to skate but Paul VI must be "Hitler"??? Intentions only matter for some people and of course we know the intentions of those whom we dislike, right?
Paul VI was a humanist fool, he was a pitiable character with great intelligence and no wisdom and probably bi-polar disorder who tried to address real problems in the wrong way. According to Malachi Martin his papacy was "15 horrid years" and he was guilty of "perpetrating the greatest crime in the history of the papacy" but he also said, "He tried to fix things, he did his best." and he failed. The Novus Ordo as it was practiced right out of the box was not what he signed onto and he was too weak to reign it in.
What many people don't understand is that much of Vatican II was motivated not only by the thread of Communism in the world. LeFebvre and Ottaviani etc wanted the Church to condemn it outright. The real radicals wanted to endorse it, but would not say so out loud, and in between the "moderates" believed the signs of the times were pointing to a world engulfed in Communism and they were trying to prepare the Church to survive in that environment.
Now isn't that moving the goal posts on this thread? ihsv trumpet that there was ABSOLUTELY no propitiation going on in the Novus Ordo.
Now, that the sacrifice of propitiation has been shown to be present, now the argument is about the "degree.'
So we've shifted from change in kind to change in degree without any concession on the wrongness of those calling the Novus Ordo "intrinsically" evil.
There is no propitiation happening, you, as one of the compromisers, see the word "sacrifice" and are immediately pacified as I said. That's why I said that "a character or two of a sacrificial nature surfaces", which does not mean the new mass has a sacrificial nature.
I"m not a compromiser at all you lying idiot jackass. I've already patiently debunked that assine claim.
Go back and read the post where I showed according to ihsv's definition of propitiation exactly where it's reference in the text of the Novus Ordo.
Are you too stupid to know that words like "reconciliation" and "redemption" denote propitiation or are you just being an ignorant agitator?
Quite wasting my time with tired old rehashed arguments of colossal stupidity.
You Neo-trads are a freaking embarrassment to real, coherently thinking traditional Catholics.
-
I'm genuinely tired of cleaning Gerard's vomit off my screen.
Like any fish outside of his element, after three days he starts to stink and no one wants to be around him.
I think that's your vomit that your nose has been rubbed in. And deservedly so. I've rarely encountered someone so arrogantly creepy that I will confess I took some pleasure in utterly decimating your false assertion when I finally had some time.
I'll take that infantile and pathetic (and irrational) snark as your concession.
You've been thoroughly debunked in your pearl-clutching angst driven rage with the "ABSOLUTELY NO PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE" drivel you've been pushing.
I wonder, how does it feel to be that flatly proven wrong and not have the integrity to admit it?
Maybe I'll keep asking you that question over and over again while you are debating three other people.
I know I'd really like to know the answer.
Don't dodge, don't try to evade. This is your big opportunity to share something we can all learn from.
-
Gerard are you a plant? As in, "infiltrator"? (As in a kind of anti-Catholic communist?) Your Catholic theology is wanting and your insistence and stubbornness in asserting it makes you suspect.
No, I"m not a plant. Are you? I've been around a long, long time posting on a lot of topics.
My theology is not wanting. And frankly, I challenge you to prove your assertion.
The fact that people keep stating things about me that they can't prove when I challenge them to leaves them suspect.
If you've got a problem with the theological positions I champion, you can have some class and some integrity and ask me a question and I'll be happy to answer and clarify.
But these blind, unidentified assertions are often just a smear by some no-nothing trying to take a cheap shot.
Which are you? Are you going to engage in a real discussion towards the truth or just be a jerk?
I can handle either one.
-
ihsv: I'm genuinely tired of cleaning Gerard's vomit off my screen.
Like any fish outside of his element, after three days he starts to stink and no one wants to be around him.
This is the first time I've looked in on this topic. Wow! What's going on around here? Gerard, I think I understand and basically agree with you. But you've sure made some enemies among some of the more ferocious trads on this forum.
How ihsv washes your vomit off his computer screen must be a sight to behold. The imagination can hardly deal with it. Be assured though,Gerard. You're not half as rotten as some of these ultra hyper trads say you are. In fact, I think I might even enjoy your company. :rolleyes:
Well. (Thanks for the kind words btw,) sometimes things have to get rough when people are not willing to think clearly.
There is a trend among some trads (Neo-trads) in which they are becoming what the Neo-Catholics were accusing trads of about 12 years ago.
They are all emotion and hyperbole and completely lacking in charity and discernment and nuance. Things that were very important to St. Thomas Aquinas and many saints. Most of it is characteristic of sedevacantists.
I think the realities of the day and age we live in are in conflict with their errors in exaggerating some Catholic truths such as Neo-Ultramontanism, Donatism, Jansenism among others. They also don't understand many of the heresies they decry.
The end result of this conflict is the "ferociousness" that you mentioned. It's the opposite side of the same coin that makes someone like Mark Shea so odious with his rancid hate-filled bloviating.
So while Shea will make the most bizarre apologies for various elements of the Crisis in the Church that we are living in, to soft-pedal what is going on, we also have Neo-trads nowadays who will engage in the equally outrageous examples of hyperbole to make the Crisis bigger than the war of the Angels at the beginning of time.
-
:popcorn:
-
Liturgies are man-made. All of them.
Gerard, "Mediator Dei", your favorite mis-quoted docuмent says the complete opposite of your belief. How do you reconcile that? Will you admit an error?
The liturgy was created by Christ, with non-essential additions added/approved by the power of the papacy over the centuries. THIS IS ABSOLUTE FACT! I would appreciate a retraction and an apology from you on this point.
Mediator Dei, by Pope Pius XII:
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."
-
How ihsv washes your vomit off his computer screen must be a sight to behold.
Holy water + pressure washer.
-
I'm genuinely tired of cleaning Gerard's vomit off my screen.
Like any fish outside of his element, after three days he starts to stink and no one wants to be around him.
I think that's your vomit that your nose has been rubbed in. And deservedly so. I've rarely encountered someone blah blah blah...
:scared2: :rolleyes: :sleep:
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
Where on God's green earth do you come up with this?
I mentioned that the Cross was a human invention and was never intended to be a symbol of victory..............
This debate has become too NO and Protestant for me to continue. If I wanted to debate with NOers or prots, I would go back to FE or sign up on CAF.
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
Where on God's green earth do you come up with this?
It's called being consistent in thinking.
I mentioned that the Cross was a human invention and was never intended to be a symbol of victory..............
This debate has become too NO and Protestant for me to continue. If I wanted to debate with NOers or prots, I would go back to FE or sign up on CAF.
Use whatever lame excuse you think gives you the most cover. Anyone who thinks straight can see plainly you have nowhere to go with your "argument."
-
Merry said:
Gerard are you a plant? As in, "infiltrator"? (As in a kind of anti-Catholic communist?) Your Catholic theology is wanting and your insistence and stubbornness in asserting it makes you suspect.
No, I"m not a plant. Are you? I've been around a long, long time posting on a lot of topics.
My theology is not wanting. And frankly, I challenge you to prove your assertion.
The fact that people keep stating things about me that they can't prove when I challenge them to leaves them suspect.
If you've got a problem with the theological positions I champion, you can have some class and some integrity and ask me a question and I'll be happy to answer and clarify.
But these blind, unidentified assertions are often just a smear by some no-nothing trying to take a cheap shot.
Which are you? Are you going to engage in a real discussion towards the truth or just be a jerk?
I can handle either one.
********************************************
Gerard for some reason I have no reply button to the exchanges on this thread so I constructed this one. I said all I had to say about the Mass and expostulations of yours (or like yours) earlier on another thread. Am shaking the dust in your regard. I just wanted to hear your reply about your background and intentions. Hopefully your attempts to undermine the orthodoxy of people on this website who are avoiding the Novus Ordo will have no effect. You intimate that you are "an old hand" but there are other "old hands" here, too, whose Catholicism is not tinged with nor buried in the condemned Modernist heresy as is yours. God bless you and yours. Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine.
-
Gerard, im waiting for you to respond to your contradiction/lie that the liturgy is "all man made". I've pointed out this lie in other posts (by quoting your favorite papal docuмent "Mediator Dei"), yet you continue to promote this error. Please respond with an apology or retraction.
-
Merry said:
I said all I had to say about the Mass and expostulations of yours (or like yours) earlier on another thread.
What does that have to do with the price of eggs? I've written plenty of stuff too on other threads at other times and in this and other forums.
Am shaking the dust in your regard. I just wanted to hear your reply about your background and intentions.
If you don't like being answered in the manner you ask, you have a problem with the manner in which you ask.
Hopefully your attempts to undermine the orthodoxy of people on this website who are avoiding the Novus Ordo will have no effect.
But have you stopped wetting the bed? You see what I did there? That's what you're doing. :)
Dont' worry about orthodox people on this site. I'm only trouble for the heterodox ones. They are the ones who can't seem to handle being corrected, can't oppose anything but a straw man.
Like you.
You intimate that you are "an old hand" but there are other "old hands" here, too, whose Catholicism is not tinged with nor buried in the condemned Modernist heresy as is yours.
I'd challenge you to prove your assertion, but like most of the gutless wonders here who don't know squat about Catholicism, you wouldn't bother.
God bless you and yours. Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like unto Thine.
And I will pray that God will enlighten you.
-
Gerard, im waiting for you to respond to your contradiction/lie that the liturgy is "all man made". I've pointed out this lie in other posts (by quoting your favorite papal docuмent "Mediator Dei"), yet you continue to promote this error. Please respond with an apology or retraction.
Well You did no such thing considering this post is yet another straw man, I see no reason to do the Devil's bidding. I like to give people a first opportunity to prove they are simply ignorant but the maliciousness shows when the lies are too many to be covered by simple stupidity. (not withstanding the stupidity of being such an obvious liar)
And I have yet to see you concede that you were wrong when you stated that the concept of propitiation is absolutely not present in the Novus Ordo.
I find it the height of hubris that you think you can dictate what hoops of yours I should jump through.
What's the motivation for me? Do I think you'll stop lying and making straw man fallacy arguments? Not at all. Anyone with honor and self respect would have conducted themselves with far greater honesty and forthrightness than you have.
Let's get something straight. I'm not interested in proving anything about myself to you.
I'm here to punch holes in your false assertions and lies about the Catholic faith.
Whether you take the correction is on you for when you stand before the Judgement seat of God. But my motivation is to minimize the damage done to the extent that I'm able. Now of course, if your motivation is to spread error I can see where you would find the straw man fallacies and the lies to your benefit. And that's the reason for the conflict in these posts.
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
Where on God's green earth do you come up with this?
It's called being consistent in thinking.
No, I asked where you came up with saying that in my mind the Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God. In order to avoid answering, you make some statement which makes zero sense to anyone. You have been doing this over and over and apparently don't even see it. The futility of you defending the new "mass" is one thing, but this exemplifies the futility of debating with you.
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
Where on God's green earth do you come up with this?
It's called being consistent in thinking.
No, I asked where you came up with saying that in my mind the Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God. In order to avoid answering, you make some statement which makes zero sense to anyone. You have been doing this over and over and apparently don't even see it. The futility of you defending the new "mass" is one thing, but this exemplifies the futility of debating with you.
Are you now saying the Novus Ordo Mass was indeed intended to be pleasing to God?
Your argument the whole time has been that the Mass was not intended to be pleasing to God.
Which is it?
-
Gerard, you are beating the air because the new mass was never intended to be a sacrifice of any kind, propitiatory or otherwise.
It would take a post a mile long to go through and refute your defense of the new mass being somehow sacrificial or pleasing to God - the new mass never was nor was it ever meant to be either.
The Cross was never intended to be a sign of victory.
What does that have to do with anything? Also, FWIW, In hoc signo vines.
So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay.
Where on God's green earth do you come up with this?
It's called being consistent in thinking.
No, I asked where you came up with saying that in my mind the Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God. In order to avoid answering, you make some statement which makes zero sense to anyone. You have been doing this over and over and apparently don't even see it. The futility of you defending the new "mass" is one thing, but this exemplifies the futility of debating with you.
Are you now saying the Novus Ordo Mass was indeed intended to be pleasing to God?
Your argument the whole time has been that the Mass was not intended to be pleasing to God.
Which is it?
My apologies, I understand now when you said "So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." that you meant the new "mass". My blunder for forgetting who I'm dealing with here.
Had you said "So, the *NEW* mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." I would have answered - you are correct.
Being as you did not make that necessary distinction, I thought you meant that I claimed the Mass, i.e. the True Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God.
FYI, whenever speaking about the mockery of the True Mass on any traditional Catholic forum, it is best to clarify by calling it the "new mass" or "NOM", or simply NO will work.
What doctrine is it that the NOM expresses? I mean, which doctrine of Christ is it that says at a certain time in history, everything that has been built up must now be purged out? That every doctrine which men formally were taught they must be ready to die for, is now ridiculed? What doctrine of Christ is it, that says that in 1960,1970,1980, etc., all these things are going to be thrown out?
When they were studying their catechism, did they teach everyone; "now you believe these things for a certain number of years, but from 1960 and the years following, you must be ready to abandon it all"?
That is what happened and without replacing the True Mass with the new jazz and it's new lex orandi, the enemies could not have possibly enjoyed the success they enjoy today.
-
My apologies, I understand now when you said "So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." that you meant the new "mass". My blunder for forgetting who I'm dealing with here.
Had you said "So, the *NEW* mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." I would have answered - you are correct.
Being as you did not make that necessary distinction, I thought you meant that I claimed the Mass, i.e. the True Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God.
If we are going to make distinctions then I suppose we should go all the way.
When you state the "True Mass" should I assume you mean the Maronite liturgy? Or are you referring to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?
Or are you saying there is more than one "Mass"?
FYI, whenever speaking about the mockery of the True Mass on any traditional Catholic forum, it is best to clarify by calling it the "new mass" or "NOM", or simply NO will work.
Do you mean it's a mockery of the order of the Mass or something else?
Is the order of the Mass of the Maronites of the Byzantines a mockery of the True Mass or no?
What doctrine is it that the NOM expresses? I mean, which doctrine of Christ is it that says at a certain time in history, everything that has been built up must now be purged out?
Kenosis.
That every doctrine which men formally were taught they must be ready to die for, is now ridiculed?
That's called the Passion or in our terms, the Crisis.
What doctrine of Christ is it, that says that in 1960,1970,1980, etc., all these things are going to be thrown out?
The timing is not revealed for each stage of the Church, but we have been taught that the Church will imitate the passion of Christ. We do know that a great apostasy is prophecized.
When they were studying their catechism, did they teach everyone; "now you believe these things for a certain number of years, but from 1960 and the years following, you must be ready to abandon it all"?
The problem is a good number of things that were taught in 1960 and the century prior were exaggerations and additions to the faith, as well as the watering down of the more socially troublesome doctrines like EENS.
That is what happened and without replacing the True Mass with the new jazz and it's new lex orandi, the enemies could not have possibly enjoyed the success they enjoy today.
I don't deny in the slightest that the Novus Ordo liturgy is severely lacking in a number of defenses against many of the errors of the day. As it stands it holds a line against error far closer to error than the TLM, I don't know every liturgy in the Church, but I would be curious to study each one and do a comparison of texts and rubrics.
But it's not a Black Mass, not even close.
The fact is, the Novus Ordo despite it's quirky origins as a liturgy cobbled together by a variety of interests with a mixture of motivations, under a truly great Pope could theoretically be improved to the point where it is a better defense against the errors of the day than the 1962 missal.
I'm not expecting that to happen, but it's integral to understanding the argument.
-
:popcorn:
-
My apologies, I understand now when you said "So, the Mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." that you meant the new "mass". My blunder for forgetting who I'm dealing with here.
Had you said "So, the *NEW* mass in your mind was never intended to be pleasing to God and was man-made. Okay." I would have answered - you are correct.
Being as you did not make that necessary distinction, I thought you meant that I claimed the Mass, i.e. the True Mass was never intended to be pleasing to God.
If we are going to make distinctions then I suppose we should go all the way.
When you state the "True Mass" should I assume you mean the Maronite liturgy? Or are you referring to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?
Or are you saying there is more than one "Mass"?
FYI, whenever speaking about the mockery of the True Mass on any traditional Catholic forum, it is best to clarify by calling it the "new mass" or "NOM", or simply NO will work.
Do you mean it's a mockery of the order of the Mass or something else?
Is the order of the Mass of the Maronites of the Byzantines a mockery of the True Mass or no?
What doctrine is it that the NOM expresses? I mean, which doctrine of Christ is it that says at a certain time in history, everything that has been built up must now be purged out?
Kenosis.
That every doctrine which men formally were taught they must be ready to die for, is now ridiculed?
That's called the Passion or in our terms, the Crisis.
What doctrine of Christ is it, that says that in 1960,1970,1980, etc., all these things are going to be thrown out?
The timing is not revealed for each stage of the Church, but we have been taught that the Church will imitate the passion of Christ. We do know that a great apostasy is prophecized.
When they were studying their catechism, did they teach everyone; "now you believe these things for a certain number of years, but from 1960 and the years following, you must be ready to abandon it all"?
The problem is a good number of things that were taught in 1960 and the century prior were exaggerations and additions to the faith, as well as the watering down of the more socially troublesome doctrines like EENS.
That is what happened and without replacing the True Mass with the new jazz and it's new lex orandi, the enemies could not have possibly enjoyed the success they enjoy today.
I don't deny in the slightest that the Novus Ordo liturgy is severely lacking in a number of defenses against many of the errors of the day. As it stands it holds a line against error far closer to error than the TLM, I don't know every liturgy in the Church, but I would be curious to study each one and do a comparison of texts and rubrics.
But it's not a Black Mass, not even close.
The fact is, the Novus Ordo despite it's quirky origins as a liturgy cobbled together by a variety of interests with a mixture of motivations, under a truly great Pope could theoretically be improved to the point where it is a better defense against the errors of the day than the 1962 missal.
I'm not expecting that to happen, but it's integral to understanding the argument.
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
-
Gerard from FE
That's called the Passion or in our terms, the Crisis.
What doctrine of Christ is it, that says that in 1960,1970,1980, etc., all these things are going to be thrown out?
The timing is not revealed for each stage of the Church, but we have been taught that the Church will imitate the passion of Christ. We do know that a great apostasy is prophecized.
I also believe the Church follows the Passion of Christ, and yes, He is being crucified again, with the novus ordo and it is worse than a Black Mass because Jesus is the victim.
Consider the fact that it was the enemy causing the suffering spitting, mocking, thorns and lashes finally being nailed to a tree. Although it was foretold in the Old Testament as is the Great apostasy foretold also.
During the passion, His faithful apostles did not join or make excuses for those who were inflicting this horror on Jesus, His faithful ones separated from the evil doers.
The Bible speaking of these times teaches us to stay firm to the teachings we have learned from the beginning. It is quite impossible to stay firm to the teachings and be united to the new religion as you can see by your own way of thinking and how you rationalize the changes. What about the future people coming into the world your offspring and how mixing truth with error/commingling will affect them when they grow up and erroneously realizing how hypocritical the Church of Jesus Christ IS.
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
The real human enemies of the Church know that they can't destroy the Church and they don't want to. They want to utilize it's organizational power and minimize it's supernatural impact on the natural world. They want it to be humanist as much as possible.
It is apparent to anyone who has ever studied the issue in depth and not just read articles and interviews that reinforce simplified agendas, that there were multiple motivations from a number of factions. The most malicious of them did not constitute the totality of them.
In the area of the translations Fr. Somerville obviously from his testimony repudiating his participation did not understand the machinations going on when he was involved in ICEL. He had questions but his motivations were honest.
Paul VI obviously lamented the outcome of what he thought he was encouraging and what the results were of the changes he approved.
The final point that needs to be established is, it doesn't matter what the intentions of some of the architects of the Novus Ordo were. What it is, is what it is. And only a Pope can suppress it, improve it, or modify it in anyway that matters. And God will use it as He wills to give grace as He wills to those who persevere within the Novus Ordo or He will give grace to make the TLM accessible to those who won't take it for granted. And with time, He may save the Church through a vastly improved Novus Ordo, He may use the TLM, He may use the TLM with modifications or the Latin Church may become a minority-sized Church and while the Pope is the Supreme authority on Earth, it may be one of the other rites that becomes the dominant rite in terms of population and influence in the future.
-
Gerard from FE
I also believe the Church follows the Passion of Christ, and yes, He is being crucified again, with the novus ordo and it is worse than a Black Mass because Jesus is the victim.
If Jesus is not the victim, it's not the Mass.
The Black Mass is an illicit blasphemy, the Novus Ordo is not.
Consider the fact that it was the enemy causing the suffering spitting, mocking, thorns and lashes finally being nailed to a tree. Although it was foretold in the Old Testament as is the Great apostasy foretold also.
We are the enemy causing the suffering that Christ underwent.
Jesus did not suffer and die for demons.
During the passion, His faithful apostles did not join or make excuses for those who were inflicting this horror on Jesus, His faithful ones separated from the evil doers.
You mean they denied him, ran away and hid for fear of being caught with him. (with the exception of St. John)
The Bible speaking of these times teaches us to stay firm to the teachings we have learned from the beginning.
That's the problem, people are adding little flourishes of their own here and avoiding bits and pieces there instead of having the humility to just accept that faith and all that it entails.
It is quite impossible to stay firm to the teachings and be united to the new religion as you can see by your own way of thinking and how you rationalize the changes.
That's nice and vague, probable the best kind of accusation to make when you can't be specific.
I'm very rational about the changes, you on the other hand are irrational about the changes.
What about the future people coming into the world your offspring and how mixing truth with error/commingling will affect them when they grow up and erroneously realizing how hypocritical the Church of Jesus Christ IS.
You make the distinctions between the human elements of the Church and the Divine elements of the Church. Distinguish between Church and Churchmen.
The Church is never hypocritical, Churchmen almost always are.
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
Once again, you never answered the question.
We'll never get anywhere as long as you keep avoiding the issue.
-
The final point that needs to be established is, it doesn't matter what the intentions of some of the architects of the Novus Ordo were. What it is, is what it is.
It absolutely does matter and in fact is critical in presenting the fact that the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, just as it matters that a significant number of its creators were heretics and outside of the Church.
It indeed is what it is, a Protestant conceived false presentation published by a wicked modernist pope as a "Catholic Mass."
There was never an intention to do what the Church does, and that is all that matters.
And only a Pope can suppress it, improve it, or modify it in anyway that matters. And God will use it as He wills to give grace as He wills to those who persevere within the Novus Ordo or He will give grace to make the TLM accessible to those who won't take it for granted. And with time, He may save the Church through a vastly improved Novus Ordo, He may use the TLM, He may use the TLM with modifications or the Latin Church may become a minority-sized Church and while the Pope is the Supreme authority on Earth, it may be one of the other rites that becomes the dominant rite in terms of population and influence in the future.
And what Divine messenger shared this flight of the imagination with you?
You cannot change the nature of what was created by these people. It was made to integrate the Catholic and heretical Protestant services, something which the Church would never do. It does not need and cannot be improved. It can only be extirpated from the Church and from our memories.
The Black Mass is an illicit blasphemy, the Novus Ordo is not.
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
-
Gerard,
What is that odd avatar all about? It looks like an alien exiting a decaying temporal portal or some such.
-
Gerard,
What is that odd avatar all about? It looks like an alien exiting a decaying temporal portal or some such.
It's called Modernism!
-
Consider the fact that it was the enemy causing the suffering spitting, mocking, thorns and lashes finally being nailed to a tree. Although it was foretold in the Old Testament as is the Great apostasy foretold also.
Gerard = "We are the enemy causing the suffering that Christ underwent.
Jesus did not suffer and die for demons".
During the passion, His faithful apostles did not join or make excuses for those who were inflicting this horror on Jesus, His faithful ones separated from the evil doers.
Gerard = "You mean they denied him, ran away and hid for fear of being caught with him. (with the exception of St. John)"
We the faithful are not the enemy, although weak yes, and sinful, yes! The enemy of God are those who are void of grace, they sin of malice, not weakness. There is a difference. The very fact that Jesus became man, and suffered for us, proves my point.
The fact that St. Peter denied Him, was a point inspired by God to be written for our knowledge; to show us the mercy of God and His forgiveness when we are sorry for our sins. Lest we lose hope. Every time we, you and I, sin we are like St. Peter, and yes His apostles were afraid and hid out of fear. Don't forget that example of them hidding out of fear was to show us the power of the Holy Ghost. The Gospel explains how they did coward and hide until the Holy Ghost descended upon them at Pentecost, this is the power God wants us to understand. Today without the Sacrament of Confirmation Fortitude is lacking on the novus ordo laity. There is no Sacrament, which is why they lack Fortitude and are not willing to fight for the Truth, (Not all but many).
And again, the fact that only a few, i.e. St. John (plus) were the exception standing at the Cross with Jesus only proves again that it is not the number but the few that will be faithful to Him in the end times, those true to Tradition and keep the faith WITHOUT COMPROMISE. The Sacrament of Confirmation and without it, you will cave to human respect.
Truly the Church does and IS following the passion of Christ. And just as Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, so will His Church when we have a True Pope, or the Second Coming of Christ, one or the other or perhaps both, who knows. Only God knows!
-
The traditional enemies of the Holy Roman Catholic Church are the Jews and the Protestants. The decline of the Catholic Church and of Christianity in general is directly proportional to the Rise of global Judaism. The Novus Ordo Mass, a failed liturgical experiment, is a symptom of a deeper, underlying illness, emerging from the fact that the Church apparently has forgotten who her enemies are.
In a pathetic intent to make peace with the world, giving concessions to the reigning Jews, and the Protestants, the Church has neglected Her traditional militant spirit, when in fact, the spirit of the world (and most definitely, the Jєωιѕн spirit) are truly irreconcilable with the Christian spirit and the Catholic Faith.
-
Gerard,
What is that odd avatar all about? It looks like an alien exiting a decaying temporal portal or some such.
You're pretty close. It's actually a captured image of the Marvel Comics character, The Silver Surfer from the 2007 Fantastic Four movie. I modified it a bit in photoshop. When I watched the special features in an interview Stan Lee described him as what we would be like if we weren't messed up. He'd also stated that he felt the character was Christ like. I noticed that for a Jєωιѕн guy, he was very tied into Christianity and that he had tapped into some truths about the state of man before he fell from grace and what Christ could have looked like during His transfiguration. Over at Suscipe Domine I have written below it, "…and his raiment became white and glittering."
-
Gerard,
What is that odd avatar all about? It looks like an alien exiting a decaying temporal portal or some such.
It's called Modernism!
Actually, it's called Creationism!
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
Once again, you never answered the question.
We'll never get anywhere as long as you keep avoiding the issue.
I did answer your question, in depth. You just don't like the answer it seems.
-
JUST TESTING ... IMAGES are working now!
(http://www.latinmassjax.org/Ad%20Orientem%20Cartoon.jpeg)
-
The final point that needs to be established is, it doesn't matter what the intentions of some of the architects of the Novus Ordo were. What it is, is what it is.
It absolutely does matter and in fact is critical in presenting the fact that the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Church, just as it matters that a significant number of its creators were heretics and outside of the Church.
It indeed is what it is, a Protestant conceived false presentation published by a wicked modernist pope as a "Catholic Mass."
There was never an intention to do what the Church does, and that is all that matters.
It's very much a work of the Church. The Church adopts and adapts many elements of man made origins for its usage, it Christianizes pagan things and Catholicizes non-Catholic things. Whether it's Plato, Aristotle, or Pews or Hymns or Advent Wreaths or any host of things.
The Novus Ordo had many more factors involved in its conception than simply Protestantizing it, and attempt was made to also make it more accessible for the Eastern Churches.
And only a Pope can suppress it, improve it, or modify it in anyway that matters. And God will use it as He wills to give grace as He wills to those who persevere within the Novus Ordo or He will give grace to make the TLM accessible to those who won't take it for granted. And with time, He may save the Church through a vastly improved Novus Ordo, He may use the TLM, He may use the TLM with modifications or the Latin Church may become a minority-sized Church and while the Pope is the Supreme authority on Earth, it may be one of the other rites that becomes the dominant rite in terms of population and influence in the future.
And what Divine messenger shared this flight of the imagination with you?
The Angel of Common Sense and the teaching of the Church.
You cannot change the nature of what was created by these people. It was made to integrate the Catholic and heretical Protestant services, something which the Church would never do. It does not need and cannot be improved. It can only be extirpated from the Church and from our memories.
You keep confusing "nature" with the stated and or inferred intention of a few.
The Church has always integrated Catholic and non-Catholic elements. There are mosaics of Christ in the East that were originally images of Apollo.
The Black Mass is an illicit blasphemy, the Novus Ordo is not.
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
In and of itself the Novus Ordo is licit, sacrilege occurs due to extrinsic actions and circuмstances due to irreverence of the participants, not due to some architects.
A gun is bad when it is used for an immoral purpose, it is a good when it is used for a good purpose. Guns come in a variety of forms, some better than others. It's the gun wielder that determines the moral use of the gun.
-
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
In and of itself the Novus Ordo is licit, sacrilege occurs due to extrinsic actions and circuмstances due to irreverence of the participants, not due to some architects.
A gun is bad when it is used for an immoral purpose, it is a good when it is used for a good purpose. Guns come in a variety of forms, some better than others. It's the gun wielder that determines the moral use of the gun.
Explain, please why is the NO good?
-
It's very much a work of the Church. The Church adopts and adapts many elements of man made origins for its usage, it Christianizes pagan things and Catholicizes non-Catholic things. Whether it's Plato, Aristotle, or Pews or Hymns or Advent Wreaths or any host of things.
The Novus Ordo had many more factors involved in its conception than simply Protestantizing it, and attempt was made to also make it more accessible for the Eastern Churches.
It is not a work of the Church. It is the docuмented effort of men who desired to change the Church. The Catholic Church does not employ heretics who are its enemies to create liturgies.
You constant interjection of the Church sometimes adopting outside things and making use of them is a dishonest and false argument. Anything which the Church has done this to has been first purified and made conformable to Catholic doctrine and practice. The Novus Ordo was made conformable to Protestant practice and sensibilities and the proof is the fact that they use it without alteration.
If one compares the Orthodox Eastern Divine Liturgy with the Novus Ordoized version of the conciliar church, the differences and the degraded form of the latter, there is a striking contrast. The Eastern Catholic liturgies were poisoned just as surely as in the west.
The other factors involved in the Novel Ordo were it other enemies who exerted their influence upon it, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and the Jews.
I agree with Father Hesse in saying that the New Order service is always illicit, in that it was created against the will of the Church and the it is not Catholic because it is not a work of the Catholic Church according to the Church's Magisterium and Tradition.
You are a modern dissenter from what has always been and believed.
-
To: Gerard
Subject: Error of believing the liturgy is man made
Read point 50 in ' Mediator Dei'.
May God have mercy on you,
Pax Vobis
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
Once again, you never answered the question.
We'll never get anywhere as long as you keep avoiding the issue.
I did answer your question, in depth. You just don't like the answer it seems.
Well how about just a simple yes or no. Do you understand that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church?
-
:popcorn:
-
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
In and of itself the Novus Ordo is licit, sacrilege occurs due to extrinsic actions and circuмstances due to irreverence of the participants, not due to some architects.
A gun is bad when it is used for an immoral purpose, it is a good when it is used for a good purpose. Guns come in a variety of forms, some better than others. It's the gun wielder that determines the moral use of the gun.
Explain, please why is the NO good?
Because a person can partake in the Eucharist and gain sanctifying grace.
-
It's very much a work of the Church. The Church adopts and adapts many elements of man made origins for its usage, it Christianizes pagan things and Catholicizes non-Catholic things. Whether it's Plato, Aristotle, or Pews or Hymns or Advent Wreaths or any host of things.
The Novus Ordo had many more factors involved in its conception than simply Protestantizing it, and attempt was made to also make it more accessible for the Eastern Churches.
It is not a work of the Church. It is the docuмented effort of men who desired to change the Church. The Catholic Church does not employ heretics who are its enemies to create liturgies.
It doesn't matter. The Council of Jersusalem was and effort of men who desired to change the Church. The Pope gave the "yes" and that was that.
You constant interjection of the Church sometimes adopting outside things and making use of them is a dishonest and false argument.
No it isn't.
Anything which the Church has done this to has been first purified and made conformable to Catholic doctrine and practice.
If it is something that has the truth, it doesn't need to be "purified" or "made conformable."
The Novus Ordo was made conformable to Protestant practice and sensibilities and the proof is the fact that they use it without alteration.
No, they do use it with modifications and novelties, some of those same novelties are in use in Catholic Churches. But they are not using the liturgical book that Paul VI signed off on.
If one compares the Orthodox Eastern Divine Liturgy with the Novus Ordoized version of the conciliar church, the differences and the degraded form of the latter, there is a striking contrast. The Eastern Catholic liturgies were poisoned just as surely as in the west.
So are they the same as Black Masses as well?
The other factors involved in the Novel Ordo were it other enemies who exerted their influence upon it, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and the Jews.
So what? The rite is the rite, you look at it for what it is, not what some schlub declares that he made it to be.
I agree with Father Hesse in saying that the New Order service is always illicit, in that it was created against the will of the Church and the it is not Catholic because it is not a work of the Catholic Church according to the Church's Magisterium and Tradition.
Fr. Hesse while I like some things he said, would on occasion tie himself up in knots. He makes statements that sometimes create more confusion than he started with. His use of "schismatic" is the original use of the word "rupture" or tear.
He confuses infallibility with policy within the individual rites.
He views the Novus Ordo as valid but not part of the Latin rite, but he was ordained in the Novus Ordo and never viewed himself as anything but a Latin Rite priest when to be logically consistent he should have viewed himself as a Novus Ordo rite priest.
It's all an unnecessary jumble, he conflates his theology with canon law too much at times.
You are a modern dissenter from what has always been and believed.
Your accusations are meaningless unsupported and hollow. You have not demonstrated in any answers that you have the credibility to make a judgement against me.
If anything you are the dissenter because you express yourself only in terms of rumor, gossip, exaggerated teachings and or non-Catholic teachings you've glommed onto.
Why don't you do some good for yourself and others and say a Rosary and stop vandalizing these threads with your posts that have zero value to them and are damaging to your soul?
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
Once again, you never answered the question.
We'll never get anywhere as long as you keep avoiding the issue.
I did answer your question, in depth. You just don't like the answer it seems.
Well how about just a simple yes or no. Do you understand that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church?
A simple "yes" or "no" to a false dichotomy is not an honest question and it's a deceptive and inaccurate answer.
You seem to think avoiding an answer at all is done by setting up a false dilemma.
The Novus Ordo was created and published by multiple people with a variety of intentions. Some wanted to undermine the Church others thought naively that nonsensical ecuмenical strategiese would draw in conversions.
For you to claim a "singular" purpose of undermining the Church is wrong and hyperbole at best.
So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others.
You are asking the same thing as if the question were, "Is the confessional for saints or sinners?" One or the other.
-
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
In and of itself the Novus Ordo is licit, sacrilege occurs due to extrinsic actions and circuмstances due to irreverence of the participants, not due to some architects.
A gun is bad when it is used for an immoral purpose, it is a good when it is used for a good purpose. Guns come in a variety of forms, some better than others. It's the gun wielder that determines the moral use of the gun.
Explain, please why is the NO good?
Because a person can partake in the Eucharist and gain sanctifying grace.
Yes, perhaps a Spiritual Communion and Perfect Act of Love/Contrition.
Most younger people don't even know the definition of the Blessed Sacrament anymore.
-
Gerard,
"Fr. Hesse ties himself up in knots"
"Pope Leo XIII was not always clear"
"Saint Augustine when stating doctrine is being poetic"
Father James Wathen was wrong"
"Ladislaus is wrong"
"Stubborn is wrong"
"Myrna M. is wrong"
Pax Vobis is wrong"
"the pre-conciliar Church was responsible for the Vatican II disaster"
"Catholic liturgy is the product of men with no divine interventions"
"Pius XII taught that the pope has the supreme power to introduce novelty and Protestantism into the Liturgy"
BUT!.......................Gerard of Fisheaters is right in all of his assertions...........
:roll-laugh1::roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh2:
conciliar is as conciliar does............
-
The Novus Ordo is always illicit, and a sacriledge every time that it is used.
In and of itself the Novus Ordo is licit, sacrilege occurs due to extrinsic actions and circuмstances due to irreverence of the participants, not due to some architects.
A gun is bad when it is used for an immoral purpose, it is a good when it is used for a good purpose. Guns come in a variety of forms, some better than others. It's the gun wielder that determines the moral use of the gun.
Explain, please why is the NO good?
Because a person can partake in the Eucharist and gain sanctifying grace.
Yes, perhaps a Spiritual Communion and Perfect Act of Love/Contrition.
Most younger people don't even know the definition of the Blessed Sacrament anymore.
Well, maybe that is because the pre-conciliar church didn't "appreciate" the Blessed Sacrament enough........... :scratchchin:
-
Gerard,
"Fr. Hesse ties himself up in knots" Yes he does.
"Pope Leo XIII was not always clear" Correct. Fr. Hesse in tying himself up in knots on another matter once said, "infallible" can also be "impractical"
"Saint Augustine when stating doctrine is being poetic" When explaining it, which is not uncommon.
Father James Wathen was wrong" Yep. He certainly wasn't infallible.
"Ladislaus is wrong" So is Mark Shea
"Stubborn is wrong" So is Micheal Voris
"Myrna M. is wrong" So is Fr. Schmidberger
Pax Vobis is wrong" So is Fr. Cekada
"the pre-conciliar Church was responsible for the Vatican II disaster"
The alternative is that the pre-conciliar Catholic Church was a paper Tiger.
"Catholic liturgy is the product of men with no divine interventions"
Yep. Otherwise Popes like St. Pius V would not have been able to suppress rites.
"Pius XII taught that the pope has the supreme power to introduce novelty and Protestantism into the Liturgy"
St. Gelasius actually did bring novelty into the liturgy. And Pius XII taught nothing about bringing Protestantism into the liturgy. Again, you make false accusations.
You have no credibility.
BUT!.......................Gerard of Fisheaters is right in all of his assertions......…..
I'm open to having a discussion. It just seems that the pearl clutching Neo-trads aren't equipped to have that discussion.
I've challenged you to prove me wrong. You haven't. You haven't even had the courage to try.
:roll-laugh1::roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh2:
conciliar is as conciliar does............
There's nothing "conciliar" about pointing out errors. Your calumny doesn't make a bit of sense.
You're just grasping at anything to avoid the arguments.
I've backed up everything I've stated.
Have you?
NO.
So again, you have no credibility in your complaints.
-
Yes, perhaps a Spiritual Communion and Perfect Act of Love/Contrition.
Most younger people don't even know the definition of the Blessed Sacrament anymore.
Well, maybe that is because the pre-conciliar church didn't "appreciate" the Blessed Sacrament enough........... :scratchchin:
It's apparent the pre-conciliar Church didn't appreciate a lot of things.
It's a fairly consistent opinion among real traditionalists that the Church was in one sense a victim of its success and had started to ossify. St. Pius X could sense it a century ago and knew things needed changing.
He was unable to do anything beyond driving modernism underground and basically delay the inevitable struggle about how to change the way the Church was working.
Pray, pay and obey along with Neo-Ultramontanism became the weaknesses that the progressives exploited to gain the upper hand.
It's my personal opinion as well that the Pope's would have had better success by adding the works of St. Bonaventure to the curriculum as the anti-dote to modernism instead of simply doubling down on St. Thomas Aquinas. But that's the advantage of hindsight.
-
I thought you already understood that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated to help destroy the Church. Though the destruction of the Church can never happen, the enemies do not believe this which is why they never cease in their efforts to do everything they can toward that end.
Yes or no, do you even understand that much?
That's a good narrative for trying to stir up the troops so to speak, but the reality is quite different because it is a lot more complicated.
Once again, you never answered the question.
We'll never get anywhere as long as you keep avoiding the issue.
I did answer your question, in depth. You just don't like the answer it seems.
Well how about just a simple yes or no. Do you understand that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church?
A simple "yes" or "no" to a false dichotomy is not an honest question and it's a deceptive and inaccurate answer.
You seem to think avoiding an answer at all is done by setting up a false dilemma.
The Novus Ordo was created and published by multiple people with a variety of intentions. Some wanted to undermine the Church others thought naively that nonsensical ecuмenical strategiese would draw in conversions.
For you to claim a "singular" purpose of undermining the Church is wrong and hyperbole at best.
So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others.
You are asking the same thing as if the question were, "Is the confessional for saints or sinners?" One or the other.
FYI, the short answer is a resounding, "yes", the reason the new "mass" was created and perpetrated was for the singular purpose of destroying the Church. If you ever can get yourself to admit and wholly believe this without your additional provisos, you will believe the truth of the matter.
Once you believe this truth, then all your provisos wither away.
-
Stubborn,
FYI, the short answer is a resounding, "yes", the reason the new "mass" was created and perpetrated was for the singular purpose of destroying the Church. If you ever can get yourself to admit and wholly believe this without your additional provisos, you will believe the truth of the matter.
Once you believe this truth, then all your provisos wither away.
The Novus Ordo changed the Lex Orandi of the Church and consequently changed the Lex Credendi, as it was intended to do.
The whole of Novus Ordo apologetics is base upon overwhelming any manner of certainty with subjectivist objections. You will never get a definitive answer from them.
-
Gerard,
So what? The rite is the rite, you look at it for what it is, not what some schlub declares that he made it to be.
Yes, it turns out to be and to accomplish exactly what the schlubs* said that they wanted it to do, and Gerard says SO WHAT!
:roll-laugh2: :surprised: :roll-laugh2:
* Schlubs=Enemies of the Church
-
FYI, the short answer is a resounding, "yes",
The short answer regarding LeFebvre and the consecrations is that he broke the law. But that's not the whole of the story.
the reason the new "mass" was created and perpetrated was for the singular purpose of destroying the Church.
That's the same reasoning that says that the SSPX "broke communion" and are "schismatic." Equally false.
If you ever can get yourself to admit and wholly believe this without your additional provisos, you will believe the truth of the matter.
I actually do have a good, solid grasp on the reality of the matter. I don't need to exaggerate in order to make myself "feel" what I want the truth to be.
Once you believe this truth, then all your provisos wither away.
I don't have provisos in my assessment. I have nuances. Nuances provide a greater understanding.
It seems you need provisos in your assertions in order to keep your conclusions, which are intellectually sloppy and don't conform to reality.
When you stop trying to revise reality to conform to your pre-conceptions you won't be as emotionally needy in order to maintain your Catholic facade and you can actually hold the Catholic faith in truth.
-
Gerard,
So what? The rite is the rite, you look at it for what it is, not what some schlub declares that he made it to be.
Yes, it turns out to be and to accomplish exactly what the schlubs* said that they wanted it to do, and Gerard says SO WHAT!
:roll-laugh2: :surprised: :roll-laugh2:
* Schlubs=Enemies of the Church
Schlubs are schlubs and they can make any liturgy a burden. If they hadn't been abusing the TLM despite the fact that the TLM has more defenses built into it, people wouldn't have soured on it by the time the 1960s were going strong.
If the Novus Ordo positively accomplished what the schlubs intended it to be, there would be no liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo and the decades long exercises in "experimentation" would not have been necessary to help promote the errors of the day as some intended and to address the errors of the day as others of good will intended.
-
The Novus Ordo changed the Lex Orandi of the Church and consequently changed the Lex Credendi, as it was intended to do.
No, that's not what happened. If that had actually happened the Novus Ordo would have been rejected outright by the allegedly healthy Catholics that were stuffing the Churches at the time.
Where did that happen? 1 diocese in the entire world.
No. The zeal for the faith and the Church had almost completely run out of gas.
The problem that occurred at the time of the Council was that the moderates, liberals and progressives were in varying levels willing to try a series of ideas that were bad ideas. The conservatives of the day simply had no ideas and frankly, they were the fat, dumb and happy set that weren't even aware of the problems in the Church.
The whole of Novus Ordo apologetics is base upon overwhelming any manner of certainty with subjectivist objections. You will never get a definitive answer from them.
Straw man argument again. This isn't Novus Ordo apologetics, this is traditional Catholic apologetics against 1950's Cartoon Catholicism.
-
It's amazing to view the Neo-trads general attitude. It is indicative of the true scope of the crisis in the Church.
They adopt a non-Catholic atttude more in like Puritans than Catholics and they pretend to be militant but they actually have a perpetual victim-mentality.
As long as the big 'ol Novus Ordo Church pushed them down in the school yard, they are going to be nothing more than a liberal grievance industry.
Catholic truth is secondary, historical truth is to be avoided,, the salvation of souls is anathema, no one is saved outside of St. Gertrude the Great or Pope Micheal's garage and if you are a Neo-trad it's once saved always saved. I wonder if confession is simply a pro forma ritual in their minds.
It's lunacy, once someone like a post-concilar Pope has been targeted, he is reduced to having nothing good in them or about them. He is Satan incarnate, there is nothing he can do that is good in any way on any level. Similarly anyone who holds the Catholic faith and attends the TLM, prefers the TLM and or recognize the problems and weaknesses of the Novus Ordo as well as the dangers extrinsic to it, and avoids it, but if you don't condemn every person associated with it to Hell forever as well as being akin to Satanists at a Black Mass, you obviously are a Novus Ordo apologist, or a modernist, or whatever other irrational calumny can be hurled.
The crisis in the Church is far beyond the Novus Ordo apparatus, it is deep within the veins of traditional Catholicism.
I once heard Malachi Martin talk about how Popes in recent decades had made disastrous errors and he added , they've made fatal mistakes in the last 2 centuries. He must've seen the consequences of those mistakes and they are finally manifesting themselves prominently in the near 2 decades since his death.
-
No, that's not what happened. If that had actually happened the Novus Ordo would have been rejected outright by the allegedly healthy Catholics that were stuffing the Churches at the time.
Were you around back then? Some of us were. Of course, I can only speak for the archdiocese I grew up in, and a neighboring archdiocese as well.
The truth is that many, if not most, Catholics did not like either the changes or the new Mass at all. In fact, the priests were quite tired of Catholics complaining to them about the changes.
Walk into a novus ordo church on Sunday. Watch the over 62 crowd. Do they act like those who were catechized before VII? No. They are among the worst of the bunch. And the least excusable of all. You would never know they were taught to reverence the Blessed Sacrament, or that a church wasn't a public meeting place where one mindlessly genuflects, if they bother to do it at all, then sits down and talks to whomever happens to be around them.
This is what attendance at that Mass has done. Without their realizing it, they have changed. And the irony is that when you talk to them, they tell you they haven't changed at all.
Actions speak louder than words.
-
FYI, the short answer is a resounding, "yes",
The short answer regarding LeFebvre and the consecrations is that he broke the law. But that's not the whole of the story.
the reason the new "mass" was created and perpetrated was for the singular purpose of destroying the Church.
That's the same reasoning that says that the SSPX "broke communion" and are "schismatic." Equally false.
If you ever can get yourself to admit and wholly believe this without your additional provisos, you will believe the truth of the matter.
I actually do have a good, solid grasp on the reality of the matter. I don't need to exaggerate in order to make myself "feel" what I want the truth to be.
Once you believe this truth, then all your provisos wither away.
I don't have provisos in my assessment. I have nuances. Nuances provide a greater understanding.
It seems you need provisos in your assertions in order to keep your conclusions, which are intellectually sloppy and don't conform to reality.
When you stop trying to revise reality to conform to your pre-conceptions you won't be as emotionally needy in order to maintain your Catholic facade and you can actually hold the Catholic faith in truth.
Gerard, there actually are enemies of Christ who hate God and His Church so much that they seek the utter destruction of the Church. These enemies succeeded in gradually infiltrating Holy Mother the Church so that for the last 50 years or so the Church has been governed by Her enemies, we call this enemy infiltrated church the Conciliar Church - do you believe at least that much?
Again, this is a clear question which requires only a yes or no answer.
Just FYI, if you answer no, then you have no idea what is going on. The same applies if you answer "yes, but....".
-
It's amazing to view the Neo-trads general attitude. It is indicative of the true scope of the crisis in the Church.
You have never purged the poison remnants you harbor within you from your years within the NO. You demonstrate this when you call Catholics here "Neo-trads", some of whom have been born and raised in the true faith and have never been stained with the pernicious stain of NOism, others have accepted the truth and successfully purged all remnants of the conciliar religion.
Do what you can to purge yourself of the liberalism the NO instilled within you, at least now you have been made aware of it so as to better enable you to actually do something about it.
-
Gerard, there actually are enemies of Christ who hate God and His Church so much that they seek the utter destruction of the Church.
That's not anything new.
These enemies succeeded in gradually infiltrating Holy Mother the Church so that for the last 50 years or so the Church has been governed by Her enemies, we call this enemy infiltrated church the Conciliar Church - do you believe at least that much?
Infiltration started with the Garden of Eden and if you've ever read "Pascendi" you know that St. Pius X declared that the Church had already been infiltrated more than half a century before Vatican II was even announced.
What do we call the infiltrated Church prior to the Council?
Again, this is a clear question which requires only a yes or no answer.
Just FYI, if you answer no, then you have no idea what is going on. The same applies if you answer "yes, but....".
It's a clear question that contains a fallacy of causal reductionism. As such it doesn't "require" anything since it is designed to provoke a capitulation to an error.
Have you stopped beating your wife is a clear question. The clarity doesn't denote anything.
-
It's amazing to view the Neo-trads general attitude. It is indicative of the true scope of the crisis in the Church.
You have never purged the poison remnants you harbor within you from your years within the NO. You demonstrate this when you call Catholics here "Neo-trads", some of whom have been born and raised in the true faith and have never been stained with the pernicious stain of NOism, others have accepted the truth and successfully purged all remnants of the conciliar religion.
Do what you can to purge yourself of the liberalism the NO instilled within you, at least now you have been made aware of it so as to better enable you to actually do something about it.
That's a nice, appeal to emotion that you simply can't back up.
You can't purge yourself of "Bing Crosby Catholicism" as you see it.
If the Neo-trads had a grasp on the truth or even traditional Catholicism, they would be able to put up a reasonable argument instead of emotional rants.
They are like people that idealize deceased parents or grandparents. They live with an unreal image in their minds and their lives are unduly influenced by the image that is not real instead of living in the truth of whatever the situation in true humility and prudence.
-
Were you around back then? Some of us were. Of course, I can only speak for the archdiocese I grew up in, and a neighboring archdiocese as well.
I was born in the Old rite but too young to remember it. I was in grade school in the very early years of the Novus Ordo.
But you are exactly right in that you can only speak for your archdiocese. Some people want to speak for the whole Church.
The truth is that many, if not most, Catholics did not like either the changes or the new Mass at all. In fact, the priests were quite tired of Catholics complaining to them about the changes.
True, but people were complaining for a number of reasons, the new mass was simpler but it took virtually just as long. "Getting mass over with" was no better than in the TLM.
Some dioceses thought the solution to the complaints were more changes and not fewer. But those are errors that are separate from the publication of the Novus Ordo itself and don't constitute a Black Mass equivalent being foisted on people.
Walk into a novus ordo church on Sunday. Watch the over 62 crowd. Do they act like those who were catechized before VII? No. They are among the worst of the bunch. And the least excusable of all.
They are actually more excusable than people that used the changes to leave the Church completely and never go to Mass again.
A Novus Ordo Church today depending on where you are is a mixed bag. There are some place that have an impressive devotion to the Eucharist. Eucharistic Adoration has been a definite improvement in years as had Rosary devotion.
But if you had the ability to walk into a Novus Ordo in 1974 in my archdiocese of Philadelphia and compare it with a contemporary TLM (even SSPX) and it would be the "trads" that would look like the slobs, the priests were more meticulous in the Novus Ordo back then than many trad priests today. Heads were covered, communion at the rail, meticulously done, on the tongue, female heads covered, men in at least shirts and ties, (short sleeves with ties in the Summer with the big fans blowing in the open doorways)
We had Children's Mass for the students of the school, I had to be in the same pew at the proper time each Sunday or have a note explaining it on Monday to give to the teacher or nun.
We were being taught with the Baltimore Catechism. Confessions were a school event and the confessionals were and still are exactly the same with "Ego te Absolvo" written on the wall above them.
We had to sing "Panis Angelicus" in Latin at Mass.
It was all rote and by the book and nothing was giving us preparation to hold onto the faith despite the fact that we were learning it "old school"
The real damage came in when the additional novelies were imposed and things were removed and replaced with nothing of any value at all. All separate from the liturgy itself of the official teaching of the Church.
You would never know they were taught to reverence the Blessed Sacrament, or that a church wasn't a public meeting place where one mindlessly genuflects, if they bother to do it at all, then sits down and talks to whomever happens to be around them.
Mindless genuflection is and always has been a problem. You never saw anyone genuflect in a movie theater out of habit?
This is what attendance at that Mass has done. Without their realizing it, they have changed. And the irony is that when you talk to them, they tell you they haven't changed at all.
They've been changed by a thousand and one changes, but the real problem is, they were never properly formed to begin with in the pre-vatican II ambient.
Actions speak louder than words.
So do inactions, and the fact that they didn't fight the changes forcefully like Campos tells us that there was a problem with them at the time, they didn't value what was going on around them to consider it worth fighting for.
And that indicates that there were corruptions at that time more subtle than the current ones that had spoiled the passing on of the faith even prior to Vatican II.
Permitting Vatican II is probably in the long term a mercy of God, it's like the lancing of a boil that had been festering for decades. With the disaster exposed, the healing will happen sooner than if nothing had happened.
-
Gerard, there actually are enemies of Christ who hate God and His Church so much that they seek the utter destruction of the Church.
That's not anything new.
These enemies succeeded in gradually infiltrating Holy Mother the Church so that for the last 50 years or so the Church has been governed by Her enemies, we call this enemy infiltrated church the Conciliar Church - do you believe at least that much?
Infiltration started with the Garden of Eden and if you've ever read "Pascendi" you know that St. Pius X declared that the Church had already been infiltrated more than half a century before Vatican II was even announced.
What do we call the infiltrated Church prior to the Council?
Again, this is a clear question which requires only a yes or no answer.
Just FYI, if you answer no, then you have no idea what is going on. The same applies if you answer "yes, but....".
It's a clear question that contains a fallacy of causal reductionism. As such it doesn't "require" anything since it is designed to provoke a capitulation to an error.
Have you stopped beating your wife is a clear question. The clarity doesn't denote anything.
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right tho.
-
No, that's not what happened. If that had actually happened the Novus Ordo would have been rejected outright by the allegedly healthy Catholics that were stuffing the Churches at the time.
Were you around back then? Some of us were. Of course, I can only speak for the archdiocese I grew up in, and a neighboring archdiocese as well.
The truth is that many, if not most, Catholics did not like either the changes or the new Mass at all. In fact, the priests were quite tired of Catholics complaining to them about the changes.
Walk into a novus ordo church on Sunday. Watch the over 62 crowd. Do they act like those who were catechized before VII? No. They are among the worst of the bunch. And the least excusable of all. You would never know they were taught to reverence the Blessed Sacrament, or that a church wasn't a public meeting place where one mindlessly genuflects, if they bother to do it at all, then sits down and talks to whomever happens to be around them.
This is what attendance at that Mass has done. Without their realizing it, they have changed. And the irony is that when you talk to them, they tell you they haven't changed at all.
Actions speak louder than words.
You are certainly accurate and not only in your diocese. Almost anyone who actually had first hand experience with the forced debauchery of the Church, and who spans both the pre and post conciiar eras will speak of similar experiences, and wonder what this fellow is talking about. He is all about "believe what I am telling you and forget what you saw".
-
Stubborn,
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right though.
He may know that but he does not want to face precisely what it is.
-
It's amazing to view the Neo-trads general attitude. It is indicative of the true scope of the crisis in the Church.
You have never purged the poison remnants you harbor within you from your years within the NO. You demonstrate this when you call Catholics here "Neo-trads", some of whom have been born and raised in the true faith and have never been stained with the pernicious stain of NOism, others have accepted the truth and successfully purged all remnants of the conciliar religion.
Do what you can to purge yourself of the liberalism the NO instilled within you, at least now you have been made aware of it so as to better enable you to actually do something about it.
That's a nice, appeal to emotion that you simply can't back up.
You can't purge yourself of "Bing Crosby Catholicism" as you see it.
Liberals seeking to prove they're right call it Bing Crosby Catholicism, but unlike yourself, I was raised traditional Catholic during the infancy of through the heart of the revolution and remember quite a bit - like your compromising jargon. You are not saying anything new, quite the opposite. You speak the same liberal compromising talk that all the compromisers before you spoke - it is really like a bad, old rerun that's played 1000 times already. that's why I am telling you that you have not purged the NO from within you.
So it is not a nice appeal to emotion, it is fact which you backup yourself in your postings.
-
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right tho.
I do know what is going on. There is a trend among some so-called trads who have lost perspective to simplify and exaggerate on emotional grounds what is going on in the Church. They've stopped being honest and have become propagandists at the expense of the truth.
-
You are certainly accurate and not only in your diocese. Almost anyone who actually had first hand experience with the forced debauchery of the Church, and who spans both the pre and post conciiar eras will speak of similar experiences, and wonder what this fellow is talking about. He is all about "believe what I am telling you and forget what you saw".
Ah..memory, it has a tendency in some people to change a bit to suit their emotional needs. The more perfect and wonderful one views the past through their rose-colored glasses, the more you can bet they are not objective. Especially if they absolve the past of all wrong-doing and condemn the present for not doing anything right.
I know what I experienced of the Novus Ordo in its varied degrees of change and I've been around the dinner table with older family and we've all discussed which "Act of Contrition" each generation was taught from the 1930s to the present. One of the interesting things is when you point out things in the 1950s Catholics upbringing that was modernist or "updated" such as an edition of the Baltimore Catechism or the persecution of Fr. Feeney or the changes in the Mass in the 1950s. They are shocked. They believed in some cases that there was nothing more to Catholicism than what they learned in 12 grades of parochial schooling. "And no young whipper snapper is going to tell me otherwise!!!" It was perfect. You hear me? Perfect!!!
The secret is to tell them your point in a form you heard Bishop Sheen say this or that. Then, since Sheen was older, they adopt it as their own. Pius XII is another one that works, but not as much as Sheen.
-
Liberals seeking to prove they're right call it Bing Crosby Catholicism,
No. Liberals do not call it Bing Crosby Catholicism. Regardless, the descriptive term is apt.
but unlike yourself, I was raised traditional Catholic during the infancy of through the heart of the revolution and remember quite a bit-
It wasn't really a revolution. It was a surrender and a forfeit.
- like your compromising jargon.
No. I don't compromise on jargon. I also don't needlessly puff up the jargon to alleviate the guilt and create a victim status to lazy Catholics.
You are not saying anything new, quite the opposite.
I didn't claim to be saying anything "new."
You speak the same liberal compromising talk that all the compromisers before you spoke
Yeah. That's another one of these vague statements attached to nothing, expressing nothing connected to reality.
You make a lot of accusations you can't back up.
- it is really like a bad, old rerun that's played 1000 times already.
No. It really isn't. Ironically, your reactionary posts are like a bad rerun when I've debated Neo-Catholics. All emotion, no willingness to examine the details and test opinions against facts.
that's why I am telling you that you have not purged the NO from within you.
In other words, by not adopting the illusions and errors of the Bing Crosby Neo-trads, I must therefore be a supporter of the Novus Ordo and Vatican II. That's yet another series of fallacious assertions.
So it is not a nice appeal to emotion, it is fact which you backup yourself in your postings.
If only it weren't a physical impossibility for you to directly quote, without paraphrasing me, actual proof for what you claim. That's a shame isn't it?
If only we could take your unsupported assertions as undeniable facts, we could be so happy with your conclusions.
The only hang up would be the denial of reality and the descent into delusional madness.
-
Stubborn,
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right though.
He may know that but he does not want to face precisely what it is.
Failing to be precise is a terrible problem around here, but it ain't my problem.
You guys are about as precise as an old-timey medicine show.
-
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right tho.
I do know what is going on. There is a trend among some so-called trads who have lost perspective to simplify and exaggerate on emotional grounds what is going on in the Church. They've stopped being honest and have become propagandists at the expense of the truth.
Yes, what is going on is your directly changing the subject to so called trends among Catholics rather than address the hard reality of what Stubborn has presented you with.
-
So Gerard when all is said and done, tell us do you believe we are living in the era of the Great Apostasy foretold to us in the Bible?
If yes, do you believe we should just cave in?
If no, what do you think the Great Apostasy will be?
Serious questions!
-
Gerard,
Ah..memory, it has a tendency in some people to change a bit to suit their emotional needs. The more perfect and wonderful one views the past through their rose-colored glasses, the more you can bet they are not objective. Especially if they absolve the past of all wrong-doing and condemn the present for not doing anything right.
Missed again Gerard...
Even though it rankles you, there are others who actually have experienced the pre-masonic age of the Church, something which you did not and have no authority to speak upon other than to quote others and to excite your own biased conciliar imagination in which everyone else must be wrong, wearing dark glasses, being poetic, have no understanding of their Faith and a faulty understanding of a well meaning conciliar revolution that took place around them.
Why does not everyone see things as Gerard and the Fish Eaters do? :scratchchin:
-
Yes, what is going on is your directly changing the subject to so called trends among Catholics rather than address the hard reality of what Stubborn has presented you with.
No. I haven't changed the subject at all. Changing the subject was done by the Neo-trads here who couldn't bear to be shown how wrong they are so they decide to change the subject to me.
I've answered every question. The same cannot be said for you.
-
Missed again Gerard...
Even though it rankles you, there are others who actually have experienced the pre-masonic age of the Church,
Tell me of your experiences of the massive rebelling by the faithful who rejected the changes of Vatican II in such force that the Pope and the bishops conceded that it was all a mistake.
Tell of those oh so perfect and heroic Catholics who can only be compared with the early martyrs who were fed to the lions and burned as torches.
something which you did not and have no authority to speak upon
I certainly can speak of it. And I can certainly speak of my experiences in the post-conciliar Church which puts the lie to your narrative. A narrative so exaggerated and hyperbolic, Baron Munchausen would roll his eyes and say, "Now that's laying it on a little thick."
...other than to quote others….
I'm relying on arguments, not quotes from others like Fr. Hesse or Cardinal Ottaviani.
and to excite your own biased conciliar imagination
Quite the reverse, I don't need any excitement. I'm trying to restore a little sober analysis.
We are on a thread where you are arguing the "pro" position of whether or not the Novus Ordo is as bad as a "Black Mass."
in which everyone else must be wrong,
Not "must be wrong" people just happen to wrong on specific issues. I would be happy if they were correct and I wouldn't have to spend time correctng them. (ie. you)
wearing dark glasses,
Rose colored glasses, seeing things as rosier than they actually were.
being poetic,
You're free to try to prove me wrong. You don't though. That's revealing.
have no understanding of their Faith and a faulty understanding of a well meaning conciliar revolution that took place around them.
Yet another straw man construction. You don't have enough confidence to actually portray my position so you've got gin up a phony one.
Why does not everyone see things as Gerard and the Fish Eaters do? :scratchchin:
I can't speak and don't pretend to speak for anyone at fish eaters. I was banned from them years ago for stating things the mercurial ownership didn't like to read.
But I get enough support in my mailbox from time to time demonstrating that certainly not everyone agrees with the positions espoused by the Neo-trads like yourself over here.
-
So Gerard when all is said and done, tell us do you believe we are living in the era of the Great Apostasy foretold to us in the Bible?
If yes, do you believe we should just cave in?
If no, what do you think the Great Apostasy will be?
Serious questions!
The truthful answer is, "I don't know." We are in a time of apostasy, but whether it's THE Great Apostasy or a simple forerunner or just the beginning of it is up for grabs.
We haven't seen anything compared to how bad it's probably going to be and I seriously hope it won't be in my lifetime.
With that said, It's not my place to know. It doesn't change my duty and my responsibility to secure my soul and help those in my orbit do the same. We have to pick up the cross daily. As the day changes, the weight of the cross changes. But there is no escape from it for the faithful Catholic.
If I'm faithful and strive, God will provide. I hope to take advantage of the carrot before He brings out the stick.
When it comes to the four last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell, Apostasy isn't the top of the list I'm worried about. If I take care to make sure I'm on the right side of Judgement. Apostasy won't be a worry for me. My regular old boring sins are enough to have me worried and keep fumbling towards salvation.
-
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right tho.
I do know what is going on. There is a trend among some so-called trads who have lost perspective to simplify and exaggerate on emotional grounds what is going on in the Church. They've stopped being honest and have become propagandists at the expense of the truth.
Propagandists? The truth is what it is, the NO was no accident of the Church, it was no mistake made by the Magisterium, it was not created without a specific purpose. You seem to believe it was an idea that some folks in the Church were tossing around and ended up deciding, "ah, what the heck, let's try this NO thing and see how it flies".
When the priests started leaving the priesthood, the nuns started leaving the convents, the seminarians started evacuating the seminaries, the people started losing their faith and all the other fruits started showing the desired results, you seem to believe this all happened without specific planning, as if it were all by chance or that Rome had no knowledge of any of this. Yet we're the propagandists.
No. Liberals do not call it Bing Crosby Catholicism. Regardless, the descriptive term is apt.
The term is apt for Liberals and Modernists, always has been.
I tell you there are people here that were born and raised traditional Catholic and who've never been tainted with NOism, and you come back with an attempt to slander that with your "Bing Crosby Catholicism" - that is the exact same thinking that that NOers have always had.
Your Bing Crosby Catholicism actually is the Catholic faith as it was preserved and handed down, untainted by the influences and novelties of the Novus Ordo religion. You mock it because you have not purged yourself of the NO influences which you have impregnated within you.
It wasn't really a revolution. It was a surrender and a forfeit.
It really was a revolution, one where the takeover was wildly successful and was achieved without one shot being fired nor one drop of blood spilled.
They succeeded in taking away the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They threw the statues into the dumpsters, they demolished the altars, they stripped the Churches into empty shells, they burned all the books, they kicked out the radical stubborn priests and nuns by the 1000s who refused to submit to the new religion and on and on I could continue, but suffice to say it really was a revolution. The lethargic Catholics only "surrendered and forfeited" by being deceived by those Church authorities who "inwardly are ravening wolves" who promised them a "new springtime" and a "renewal".
There were many people who fought against the revolution, but they were sorely outnumbered fighting against people like yourself, people who were convinced that if Rome wanted to destroy the Church then it must, literally "must" be ok.
The True Mass was taken away for a reason - because it was an absolute necessity to kill the true faith as entirely as possible, once the Mass was gone, the enemy put in it's place a new "mass", a service acceptable to them, one which mocks the True Mass in almost everything within it. As such, the new "mass" continues to serve it's intended purpose, to help lose the faith for those who go to it.
-
Stubborn,
Gerard from FE said:
It wasn't really a revolution. It was a surrender and a forfeit.
It really was a revolution, one where the takeover was wildly successful and was achieved without one shot being fired nor one drop of blood spilled.
They succeeded in taking away the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They threw the statues into the dumpsters, they demolished the altars, they stripped the Churches into empty shells, they burned all the books, they kicked out the radical stubborn priests and nuns by the 1000s who refused to submit to the new religion and on and on I could continue, but suffice to say it really was a revolution. The lethargic Catholics only "surrendered and forfeited" by being deceived by those Church authorities who "inwardly are ravening wolves" who promised them a "new springtime" and a "renewal".
There were many people who fought against the revolution, but they were sorely outnumbered fighting against people like yourself, people who were convinced that if Rome wanted to destroy the Church then it must, literally "must" be ok.
The True Mass was taken away for a reason - because it was an absolute necessity to kill the true faith as entirely as possible, once the Mass was gone, the enemy put in it's place a new "mass", a service acceptable to them, one which mocks the True Mass in almost everything within it. As such, the new "mass" continues to serve it's intended purpose, to help lose the faith for those who go to it.
Thank you for inserting a bit of reality into this otherwise fruitless exchange. Those of us who were witness to it applaud you. To have lived through this and then have the the history rewritten before you, certainly puts emphasis upon the Marxist tyranny of the conciliar revolution and its disciples.
-
Gerard,
I and others have been Catholics since long before the council. We have always been Catholics. Neo-Catholics and Neo-"trads" are post conciliar manifestations. If anyone is a neo-trad, it is you, a man who is of the Novus Ordo, a post Traditional church and who later decides that he "prefers" what he calls the "TLM".
Two thousand plus Bishops voted to institute the docuмents of Vatican II. If that is not proof of a massive infiltration into the Church by its enemies, then nothing could be.
And while you spend the bulk of your time here defending and minimizing the council and the Novus Ordo, you certainly give the appearance of being a partisan of that subversion.
Someone who has never known and believed anything but the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church to be what ABL called "the Mass of the Ages", and the "Mass of all time" can in no way be considered to be a neo anything, or anything other than a Catholic.
Please take your false labels and fables to Fish Eaters or elsewhere, if they will have you.
-
Yes, what is going on is your directly changing the subject to so called trends among Catholics rather than address the hard reality of what Stubborn has presented you with.
No. I haven't changed the subject at all. Changing the subject was done by the Neo-trads here who couldn't bear to be shown how wrong they are so they decide to change the subject to me.
I've answered every question. The same cannot be said for you.
Folks, judge for yourselves..........
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
So Gerard when all is said and done, tell us do you believe we are living in the era of the Great Apostasy foretold to us in the Bible?
If yes, do you believe we should just cave in?
If no, what do you think the Great Apostasy will be?
Serious questions!
The truthful answer is, "I don't know." We are in a time of apostasy, but whether it's THE Great Apostasy or a simple forerunner or just the beginning of it is up for grabs.
We haven't seen anything compared to how bad it's probably going to be and I seriously hope it won't be in my lifetime.
With that said, It's not my place to know. It doesn't change my duty and my responsibility to secure my soul and help those in my orbit do the same. We have to pick up the cross daily. As the day changes, the weight of the cross changes. But there is no escape from it for the faithful Catholic.
If I'm faithful and strive, God will provide. I hope to take advantage of the carrot before He brings out the stick.
When it comes to the four last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell, Apostasy isn't the top of the list I'm worried about. If I take care to make sure I'm on the right side of Judgement. Apostasy won't be a worry for me. My regular old boring sins are enough to have me worried and keep fumbling towards salvation.
If you "don't know" why putdown people who do know? For myself its not just an opinion, I was raised up in the Church prior to Vatican II, and realized quickly that something was amiss in the early 60's but didn't have any idea what to do about it, I was also busy, too busy to think about it.(married and raising babies)
Apostasy or Great Apostasy, what difference does it make, apostasy is apostasy a falling away, and no Catholic should defend it. As far as how far will it go or how much worse will it get, like you I do not pretend to guess since every day it becomes more obvious every time Francis opens his mouth and speaks. God will judge us accordingly and remember Silence Implies Consent FEAR THAT JUDGEMENT!
-
Well thanks for being clear, you have no idea what is going on. You know something's not right tho.
I do know what is going on. There is a trend among some so-called trads who have lost perspective to simplify and exaggerate on emotional grounds what is going on in the Church. They've stopped being honest and have become propagandists at the expense of the truth.
Propagandists? The truth is what it is, the NO was no accident of the Church, it was no mistake made by the Magisterium, it was not created without a specific purpose. You seem to believe it was an idea that some folks in the Church were tossing around and ended up deciding, "ah, what the heck, let's try this NO thing and see how it flies".
The truth is what it is, not what you deem it to be. It was a mistake by the Hierarchy. If you don't know the different between the hierarchy and the Magisterium, then you shouldn't even be in the conversation. The Magisterium doesn't govern liturgies. It was created with cross purposes.
You seem to think it was a cut and cry mustache twirling group of super villains who planned a liturgy and laughed with a "Muaahahahaha!" as it was implemented.
When the priests started leaving the priesthood, the nuns started leaving the convents, the seminarians started evacuating the seminaries, the people started losing their faith and all the other fruits started showing the desired results, you seem to believe this all happened without specific planning, as if it were all by chance or that Rome had no knowledge of any of this. Yet we're the propagandists.
That's not an impressively strong Catholic who leaves the priesthood or the consecrated life. Seems there was a lot of dead wood hanging around. No great collection of Thomas Mores or St. John Fishers among them.
You seem to pretend that everything was peachy keen and Vatican II simply came along and destroyed the vaunted Church Militant with virtually no effort.
No. Liberals do not call it Bing Crosby Catholicism. Regardless, the descriptive term is apt.
The term is apt for Liberals and Modernists, always has been.
I tell you there are people here that were born and raised traditional Catholic and who've never been tainted with NOism, and you come back with an attempt to slander that with your "Bing Crosby Catholicism" - that is the exact same thinking that that NOers have always had.
Your Bing Crosby Catholicism actually is the Catholic faith as it was preserved and handed down, untainted by the influences and novelties of the Novus Ordo religion. You mock it because you have not purged yourself of the NO influences which you have impregnated within you.
It is apt for liberals which is what you are representing. A lazy liberal Catholicism with a penchant for smells and bells. Pray, pay and obey Catholics who don't oppose the concept, they just want the classy pray, pay and obey.
Catholicism, preserved and handed down would not have folded like a piece of paper against the post-conciliar changes.
Most weak kneed Bing Crosby Catholics, capitulated, decided to use it as an excuse to leave or got angry because they were made uncomfortable.
There was nary a Catholic warrior among them. Even those who fought were tainted by the desire to just return to the status quo of the 50s, not to save souls and grow the Church.
It wasn't really a revolution. It was a surrender and a forfeit.
It really was a revolution, one where the takeover was wildly successful and was achieved without one shot being fired nor one drop of blood spilled.
They succeeded in taking away the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. [/quote]
No they didn't. They temporarily and illegally and only partially succeeded in suppressing a superior liturgy.
They threw the statues into the dumpsters, they demolished the altars, they stripped the Churches into empty shells, they burned all the books
You mean, a bunch of abuses, not called for, nor mandated by the Pope or the Council were done.
Iconoclasm has occurred before in the Church, It has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.
, they kicked out the radical stubborn priests and nuns by the 1000s who refused to submit to the new religion and on and on I could continue, but suffice to say it really was a revolution.
Really? And what happened to these thousands of noble warriors? Did they all follow LeFebvre and Gommar de Pauw?
The lethargic Catholics only "surrendered and forfeited" by being deceived by those Church authorities who "inwardly are ravening wolves" who promised them a "new springtime" and a "renewal".
And that's because Cardinals like McIntyre and Krol and Siri were "wolves" ? Spare me.
There were many people who fought against the revolution, but they were sorely outnumbered fighting against people like yourself, people who were convinced that if Rome wanted to destroy the Church then it must, literally "must" be ok.
Because I'm opposed to your hyperbole and exaggeration and imprudence does not mean I condone the changes of the post-conciliar period. It doesn't mean I believe they are irresistible either. It just means that you don't serve the cause by misrepresenting the truth of the situation.
The True Mass was taken away for a reason - because it was an absolute necessity to kill the true faith as entirely as possible
As Fr. Feeney was quoted as saying, "Dogmas come before liturgies." The True Mass was never taken away. The superior liturgy was taken away and God permitted it. I would argue that it was taken away as punishment for a lack of zeal among the pre-conciliar Latin Catholics.
once the Mass was gone, the enemy put in it's place a new "mass", a service acceptable to them,
Not acceptable enough since "they" continually had to add to the changes usually illicitly. And it still hasn't managed to destroy the faith of a good number of Catholics.
one which mocks the True Mass in almost everything within it.
Hyperbole, you can't prove that statement. It's a subjective opinion of yours, about as "objective" as a Rorschach test.
As such, the new "mass" continues to serve it's intended purpose, to help lose the faith for those who go to it.
But the TLM was the Mass celebrated by Karl Rahner, Annibali Bugnini, Hans Kung Paul VI, JPII, BXVI and Francis. What did the TLM do to help them lose the faith?
Did Siri and Ottaviani and Oddi and Stickler lose the faith when they offered the Novus Ordo?
-
You dissecting and quoting every second sentence out of context is not only too laborious to reply to, it also serves no purpose and is too hard on the eyes the way you do it.
Again, your attempt to defend the new "mass" is nothing but the same tired, 50 year old arguments the compromisers before you used in their effort to justify the mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Hopefully one day you will figure out that by parroting the compromisers before you who aided the enemy in ushering in the new "mass", that you yourself are part of the problem.
-
You dissecting and quoting every second sentence out of context is not only too laborious to reply to, it also serves no purpose and is too hard on the eyes the way you do it.
Again, your attempt to defend the new "mass" is nothing but the same tired, 50 year old arguments the compromisers before you used in their effort to justify the mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Hopefully one day you will figure out that by parroting the compromisers before you who aided the enemy in ushering in the new "mass", that you yourself are part of the problem.
Your post is addressed completely to say it is out of context is a lie.
It's not too laborious for me to address, it means your statement is too laborious for you to defend. No surprise, it just proves my point that you belong to a strain of Catholicism tainted with laziness.
The html tags seem to be inconsistent for some reason. I don't know if its because I use safari or some other reason. I can't help it but I'm not going to tosss out all of that work.
Again, you create a straw man argument. I'm not defending the Novus Ordo, I'm correcting your ham-handed and inaccurate attacks rooted in laziness.
Hopefully, one day you'll figure out that lying doesn't benefit you. But for now it seems lying about me, my position and the crisis in the Church is how you comfort yourself with delusions.
-
So Gerard when all is said and done, tell us do you believe we are living in the era of the Great Apostasy foretold to us in the Bible?
If yes, do you believe we should just cave in?
If no, what do you think the Great Apostasy will be?
Serious questions!
The truthful answer is, "I don't know." We are in a time of apostasy, but whether it's THE Great Apostasy or a simple forerunner or just the beginning of it is up for grabs.
We haven't seen anything compared to how bad it's probably going to be and I seriously hope it won't be in my lifetime.
With that said, It's not my place to know. It doesn't change my duty and my responsibility to secure my soul and help those in my orbit do the same. We have to pick up the cross daily. As the day changes, the weight of the cross changes. But there is no escape from it for the faithful Catholic.
If I'm faithful and strive, God will provide. I hope to take advantage of the carrot before He brings out the stick.
When it comes to the four last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell, Apostasy isn't the top of the list I'm worried about. If I take care to make sure I'm on the right side of Judgement. Apostasy won't be a worry for me. My regular old boring sins are enough to have me worried and keep fumbling towards salvation.
If you "don't know" why putdown people who do know?
It's not your place to know such things either.
For myself its not just an opinion,
That very statement implies that is just an opinion.
I was raised up in the Church prior to Vatican II, and realized quickly that something was amiss in the early 60's but didn't have any idea what to do about it, I was also busy, too busy to think about it.(married and raising babies)
That doesn't mean that you realized everything that was wrong, just the things that were noticeable to you. The disease is present before discomfort is felt.
Apostasy or Great Apostasy, what difference does it make, apostasy is apostasy a falling away, and no Catholic should defend it.
Disagreeing with you or the others here is not defending something wrong. If you condemn someone for saying 2+2=5 and you claim 2+2= 22. My demonstrating that you are wrong in saying 2+2=22 is not agreeing with 2+2=5.
As far as how far will it go or how much worse will it get, like you I do not pretend to guess since every day it becomes more obvious every time Francis opens his mouth and speaks. God will judge us accordingly and remember Silence Implies Consent FEAR THAT JUDGEMENT!
God will judge us just as harshly if we are unjust in how we judge anyone. If Francis does 10 bad things and 2 good things, you are held accountable if you claim EVERYTHING he does is evil.
-
Gerard,
I and others have been Catholics since long before the council. We have always been Catholics. Neo-Catholics and Neo-"trads" are post conciliar manifestations. If anyone is a neo-trad, it is you, a man who is of the Novus Ordo, a post Traditional church and who later decides that he "prefers" what he calls the "TLM".
Not quite. As I stated in another post, Paul VI, Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Ratzinger, JPII, Cardinal Siri, Cardinal McIntyre et al were and are Catholics long before the Council as well.
Categorizations become necessary when delineations need to be made whether it be Recusants, Merranos, Arians, Thomists or Molinists.
What I prefer is orthodox Catholicism and the best vehicles for living it out, the essence of tradition is a living tradition that is handed on and serves the faith, not an ossified and meaningless understanding of tradition that has no bearing on the faith itself.
Two thousand plus Bishops voted to institute the docuмents of Vatican II. If that is not proof of a massive infiltration into the Church by its enemies, then nothing could be.
Did they infiltrate during Vatican II and suddenly replace all of the saintly pre-conciliar bishops? Or had the infiltration been done prior to Vatican II?
And while you spend the bulk of your time here defending and minimizing the council and the Novus Ordo, you certainly give the appearance of being a partisan of that subversion.
That's purely another bit of paranoia from your over active imagination.
Someone who has never known and believed anything but the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church to be what ABL called "the Mass of the Ages", and the "Mass of all time" can in no way be considered to be a neo anything, or anything other than a Catholic.
That's why you stumble when you take the hyperbole too literally. You can't call the Latin rite's TLM, the Mass of all Time literally without denying the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the same.
And your Cathoilcism just like the Council had appearances of health and vigor but it's obvious error and exaggeration had infiltrated it just like pre-vatican II bishops infiltrated the Council.
Please take your false labels and fables to Fish Eaters or elsewhere, if they will have you.
Since you've deceptively chosen to continue with the straw man arguments, failed to concede proven points without any dignity.
I think I'll stay right here and make you as uncomfortable as possible until you face the truth.
:fryingpan:
-
You dissecting and quoting every second sentence out of context is not only too laborious to reply to, it also serves no purpose and is too hard on the eyes the way you do it.
Again, your attempt to defend the new "mass" is nothing but the same tired, 50 year old arguments the compromisers before you used in their effort to justify the mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Hopefully one day you will figure out that by parroting the compromisers before you who aided the enemy in ushering in the new "mass", that you yourself are part of the problem.
Your post is addressed completely to say it is out of context is a lie.
It's not too laborious for me to address, it means your statement is too laborious for you to defend. No surprise, it just proves my point that you belong to a strain of Catholicism tainted with laziness.
The html tags seem to be inconsistent for some reason. I don't know if its because I use safari or some other reason. I can't help it but I'm not going to tosss out all of that work.
Again, you create a straw man argument. I'm not defending the Novus Ordo, I'm correcting your ham-handed and inaccurate attacks rooted in laziness.
Hopefully, one day you'll figure out that lying doesn't benefit you. But for now it seems lying about me, my position and the crisis in the Church is how you comfort yourself with delusions.
I tell you the new "mass" was created for the singular purpose of destroying the Church. You dub this fact a "false dichotomy" and a "false dilemma." I won't go back and pick out all your liberal replies nor the ones where you do not answer clear questions with clear answers, suffice to say you do not know what you are talking about.
-
Gerard speaking ...
It's not your place to know such things either.
Why not? Makes me wonder in your mind, why God even gave us a Church if the faithful are not suppose to know the things taught within the Church.
That doesn't mean that you realized everything that was wrong, just the things that were noticeable to you. The disease is present before discomfort is felt.
Yes, I know it took years and decades for the Modernist to worm their way into the top. So you admit the Modernism is a disease ... that's a start!
Disagreeing with you or the others here is not defending something wrong. If you condemn someone for saying 2+2=5 and you claim 2+2= 22. My demonstrating that you are wrong in saying 2+2=22 is not agreeing with 2+2=5.
What exactly are you condemning us for? Keeping the Faith?
God will judge us just as harshly if we are unjust in how we judge anyone. If Francis does 10 bad things and 2 good things, you are held accountable if you claim EVERYTHING he does is evil.
Yes, well you know what they say about the broken clock, being correct twice a day.
In you mind you see God judging ... now-now Myrna, when I said the Holy Ghost will guide the Church you didn't take me seriously, did you. No one is perfect you know. :confused1:
-
Gerard,
" the essence of tradition is a living tradition that is handed on and serves the faith, not an ossified and meaningless understanding of tradition that has no bearing on the faith itself. "
This is the classic Vatican II, John Paul II understanding of Tradition. It is incompatible with the Council of Trent and Vatican I and clearly modernist.
It holds the same contempt for the sentence and judgements handed down by the Church as was held by the false council.
You do not love Tradition, you do not submit to Tradition, so why don't you stop torturing it and go back to Catholic Answers.
-
Quote:
Someone who has never known and believed anything but the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church to be what ABL called "the Mass of the Ages", and the "Mass of all time" can in no way be considered to be a neo anything, or anything other than a Catholic.
Gerard,
That's why you stumble when you take the hyperbole too literally. You can't call the Latin rite's TLM, the Mass of all Time literally without denying the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the same.
Ah! now ABL did not believe what he said, he was exaggerating for effect, like Saint Augustine.
What a crank!
-
Gerard,
I think I'll stay right here and make you as uncomfortable as possible until you face the truth.
Hopefully at some point the owner/ moderator will have something to say about that so that your abuse of forum members and the truth can be curtailed.
-
Gerard,
Have you read pt 50 from Mediator Dei yet?
-
I tell you the new "mass" was created for the singular purpose of destroying the Church. You dub this fact a "false dichotomy" and a "false dilemma." I won't go back and pick out all your liberal replies nor the ones where you do not answer clear questions with clear answers, suffice to say you do not know what you are talking about.
That's very brave and noble of you to not prove any of your assertions. What a powerful witness you are to your own convictions.
What else are you not going to do that solidifies your argument?
-
Gerard,
Have you read pt 50 from Mediator Dei yet?
Yes. I have. I've actually read the whole encyclical over the years and revisited it many times.
What are you confused about that I can clear up for you?
Are you getting worked up with the idea that a liturgy can be mad made and still contain divine elements?
Think of a Cathedral, it's entirely man-made but it contains divine elements such as being consecrated and Christ being present in the Sacred Species.
But nobody is going to say that God drew up the blueprints directly and poured the concrete or wired the electricity.
You need to pay attention to paragraph 58 " ….the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
-
Quote:
Someone who has never known and believed anything but the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic Church to be what ABL called "the Mass of the Ages", and the "Mass of all time" can in no way be considered to be a neo anything, or anything other than a Catholic.
Gerard,
That's why you stumble when you take the hyperbole too literally. You can't call the Latin rite's TLM, the Mass of all Time literally without denying the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the same.
Ah! now ABL did not believe what he said, he was exaggerating for effect, like Saint Augustine.
What a crank!
Another valiant non-defense.
So is the Byzantine liturgy the Mass of All Time, the True Mass or not? If it's not, what is it? Is it a Black Mass? If it is, how can there be two "the True Mass" and if there are two, why not 102?
-
Gerard,I think I'll stay right here and make you as uncomfortable as possible until you face the truth.
Hopefully at some point the owner/ moderator will have something to say about that so that your abuse of forum members and the truth can be curtailed.
Do you need a "safe space?"
You've several times expressed that you were going to ignore my posts, you've also said you were done with this thread if I recall.
Yet you keep coming back to take potshots. Why? It's not like I'm going to roll over and take it and you'll suddenly be proven right through straw man arguments and calumny.
Defend your position with real arguments, If you get stuck, concede a point or admit you need to look into it more. It won't kill you. It'll actually aid in saving you.
-
Gerard,
" the essence of tradition is a living tradition that is handed on and serves the faith, not an ossified and meaningless understanding of tradition that has no bearing on the faith itself. "
This is the classic Vatican II, John Paul II understanding of Tradition. It is incompatible with the Council of Trent and Vatican I and clearly modernist.
It holds the same contempt for the sentence and judgements handed down by the Church as was held by the false council.
You do not love Tradition, you do not submit to Tradition, so why don't you stop torturing it and go back to Catholic Answers.
Hah! While I would bet the farm that you've actually never read JPII to know exactly what it is he wrote that is so disturbing. It is actually also a good bet that you've never read any pre-conciliar teachings form Popes despite their greater clarity and communicability.
"The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circuмstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded" Pope ….
"..A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. " Pope…
-
Gerard,
Stubborn has pegged you. You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Gerard,I think I'll stay right here and make you as uncomfortable as possible until you face the truth.
Hopefully at some point the owner/ moderator will have something to say about that so that your abuse of forum members and the truth can be curtailed.
Do you need a "safe space?"
You've several times expressed that you were going to ignore my posts, you've also said you were done with this thread if I recall.
Yet you keep coming back to take potshots. Why? It's not like I'm going to roll over and take it and you'll suddenly be proven right through straw man arguments and calumny.
Defend your position with real arguments, If you get stuck, concede a point or admit you need to look into it more. It won't kill you. It'll actually aid in saving you.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
I think this thread is dirty. It is little more than a slew of insults from both sides attacking fellow Catholics as if they were enemies and treating them like dirt because they disagree. Most of the threads don't come to this.
-
The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church, It is always illicit, it is always a sacrilege, and it is not Catholic.
-
I think this thread is dirty. It is little more than a slew of insults from both sides attacking fellow Catholics as if they were enemies and treating them like dirt because they disagree. Most of the threads don't come to this.
That's a fallacy of 'false equals." for one thing.
It's actually a lot more than two sides hurling insults. This is mucking the stalls.
Look at the question posed in the opening post and title of the thread. "Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass?"
If you have people defending he pro position or even putting the Black Mass above a legally published liturgy, how are you not going to get into a squabble? Do you think people ilke that are going to weigh arguments with equanimity and soberly reevaluate their positions when being corrected and rebuked for making such spiritually dangerous and scandalous rhetorical slurs?
-
I've not read this thread, but is this really a battle with someone from the N.O. trying to convince them of anything?? Really, why would any Trad in their right mind waste their time on such an endeavor?
-
I've not read this thread, but is this really a battle with someone from the N.O. trying to convince them of anything?? Really, why would any Trad in their right mind waste their time on such an endeavor?
If you didn't read the thread, where did you gets this idea?
But, no this is not a battle with someone from the Novus Ordo trying to convince them of anything.
This is a traditionalist giving some other traditionalists some clear perspective because they've clearly gone off the rails.
Part of their lunacy is calling anyone who doesn't agree that the Novus Ordo is as bad or worse than a Black Mass is therefore labeled as 'conciliar" or supporting of the Novus Ordo and all conciliar and post conciliar liberal policies.
Another part of their lunacy is the inability and unwillingness to defend or at least make a coherent argument supporting their skewed positions.
-
I tell you the new "mass" was created for the singular purpose of destroying the Church. You dub this fact a "false dichotomy" and a "false dilemma." I won't go back and pick out all your liberal replies nor the ones where you do not answer clear questions with clear answers, suffice to say you do not know what you are talking about.
That's very brave and noble of you to not prove any of your assertions. What a powerful witness you are to your own convictions.
What else are you not going to do that solidifies your argument?
Let's attempt to work with your claim that I did not ask an honest question - which presumably is the reason you gave no answer, or to be more accurate, you answered "maybe" to a yes or no question i.e., you answered "yes and no" to a "yes or no" question, you said:
"So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others."
Well how about just a simple yes or no. Do you understand that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church?
A simple "yes" or "no" to a false dichotomy is not an honest question and it's a deceptive and inaccurate answer.
You seem to think avoiding an answer at all is done by setting up a false dilemma.
The Novus Ordo was created and published by multiple people with a variety of intentions. Some wanted to undermine the Church others thought naively that nonsensical ecuмenical strategiese would draw in conversions.
For you to claim a "singular" purpose of undermining the Church is wrong and hyperbole at best.
So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others.
You are asking the same thing as if the question were, "Is the confessional for saints or sinners?" One or the other.
FYI, the confessional, that is, the Sacrament of Penance, is the sacrament instituted by Christ in order that our sins would be forgiven, therefore, the confessional is clearly for sinners.
Also FYI, *if* your answer is "yes" at all, even if only "for some", then the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church, but only for some? - "So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others." which though nonsensical, is the typical non-answer offered by libs for the last 50 years.
You take a clear, factual question, call it a "false dichotomy" and a "false dilemma", which it isn't, but for the lib, it must be if you are going to continue your agenda. If however you actually accepted the indisputable facts of the last 50 years, your agenda to defend the new "mass" would crumble.
If you keep in the forefront that we are not the ones who perpetrated this mess, that is was the Modernist enemies who've infiltrated and are out to destroy the Church who did this, then you will at least have some idea who and where the enemy is and as such, will be forced to accept this for the fact that it is.
This part you will likely find especially difficult, but you will certainly need to try to understand, that our enemy is not a kinder, gentler enemy who only seeks to destroy only "some" while healing "others", rather, our enemy is out for the total and absolute annihilation of the faith throughout the world, the Church and every soul they can get by whatever means they can, by lying, cheating, by every type of scandal - by hook or by crook - and that the new "mass" is by design, it's primary weapon of mass destruction.
Until you accept this for the fact that it is, that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated by the enemy for the destruction of souls, you will continue to beat the wind while you attempt to circuмvent the truth of the matter with "yes and no", which is the same as saying "maybe", which is the same compromise that nearly the whole world made 50 years ago.
(http://debisilber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Debi-Silber_Blog-11_Sept-16_YES-NO_bigstock-Businessman-47236720-300x225.jpg)
-
To help clarify matters and remove an unnecessary and irrelevant comparison,
Let us rephrase the question,
Is the Novus Ordo evil?
The clear answer is yes, the Novus Ordo is evil in and of itself. Not as a thing, but as an imposter in place of the Catholic Mass.
It was conceived by evil intent, it was imposed with evil intent, and it has spread its evil throughout the Church and the Catholic world.
-
I've not read this thread, but is this really a battle with someone from the N.O. trying to convince them of anything?? Really, why would any Trad in their right mind waste their time on such an endeavor?
We are defending our beliefs, not trying to convince him, only God's grace can do that.
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
True story that happened to me back in the late 70's while attending Mass at my neighborhood mainstream church. The visiting priest that Sunday, during the sermon said exactly this: "We have seen a lot of changes during the past few years, and now I will tell you of another, no longer will you hear that Jesus Christ is Divine".
There was such an outcry from the laity over that one statement after "Mass". This is what "they" are doing today only it is more subtle. When I think back, I believe the visiting priest wanted to test our reaction and decided to do their dirty work using more of an indirect method.
-
FYI, the confessional, that is, the Sacrament of Penance, is the sacrament instituted by Christ in order that our sins would be forgiven, therefore, the confessional is clearly for sinners.
There actually aren't too many saints that became saints without the confessional.
Also FYI, *if* your answer is "yes" at all, even if only "for some", then the new "mass" was created and perpetrated for the singular purpose of destroying the Church, but only for some? - "So it's "yes" for some and "no" for others." which though nonsensical, is the typical non-answer offered by libs for the last 50 years.
Wrong. The "singular" purpose Crucifixion was invented for was for the terrorizing of an oppressed people by an oppressive government. However now, it is the universal symbol of the victory of Christ over the World, the Flesh and the Devil.
You take a clear, factual question, call it a "false dichotomy" and a "false dilemma", which it isn't,
No. It's a biased question, not a factual question. You rule out anything that doesn't conform to your agenda. I've provided numerous examples to prove you wrong so far.
but for the lib, it must be if you are going to continue your agenda.
I'm not the one pushing an agenda. I'm not afraid to answer questions like you are. I also don't need to try and frame questions dishonestly to try and force you into a false dilemma.
If however you actually accepted the indisputable facts of the last 50 years, your agenda to defend the new "mass" would crumble.
Straw man. I'm not defending the Novus Ordo, that's simply a convenient lie you engage in to avoid defending your errors. You are defending your false, exaggerated attacks against anyone who points out where you are wrong.
Traditionalist Catholicism doesn't need ludicrous cartoons mischaracterizing the situation and the Crisis. It only undermines the truth and enables the conciliar crisis.
If you keep in the forefront that we are not the ones who perpetrated this mess, that is was the Modernist enemies who've infiltrated and are out to destroy the Church who did this, then you will at least have some idea who and where the enemy is and as such, will be forced to accept this for the fact that it is.
You would do better if you remember that God permitted all of this. You might have a little humility and wonder if there was anything Catholics did or didn't do that provoked this chastisement. It would be much better than rewriting history and foaming at the mouth to blame anyone and anything to absolve yourself of any failings at all.
This part you will likely find especially difficult, but you will certainly need to try to understand, that our enemy is not a kinder, gentler enemy who only seeks to destroy only "some" while healing "others", rather, our enemy is out for the total and absolute annihilation of the faith throughout the world, the Church and every soul they can get by whatever means they can, by lying, cheating, by every type of scandal - by hook or by crook - and that the new "mass" is by design, it's primary weapon of mass destruction.
It's kind of sad that you have so much faith in the Devil and so little faith in God.
The Devil does not have the power of Divine Revelation. He's flawed Angelic trash in the words of Malachi Martin.
The liturgy of the Novus Ordo is composed by men who are flawed vessels, not conduits of absolute evil, (which has no substance of its own as you know or at least should know.)
You seem to think you have access to the interior disposition of a multitude of people and you know by Divine Revelation that the unanimous intention of every bishop, priest and person ever associated with the Novus Ordo was of malice and nothing but malice.
That kind of sanctimonious hyperbole is not persuasive towards your conclusions.
Until you accept this for the fact that it is, that the new "mass" was created and perpetrated by the enemy for the destruction of souls, you will continue to beat the wind while you attempt to circuмvent the truth of the matter with "yes and no", which is the same as saying "maybe", which is the same compromise that nearly the whole world made 50 years ago.
Of course, I'm the compromiser because I refuse to fall for the false dilemma fallacy. Who would have thought that I along with St. Thomas Aquinas were liberal Novus Ordo adherents and defenders?
You fail to see that you are the compromiser. You've got the perpetually victimized schtick down very we'll.
But you don't face the facts and the hard arguments that correspond to reality. Correspondence to reality is the definition of the mind's ability to know the truth.
You deny the truth and claim error as truth, therefore you compromise with error.
So, your fantasy victimhood and your sanctimonious promotion of a false version of Catholicism, Catholic history and Catholic reality means that you are compromiser with error against the truth.
The very fact that you engage in the false dilemma fallacy and deny doing it is further evidence of your compromising with error.
-
To help clarify matters and remove an unnecessary and irrelevant comparison,
Let us rephrase the question,
Is the Novus Ordo evil?
The clear answer is yes, the Novus Ordo is evil in and of itself. Not as a thing, but as an imposter in place of the Catholic Mass.
It was conceived by evil intent, it was imposed with evil intent, and it has spread its evil throughout the Church and the Catholic world.
So…the Novus Ordo is evil in and of itself, but not as a thing.
Do you see your philosophical error?
The Novus Ordo is a liturgy. The liturgy is the "thing."
The thing is evil in and of itself, but the thing itself is not evil.
But then you shift to "intent" and claim that the thing intended by one person can't be used for another intention.
The cross is invented to terrorize and subjugate the will of a people. Therefore, Christ cannot use it or His victory and the freedom of people from the subjection of sin.
Notice also the failure to acknowledge that Pius XII declared that Paul VI and any Pope has the right to introduce a new rite?
The more we bore down on this and descend into details, a fundamental error against Catholicism is going to be exposed.
It will more than likely have its roots in the Neo-ultramontanist dissenters from Vatican I that were never curtailed.
-
I've not read this thread, but is this really a battle with someone from the N.O. trying to convince them of anything?? Really, why would any Trad in their right mind waste their time on such an endeavor?
We are defending our beliefs, not trying to convince him, only God's grace can do that.
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
I would argue that God's grace has prevented me from falling into the errors that some of you are promoting.
I would also argue that it's certainly not God's grace that is forcing anyone to defend their beliefs by lying about mine with straw man arguments.
The publication of the Novus Ordo was a bad idea pulled off badly, with the authority legitimately exercised by the Pope in the exercise of his Divinely given authority.
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
It is rife with abuse and carelessly offered due to extrinsic circuмstances.
The same papal power that introduced it can take it away. The Latin rite Church is a particular Church. Particular churches can introduce new rites that are imprudent and contain dangerous innovations. It happened before, it's been happening for the last few decades, it may happen again in a few centuries.
From Mediator Dei:
"The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.[48] This body fulfills even today the official function of supervision and legislation with regard to all matters touching the sacred liturgy.[49]
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."
-
No offense, Gerry - but you seem to be a bit too big for your britches. Pride goeth before a fall. If you think you are going to convince anyone here of the truth of what you are saying with your present know-it-all attitude, think again. Also, maybe you are unaware of this, but you might be doing more harm than good. What I mean is that the tone of your posts will cause what you think to be the error(s) of some(most?) here to root deeper. :cheers:
Now your little sycophants can come along and give me some more thumbs down. :laugh1:
-
No offense, Gerry - but you seem to be a bit too big for your britches.
More likely I seem to big for my britches according to you. Obviously anyone who agrees with me must be because they are sycophants. Agreeing with my argument must be out of the realm of possibility.
Pride goeth before a fall.
It sure does. Sometimes that fall looks like it's someone who is too big for his britches.
If you think you are going to convince anyone here of the truth of what you are saying with your present know-it-all attitude, think again.
My attitude is not "know it all" and I don't convince anyone with my attitude. I convince them of the truth or my argument with the truth of my argument.
Also, maybe you are unaware of this, but you might be doing more harm than good. What I mean is that the tone of your posts will cause what you think to be the error(s) of some(most?) here to root deeper. :cheers:
What I am aware of is a common pattern when defending the truth from being twisted and abused, that the target inevitably shifts from the subject being defended to the poster doing the defending.
And the next common occurrence when it becomes apparent that the poster is not going to back down, when the invective is coming in from all sides, that the new rebuke is to chastise the poster (me in this instance) for "tone" All the while, a plethora of attackers who can't win the argument engage in rancid unceasing attacks with impunity.
I'll take your criticism seriously when you go through this thread and rebuke the other posters for every insult hurled at me in the order they were done and do a running tally of them.
Now your little sycophants can come along and give me some more thumbs down. :laugh1:
They must be sycophants, right? You "know it all" right?
But, don't you think you could "tone" it down a bit? You aren't going to convince anyone you're right by referring to them as 'sycophants" now are you?
You just come off a little too big for your britches with that attitude of yours.
No offense by the way.
-
No offense, Gerry - but you seem to be a bit too big for your britches.
More likely I seem to big for my britches according to you. Obviously anyone who agrees with me must be because they are sycophants. Agreeing with my argument must be out of the realm of possibility.
Pride goeth before a fall.
It sure does. Sometimes that fall looks like it's someone who is too big for his britches.
If you think you are going to convince anyone here of the truth of what you are saying with your present know-it-all attitude, think again.
My attitude is not "know it all" and I don't convince anyone with my attitude. I convince them of the truth or my argument with the truth of my argument.
Also, maybe you are unaware of this, but you might be doing more harm than good. What I mean is that the tone of your posts will cause what you think to be the error(s) of some(most?) here to root deeper. :cheers:
What I am aware of is a common pattern when defending the truth from being twisted and abused, that the target inevitably shifts from the subject being defended to the poster doing the defending.
And the next common occurrence when it becomes apparent that the poster is not going to back down, when the invective is coming in from all sides, that the new rebuke is to chastise the poster (me in this instance) for "tone" All the while, a plethora of attackers who can't win the argument engage in rancid unceasing attacks with impunity.
I'll take your criticism seriously when you go through this thread and rebuke the other posters for every insult hurled at me in the order they were done and do a running tally of them.
Now your little sycophants can come along and give me some more thumbs down. :laugh1:
They must be sycophants, right? You "know it all" right?
But, don't you think you could "tone" it down a bit? You aren't going to convince anyone you're right by referring to them as 'sycophants" now are you?
You just come off a little too big for your britches with that attitude of yours.
No offense by the way.
:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
Very good, Jerry. I will now try to appear chastised. :stare:
-
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:
-
FYI, the confessional, that is, the Sacrament of Penance, is the sacrament instituted by Christ in order that our sins would be forgiven, therefore, the confessional is clearly for sinners.
There actually aren't too many saints that became saints without the confessional.
Ok, one last demonstration of your NO liberalism which needs purging.........
Before you reply with another purposely confused response, please note that only the liberal mind accustomed to confusing the simple, answers as you do.
FYI, all Catholics accept that Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the forgiveness of sins, the confessional is therefore, strictly for poor sinners.
When poor sinners use the confessional, their sins are forgiven, they are assigned a penance to perform and they are in the state of sanctifying grace. If they die in that state, they will spend their eternity as a saint in heaven. If they use the confessional and die later in mortal sin, then they go to hell and have no one to blame but themself. Recall if you can that the priest says; "I absolve you from your sins.....", he does not say: "You are now a saint...."
Just FYI, saints no longer have any need for the confessional, because they are already in heaven.
-
Gerard,
I would argue that God's grace has prevented me from falling into the errors that some of you are promoting.
I would also argue that it's certainly not God's grace that is forcing anyone to defend their beliefs by lying about mine with straw man arguments.
The publication of the Novus Ordo was a bad idea pulled off badly, with the authority legitimately exercised by the Pope in the exercise of his Divinely given authority.
The Novus Ordo in its absolutely best light with no abuse is simply a more simple form of liturgy. It is a valid rite, It is the "true mass" as some are fond of phrasing it.
-
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
Yes, all Novus Ordoites do this and claim themselves to be "traditional." Which is pretty absurd.
I'm just saying, at a Resistance board, this seems like an especially big waste of time, IMO.
-
FYI, the confessional, that is, the Sacrament of Penance, is the sacrament instituted by Christ in order that our sins would be forgiven, therefore, the confessional is clearly for sinners.
There actually aren't too many saints that became saints without the confessional.
Ok, one last demonstration of your NO liberalism which needs purging.........
Before you reply with another purposely confused response, please note that only the liberal mind accustomed to confusing the simple, answers as you do.
FYI, all Catholics accept that Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the forgiveness of sins, the confessional is therefore, strictly for poor sinners.
When poor sinners use the confessional, their sins are forgiven, they are assigned a penance to perform and they are in the state of sanctifying grace. If they die in that state, they will spend their eternity as a saint in heaven. If they use the confessional and die later in mortal sin, then they go to hell and have no one to blame but themself. Recall if you can that the priest says; "I absolve you from your sins.....", he does not say: "You are now a saint...."
Just FYI, saints no longer have any need for the confessional, because they are already in heaven.
It's hilarious that you complain about a question I pose in imitation of you and you accuse me of liberalism.
I have purposely asked you an awkwardly phrased question in order to give you a false dilemma.
By presenting you with "saints or sinners" as a false opposition, you can't say the true answer which is "both" because you then would be undermining your argument on this thread with the admission of a need for nuance in the answer.
You seem to have forgotten that Saints like St. John Vianney used the confessional as a vehicle for their salvation by performing their priestly functions with heroic virtue.
So, the confessional is actually for saints and for sinners. And you've also not pointed out that all saints (except the BVM and an elite few with only original sin) were sinners and their sainthood depended on that confessional.
-
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
Yes, all Novus Ordoites do this and claim themselves to be "traditional." Which is pretty absurd.
I'm just saying, at a Resistance board, this seems like an especially big waste of time, IMO.
I agree since you've apparently bought into that load of malarky and still feel compelled to add to the ignorance.
"Every excuse under the sun…" equals not agreeing with absurd hyperbole.
Are you seriously that much of a dupe that you think anyone who doesn't equate the Novus Ordo with a Black Mass must ipso facto be a Novus Ordoite?
10 years ago traditionalists did not display this level of ignorance and malice.
You must be a sedevacantists that make these intellectually ludicrous statements.
It hasn't escaped me that we're now trying the "third person" attack scenario. The Neo-Catholics used to pull that one back in the late JPII years.
I wish someone would come up with something coherent or even clever. No such luck.
-
.
There was a priest who had offered the Novus Ordo Newmass for about 33 years until his retirement in the last decade of the previous century. That was when he finally had time to do some reading. And what he read woke him up from his third-century of slumber.
He started writing books and traveling on speaking engagements. I met him on one such occasion. He gave me answers to questions no one else was able to answer. He called the Newmass "an abomination" and the fulfillment of prophesy (see the words of Our Lord in Scripture). He said it was an unholy pantomime of the true Mass. He spent the rest of his life saying daily only the Traditional Latin Mass, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the Newmass.
Now, for such as Gerard from FE, those are hard words. So would be what ABL was wont to say, "It is a bastard Mass". Priests today are unable to quote the Founder of the SSPX in a sermon when children are present. Now THAT'S "hard words" for you.
IMHO, saying the Newmass is indistinguishable from a Black Mass is going to far, and the reason is, you can tell the difference. But seriously, the INTENTION of the celebrant had better be different, because if it is not (and that's not entirely impossible, we must all agree), then there is effectively and practically very little if any difference.
.
-
.
There was a priest who had offered the Novus Ordo Newmass for about 33 years until his retirement in the last decade of the previous century. That was when he finally had time to do some reading. And what he read woke him up from his third-century of slumber.
He started writing books and traveling on speaking engagements. I met him on one such occasion. He gave me answers to questions no one else was able to answer. He called the Newmass "an abomination" and the fulfillment of prophesy (see the words of Our Lord in Scripture). He said it was an unholy pantomime of the true Mass. He spent the rest of his life saying daily only the Traditional Latin Mass, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the Newmass.
The New Mass didn't exist for 33 years in the previous century. The Fall of 1969 was when the Novus Ordo came into use.
I have no problem with resisting the Novus Ordo, refusing to say it if you're a priest, refusing to attend it if you are one of the faithful. I would join in any call for a Pope to ban it much like Michael Davies called for. I'm also open to the miracle of a Pope revising it into something that is a bulwark against heresy and an overall greater liturgy than it is. I would love it if a Pope forcefully mandated the opening of the Athanasian Creed to become the beginning of the Novus Ordo. A lot of liberals would suddenly be more amenable to the TLM.
But I doubt the priest you reference was a bastard for offering the "bastard" or had the intention of offering an inferior liturgy with which to worship God. And I'm sure God rewarded his faithfulness by bringing him the opportunity to offer the TLM.
Now, for such as Gerard from FE, those are hard words. So would be what ABL was wont to say, "It is a bastard Mass". Priests today are unable to quote the Founder of the SSPX in a sermon when children are present. Now THAT'S "hard words" for you.
It doesn't bother me a bit. As I said, I'm all in favor of abolishing the Novus Ordo.
It's a colossal straw man to say I'm pro-Novus Ordo because I'm not hysterically equating it with a Black Mass.
I would have a problem if LeFebvre had condemned everyone who did go to the Novus Ordot and every priest who offered it and if he compared it to a Black Mass (an incomprehensible withering blasphemy) and found the Novus Ordo worse. In that case, LeFebvre would be off his rocker and I would doubt the validity of the 1988 consecrations due to the lack of intention with LeFebvre not being of sound mind.
IMHO, saying the Newmass is indistinguishable from a Black Mass is going to far, and the reason is, you can tell the difference. But seriously, the INTENTION of the celebrant had better be different, because if it is not (and that's not entirely impossible, we must all agree), then there is effectively and practically very little if any difference.
No. You've made the big compromise now. You see on this thread, if you say it's not as bad nor worse than a Black Mass, you are defending and supporting the Novus Ordo. It's their hysterical assertions or you are pro-Novus Ordo, there's no third option.
Again, If you state that it's not as bad nor worse than a Black Mass and the contrary is going too far, you are undoubtedly a conciliarist liberal and a modernist.
And don't try to pull that liberal "intentions" of the celebrant around here. Nobody's intentions matter except for the unnamed architects who stirred their cauldron and cooked up the Novus Ordo and the omniscient posters here can tell you with absolute certitude that there was no conflicting motivations present and they twirled their mustaches while they worshipped Satan in the Novus Ordo.
The posters here can see what you are…a conciliar apologist defending the Novus Ordo. There is no other conclusion.
Welcome aboard.
-
.
:shocked:
.
-
FYI, the confessional, that is, the Sacrament of Penance, is the sacrament instituted by Christ in order that our sins would be forgiven, therefore, the confessional is clearly for sinners.
There actually aren't too many saints that became saints without the confessional.
Ok, one last demonstration of your NO liberalism which needs purging.........
Before you reply with another purposely confused response, please note that only the liberal mind accustomed to confusing the simple, answers as you do.
FYI, all Catholics accept that Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the forgiveness of sins, the confessional is therefore, strictly for poor sinners.
When poor sinners use the confessional, their sins are forgiven, they are assigned a penance to perform and they are in the state of sanctifying grace. If they die in that state, they will spend their eternity as a saint in heaven. If they use the confessional and die later in mortal sin, then they go to hell and have no one to blame but themself. Recall if you can that the priest says; "I absolve you from your sins.....", he does not say: "You are now a saint...."
Just FYI, saints no longer have any need for the confessional, because they are already in heaven.
It's hilarious that you complain about a question I pose in imitation of you and you accuse me of liberalism.
I have purposely asked you an awkwardly phrased question in order to give you a false dilemma.
I understand your reasoning and as I attempted to point out, your reasoning is confused as you try to merge the new faith in with the true faith, always at the expense of the true faith. This is what liberals do because Modernism teaches it.
-
.
:shocked:
.
More like: :facepalm:
-
.
There was a priest who had offered the Novus Ordo Newmass for about 33 years until his retirement in the last decade of the previous century. That was when he finally had time to do some reading. And what he read woke him up from his third-century of slumber.
.
Reminds me of a priest who after 33 years of celebrating the True Mass, was forced into saying the new "mass". Then in 1972, after saying the new "mass" for a few years, was approached by my parents, asking him if he would celebrate the traditional Nuptial Mass for my sister and future brother in-law. After weeks of seeking, they finally found one priest who would oblige.
He reluctantly agreed but needed his Prior's permission, which he could not get for some reason, I think because his Prior was out of the country, anyway, he took it upon himself to do it anyway.
St. Florian was one of the Detroit areas largest Church's, I have no idea how many people it seats but probably 1000, the wedding party itself had maybe 200 people, but that day the Church was totally packed to capacity, standing room only. If it seated 1000 then there had to have been twice that many at least for that Mass. Such was the hunger for spiritual nourishment after two or three years of the spiritual starvation afforded from the new "mass".
Because of the grace and beauty, and due to his sorrow of having abandoned it, the priest himself cried throughout that Mass, and afterwards said so in no uncertain terms.
Well, it was only a few weeks later we found out that priest had committed the crime of celebrating the True Mass and was abruptly retired.
-
.
:shocked:
.
Indeed!
-
The New Order ritual is an evil unto itself. It is a false comparison to equate it with the Black Mass which only serves to confuse and give sympathy to the New Order by means of the comparison.
They are both evil according to their own kind and purpose.
-
Q. Is a "crime of passion" murder evil like a "premeditated, terrorist bombing" murder?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Q. Is the novus ordo evil like a black mass?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
-
I understand your reasoning and as I attempted to point out, your reasoning is confused as you try to merge the new faith in with the true faith, always at the expense of the true faith. This is what liberals do because Modernism teaches it.
Be specific then.
What doctrine specifically are you accusing me of holding that is not the true faith?
What do you offer as proof?
-
Q. Is a "crime of passion" murder evil like a "premeditated, terrorist bombing" murder?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Q. Is the novus ordo evil like a black mass?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Do you offend God? Yes or no?
-
The New Order ritual is an evil unto itself. It is a false comparison to equate it with the Black Mass which only serves to confuse and give sympathy to the New Order by means of the comparison.
They are both evil according to their own kind and purpose.
Now you're backpedaling and contradicting yourself again.
It's a false comparison but you then make a comparison again.
And then you appeal to Relativism to make the comparison.
-
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
Gerard's rational again from my words above in bold.
"Every excuse under the sun…" equals not agreeing with absurd hyperbole.
When I said you use every excuse under the sun that does not equate with your rationalizing to mean you are not agreeing with absurd hyperbole. When in fact you are doing just that,HOWEVER agreeing with MODERNISM and the exaggeration of their Conciliarist teachings; teachings of truth so stretched to the point that their teachings are no longer truth, but as you like to say, hyperbole. Heresy is truth exaggerated.
10 years ago traditionalists did not display this level of ignorance and malice.
Ten years ago the Conciliarist "popes" were not as obvious as Francis is.
-
Gerard claims he too is a traditionalist but at the same time he makes every excuse under the sun to explain the changes in the church.
Gerard's rational again from my words above in bold.
"Every excuse under the sun…" equals not agreeing with absurd hyperbole.
When I said you use every excuse under the sun that does not equate with your rationalizing to mean you are not agreeing with absurd hyperbole. When in fact you are doing just that,HOWEVER agreeing with MODERNISM and the exaggeration of their Conciliarist teachings; teachings of truth so stretched to the point that their teachings are no longer truth, but as you like to say, hyperbole. Heresy is truth exaggerated.
Heresy is obstinate denial of a truth of the Catholic faith or the obstinate belief in something not in conformity with the faith.
You are stating that I'm agreeing with Modernism. Be specific, where am I holding to the ideas condemned in Pascendi Domini Gregis?
10 years ago traditionalists did not display this level of ignorance and malice.
Ten years ago the Conciliarist "popes" were not as obvious as Francis is.
[/quote]
We are discussing the Novus Ordo published in late 1969, that has nothing to do with Pope Francis.
And ten years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was doing a good job continuing the post-conciliar destruction.
-
When I said you use every excuse under the sun that does not equate with your rationalizing to mean you are not agreeing with absurd hyperbole. When in fact you are doing just that,HOWEVER agreeing with MODERNISM and the exaggeration of their Conciliarist teachings; teachings of truth so stretched to the point that their teachings are no longer truth, but as you like to say, hyperbole. Heresy is truth exaggerated.
Heresy is denial of truth but also exaggeration of it. Think about it!
Gerard = Heresy is obstinate denial of a truth of the Catholic faith or the obstinate belief in something not in conformity with the faith.
You are stating that I'm agreeing with Modernism. Be specific, where am I holding to the ideas condemned in Pascendi Domini Gregis?
In truth I will have to go back and review Pascendi Domini Gregis before I post, however, you agree with Modernism since you consent to it by your defense and at the same time ridicule those who find fault with Modernism.
We are discussing the Novus Ordo published in late 1969, that has nothing to do with Pope Francis.
And ten years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was doing a good job continuing the post-conciliar destruction.
Your the one who mentioned the ten years ago.
-
Heresy is denial of truth but also exaggeration of it. Think about it!
Yes, because it does not conform with Catholicism. That's why I'm battling the excessive and dangerous level of exaggeration going on here.
In truth I will have to go back and review Pascendi Domini Gregis before I post, however, you agree with Modernism since you consent to it by your defense and at the same time ridicule those who find fault with Modernism.
So, you don't know what it is, but you know I'm guilty of it. That makes sense.
It's legitimate to find fault with someone who is accusing someone of Modernism when they are not guilty of it. If the person is professing Donatism, you don't condemn them for Nestorianism. And you certainly don't accuse someone of heresy when there is no evidence of them professing a heresy.
And ten years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was doing a good job continuing the post-conciliar destruction.
Your the one who mentioned the ten years ago.
Yes, I and i was commenting on the arguments of then years ago being of a higher intellectual level. Are you claiming Francis has made traditionalists stupid?
-
The New Order ritual is an evil unto itself. It is a false comparison to equate it with the Black Mass which only serves to confuse and give sympathy to the New Order by means of the comparison.
They are both evil according to their own kind and purpose.
Now you're backpedaling and contradicting yourself again.
It's a false comparison but you then make a comparison again.
And then you appeal to Relativism to make the comparison.
Any reasonable person reading this can see that you are fabricating again.
Please stop.
-
Heresy is denial of truth but also exaggeration of it. Think about it!
Yes, because it does not conform with Catholicism. That's why I'm battling the excessive and dangerous level of exaggeration going on here.
Why not battle the excessive and dangerous level of exaggeration going on within your Vatican II church. And BTW, I asked you several pages ago exactly what is it you condemn the traditionalist here for. Not speaking for myself since I have completely separated myself from the NO, (sedevacantist) but it seems to me you are just like the SSPX who believe we have a true pope but don't like him. That is what you said here several times. So what is your problem with SSPX?
Yes I admit I need a review on the encyclical and yet you degrade me. (not nice) Heresy is heresy and Modernism is the Synthesis of Heresy so what difference does it make, heresy is heresy and Modernism embraces them all. You also need a review of Pascendi Domini Gregis
And ten years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was doing a good job continuing the post-conciliar destruction.
Your the one who mentioned the ten years ago.
Yes, I and i was commenting on the arguments of then years ago being of a higher intellectual level. Are you claiming Francis has made traditionalists stupid?
Hmmm! Let me think about that, Francis is so obvious of a NOPE these days, :clown: it does make me wonder.
-
Any reasonable person reading this can see that you are fabricating again.
Please stop.
Who told you that?
-
Heresy is denial of truth but also exaggeration of it. Think about it!
Yes, because it does not conform with Catholicism. That's why I'm battling the excessive and dangerous level of exaggeration going on here.
Why not battle the excessive and dangerous level of exaggeration going on within your Vatican II church. And BTW, I asked you several pages ago exactly what is it you condemn the traditionalist here for. Not speaking for myself since I have completely separated myself from the NO, (sedevacantist) but it seems to me you are just like the SSPX who believe we have a true pope but don't like him. That is what you said here several times. So what is your problem with SSPX?
Yes I admit I need a review on the encyclical and yet you degrade me. (not nice) Heresy is heresy and Modernism is the Synthesis of Heresy so what difference does it make, heresy is heresy and Modernism embraces them all. You also need a review of Pascendi Domini Gregis
And ten years ago, Pope Benedict XVI was doing a good job continuing the post-conciliar destruction.
Your the one who mentioned the ten years ago.
Yes, I and i was commenting on the arguments of then years ago being of a higher intellectual level. Are you claiming Francis has made traditionalists stupid?
Hmmm! Let me think about that, Francis is so obvious of a NOPE these days, :clown: it does make me wonder.
The exaggeration on the part of traditionalists is more damaging to the cause of restoring the Church than some crazy EWTN charismatics running around. They are easy to spot and will be easy to root out. The problem among the trads is that the errors have been slowly imbibed since Vatican I. The whole reason there are sedevacantists at this point is because of the exaggerations of papal infallibility.
The Neo-ultramontanism is the common error in both the sedevacantists and the Neo-Catholics of the Novus Ordo. If that error can be put down effectively the Church will really start to recover.
You'll notice that St. Pius X didn't declare anyone anathema for Modernism because he understood the mental confusion of the modernists. And made a point to not pass judgement on the interior dispositions of the souls of the modernists. It seems many of the posters here have gone in the opposite direction.
Re: Popes ten years ago:
Pope Francis has done relatively little damage in the way of actions, he shoots his mouth off and certain individuals have felt unjust oppression but Benedict removed the papal Tiara from the coat of arms, he put an end to the title "Patriarch of the West" and for the first time in history he put legal boundaries on the TLM at the same time that he admitted that it had been illicitly and illegally suppressed.
-
Your last note here almost sounds like in your mind, we never had a true pope, or is it that you just never really believed the Church is a Divine Institution.
-
Your last note here almost sounds like in your mind, we never had a true pope, or is it that you just never really believed the Church is a Divine Institution.
The Church is a Divine Institution. It is run by a fallible human being in an office created by Christ Himself.
It does not guarantee that the Pope will be a good Pope or even a faithful Catholic.
It guarantees one thing, that the Pope will not bind the entire Universal Church irreformably to an error in only the two areas of faith and morals.
It does not guarantee the infallibility of canonizations, it does not guarantee that governing laws cannot be wrong or evil, it does not guarantee that a liturgy or a Council will automatically yield good fruit or that it's impossible for bad fruit to come about for one reason or another.
Church history shows Popes of every stripe doing every possible error except the infallible binding of error. The very fact that Popes screw up so much in history in every other area is evidence to me of the Divine institution of the Church.
-
I understand your reasoning and as I attempted to point out, your reasoning is confused as you try to merge the new faith in with the true faith, always at the expense of the true faith. This is what liberals do because Modernism teaches it.
Be specific then.
What doctrine specifically are you accusing me of holding that is not the true faith?
What do you offer as proof?
I never accused you of holding a doctrine or not holding a doctrine, i stated the fact that your thinking is confused and the reason for this is likely from your years as a NOer and I told you why, because you talk the same as the compromisers who came before you, who have convinced themselves and have accepted as infallible truth, that the new "mass" is "not evil because it can't be evil."
In 1971, Fr. Wathen pegged it......One can analyze the “New Mass” properly only by comparing it with that which its creators claim it is, the Mass of the Roman Rite. When Catholics now go to “mass,” their habit is to see what is not there. The reason is, they have all but forgotten the True Mass, and what they see is a resemblance of it. They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say. In this way, the real objectives of the “vernacular movement” are realized. It does not occur to the faithful that their children, not having the mental background they do, are better able to see the thing as it is, for they see only what is there, and hear only the words which are spoken. The people do not wish to awaken to what has happened (and is still happening).....
Pay attention to the bolded sentence and then accept that the new "mass" is the primary reason why most NOers don't know what the Mass is supposed to be, what the Holy Eucharist is or why most NOers contracept and divorce and nothing is sacred, but the things NOers condemn as a mortal sin always is along the lines of perverted social injustices i.e. any discrimination of queers and transgender freaks and on and on and on ad nausem.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
-
Stubborn,
An excellent post. This is closely related to the false proposition that one can read or interpret Vatican II "in the light of Tradition".
This can only be done by reading into it an orthodoxy which is not present. It is precisely the same with the New Order ritual, the mind has to project a Catholic character upon a thing which is devoid of it, but it is done by employing one of the most useful tools of the modernists, subjectivism.
What is, in essence, a Protestant meal service is masked to "appear" to be a Catholic Mass, but its true nature is revealed by the changed or diminished beliefs of its faithful.
-
Your last note here almost sounds like in your mind, we never had a true pope, or is it that you just never really believed the Church is a Divine Institution.
The Church is a Divine Institution. It is run by a fallible human being in an office created by Christ Himself.
It does not guarantee that the Pope will be a good Pope or even a faithful Catholic.
It guarantees one thing, that the Pope will not bind the entire Universal Church irreformably to an error in only the two areas of faith and morals.
It does not guarantee the infallibility of canonizations, it does not guarantee that governing laws cannot be wrong or evil, it does not guarantee that a liturgy or a Council will automatically yield good fruit or that it's impossible for bad fruit to come about for one reason or another.
Church history shows Popes of every stripe doing every possible error except the infallible binding of error. The very fact that Popes screw up so much in history in every other area is evidence to me of the Divine institution of the Church.
"By their fruits you will know them"
-
Your last note here almost sounds like in your mind, we never had a true pope, or is it that you just never really believed the Church is a Divine Institution.
The Church is a Divine Institution. It is run by a fallible human being in an office created by Christ Himself.
It does not guarantee that the Pope will be a good Pope or even a faithful Catholic.
It guarantees one thing, that the Pope will not bind the entire Universal Church irreformably to an error in only the two areas of faith and morals.
It does not guarantee the infallibility of canonizations, it does not guarantee that governing laws cannot be wrong or evil, it does not guarantee that a liturgy or a Council will automatically yield good fruit or that it's impossible for bad fruit to come about for one reason or another.
Church history shows Popes of every stripe doing every possible error except the infallible binding of error. The very fact that Popes screw up so much in history in every other area is evidence to me of the Divine institution of the Church.
"By their fruits you will know them"
The problem is when there are good fruits, some Neo-trads deny them.
-
I understand your reasoning and as I attempted to point out, your reasoning is confused as you try to merge the new faith in with the true faith, always at the expense of the true faith. This is what liberals do because Modernism teaches it.
Be specific then.
What doctrine specifically are you accusing me of holding that is not the true faith?
What do you offer as proof?
I never accused you of holding a doctrine or not holding a doctrine, i stated the fact that your thinking is confused and the reason for this is likely from your years as a NOer and I told you why, because you talk the same as the compromisers who came before you, who have convinced themselves and have accepted as infallible truth, that the new "mass" is "not evil because it can't be evil."
You're claiming I'm trying to merge an unspecified "new faith" with the Catholic faith. What exactly are you describing? What the doctrine of the "new faith" that I've merged with Catholicism?
Can you give me one actual article of the new faith that is not of the Old Faith?
In 1971, Fr. Wathen pegged it......One can analyze the “New Mass” properly only by comparing it with that which its creators claim it is, the Mass of the Roman Rite. When Catholics now go to “mass,” their habit is to see what is not there. The reason is, they have all but forgotten the True Mass, and what they see is a resemblance of it. They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say. In this way, the real objectives of the “vernacular movement” are realized. It does not occur to the faithful that their children, not having the mental background they do, are better able to see the thing as it is, for they see only what is there, and hear only the words which are spoken. The people do not wish to awaken to what has happened (and is still happening).....
Pay attention to the bolded sentence and then accept that the new "mass" is the primary reason why most NOers don't know what the Mass is supposed to be, what the Holy Eucharist is or why most NOers contracept and divorce and nothing is sacred, but the things NOers condemn as a mortal sin always is along the lines of perverted social injustices i.e. any discrimination of queers and transgender freaks and on and on and on ad nausem.
Lex orandi lex credendi.
Except that does not explain the phenoma that actually occurred. There was a serious problem in the living out of the faith while the TLM was still the norm. This was a catechetical error brought on before the council and created a resentment among the laity. They knew what the Mass was due to their Baltimore and Penny Catechisms, but they just didn't care that much.
Meanwhile the Novus Ordo by itself did not change much, it wasn't until the catechisms were stopped being used, additional abuses were added like communion in the hand, all signs of reverence were minimized. and heterodox theology and morality was taught all outside of the Mass that the attendance started to collapse.
The truth is Fr. Wathan brought a lot to his analysis of the crisis that thinks he saw. But the crisis as it is contained a number of things he didn't see in the pre-conciliar era. This is manifested by Archbishop LeFebvre's reaction to the lack of reaction in the Assisi scandal by the laity.
-
I made a boo-boo. Should have said about 20 instead of about 33:
There was a priest who had offered the Novus Ordo Newmass for about 33 20 years until his retirement in the last decade of the previous century. That was when he finally had time to do some reading. And what he read woke him up from his [fifth]-century of slumber.
Reminds me of a priest who after 33 years of celebrating the True Mass, was forced into saying the new "mass". Then in 1972, after saying the new "mass" for a few years, was approached by my parents, asking him if he would celebrate the traditional Nuptial Mass for my sister and future brother in-law. After weeks of seeking, they finally found one priest who would oblige.
He reluctantly agreed but needed his Prior's permission, which he could not get for some reason, I think because his Prior was out of the country, anyway, he took it upon himself to do it anyway.
St. Florian was one of the Detroit areas largest Church's, I have no idea how many people it seats but probably 1000, the wedding party itself had maybe 200 people, but that day the Church was totally packed to capacity, standing room only. If it seated 1000 then there had to have been twice that many at least for that Mass. Such was the hunger for spiritual nourishment after two or three years of the spiritual starvation afforded from the new "mass".
Because of the grace and beauty, and due to his sorrow of having abandoned it, the priest himself cried throughout that Mass, and afterwards said so in no uncertain terms.
Well, it was only a few weeks later we found out that priest had committed the crime of celebrating the True Mass and was abruptly retired.
It's a bit daunting to think about how many priests were forced into submission like that. Paul VI used his authority like a communist dictator, crushing any resistance with an iron fist. Bishops who promoted his revolution were given perks and privileges, made archbishops or even cardinals. Any priest who stood up to the injustice was treated most harshly.
Now if the Newmass is wonderful, why would this be its legacy -- a violent revolution, not one of "organic" development (which is what Vat.II called for).
-
There was a serious problem in the living out of the faith while the TLM was still the norm.
The problem in "the living out of the faith" had nothing to do with the TLM being the norm. People who have an attachment to sin have a problem living out their faith, and those who don't have any attachment to their sin don't have any problem.
Sin is the problem, not the Traditional Latin Mass.
-
There was a serious problem in the living out of the faith while the TLM was still the norm.
The problem in "the living out of the faith" had nothing to do with the TLM being the norm. People who have an attachment to sin have a problem living out their faith, and those who don't have any attachment to their sin don't have any problem.
Sin is the problem, not the Traditional Latin Mass.
I agree with that. But the myth is being perpetrated that the Novus Ordo did the corrupting when the corruption was there before the Novus Ordo was even published. And the TLM was not the bulwark against error that people have made it out to be. The battle was lost to preserve the pre-conciliar status of the Church years before Vatican II was even called into session.
What comes out of the crisis will not be 1950s Catholicism. There will probably be more tradition than the (hopefully ending) Novus Ordo era but there will be a number of changes either brought in from the past or adaptations of traditions with modification to make them effective for Catholics of the near future.
-
It's a bit daunting to think about how many priests were forced into submission like that. Paul VI used his authority like a communist dictator, crushing any resistance with an iron fist. Bishops who promoted his revolution were given perks and privileges, made archbishops or even cardinals. Any priest who stood up to the injustice was treated most harshly.
Now if the Newmass is wonderful, why would this be its legacy -- a violent revolution, not one of "organic" development (which is what Vat.II called for).
The Newmass is not wonderful. To state that it's not a Black Mass is not to state that it's wonderful.
The Pope (Paul VI) was a horrible Pope. Very little of what he did was good. Most of what he did was bad, but he's not solely responsible for the crisis and he foisted an inferior liturgy illegally upon the faithful but he didn't foist an equivalent of the Black Mass on the people.
I"m extremely concerned with this manifestation in trad circles where there is a serious lack of perspective and proportionality in assessing the crisis in the Church.
-
:scared2:............................ :popcorn:
-
I"m extremely concerned with this manifestation in trad circles where there is a serious lack of perspective and proportionality in assessing the crisis in the Church.
The crisis within the Church that was founded by God is the worse, positively highest degree of evil that ever was and is so blinding because even God's most chosen can not accept that they are living in the time of the Great Apostasy. An apostasy that is circling the entire world not just some isolated places where other heresies were born and died. Modernism is the embracing of all heresies that ever appeared upon the earth here and there.
You worry about the assessing of the crisis?
I worry about the poor souls that are lost within the crisis.
Hell is eternal! Have you ever thought about eternity and how long it is? When I was a student in Catholic school, I was told this little story: Imagine a tiny bird flying down from heaven to earth and drinking one drop of its water every 100 years, this bird would come down. After it drank every drop of water and the earth was totally dry, ETERNITY was only beginning.
-
1. IHSV, I will answer your question but please do answer mine - you are the only one who came close to an answer, but you didn't say explicitly - Is it intrinsically and always evil to say Mass with barely the words of consecration, even in an emergency circuмstance under persecution, as +Archbishop Lefebvre relates Cardinal Mindszenty did in prison? By what you have indicated as your opinion - that without a clear indication of an offering as a propitiatory sacrifice, "the consecration may be valid, but the Mass is invalid" - such would also not be a Mass and would not obtain grace ex opere operato. Do you explicitly wish to uphold that position? This is false because it is contrary to the nature of a sacrament in the first place, what does it mean for the Sacrament to be valid but the Sacrifice to be invalid? The Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist in the Mass are inseparable, if the one is effected validly, so is the other.
So, you are mistaken because the Church has never distinguished between a "valid consecration" and a "valid Mass" (produce a text to the contrary if you think otherwise) as you do and the plain sense of Her Magisterial teaching preclude such a distinction absolutely. To take one of many texts that indicate the valid Sacrament of the Eucharist is inseparable from the valid Sacrifice of the Eucharist, Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus says, relevant to the topic under discussion, "If a priest celebrates Mass in a state of mortal sin or under some ecclesiastical penalty, he does celebrate a valid Sacrament, but he sins most grievously" here celebrating Mass and celebrating a valid Sacrament are used indistinguishably. Elsewhere in the same docuмent (reading or rereading which I would recommend to all who wish to continue this discussion), the Pope mentions many things that would normally be gravely sinful for the priest to omit unless excused by a genuine necessity, but the Mass [not just the consecration or the sacrament] itself would be valid nonetheless. By the valid consecration of the Body and the Blood, therefore, the Sacrifice and Sacrament is effected. Thus, Archbishop Lefebvre says, Cardinal Mindszenty "undoubtedly accomplished both Sacrifice and Sacrament". Where did the words of propitiatory sacrifice come from in that Mass? In the words of consecration itself, where Christ the Lord says through His priest, " ... QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM"
2. The reason for this is as follows. You note yourself that the mystical separation of the Body and the Blood is necessary for the consummation of the sacrifice - a victim immolated for God's glory must be slain first. Thus, the Passover Lambs were slain before they were sacrificed, the there was never a Supper without a Sacrifice, St. Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" notes that this was done on a pole like a stake in such a manner that it resembled a Cross, proving that thus Christ was typified in the rites of the old law. "For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of a cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb."
The separation of Body and the Blood signifies that the Lamb of God is to be slain before He is sacrificed. After the divine Victim is slain and His death has been mystically renewed on the Altar by the separate consecration of the Body and the Blood, He is offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. You correctly note all these things and I have little disagreement with you on the principle, that the Mass must be a propitiatory Sacrifice. But before going straight out to answering your challenge, I want to note a few things - first, here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, though watered down, still officially teaches, which the 16th century heretics expressly denied and even condemned in their blindness, "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church." So remember while going ahead that Cranmer and the other Protestant heretics officially denied it, while the mainstream Church - even if many Catholics in there deny or ignore it - still officially teaches it.
In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ the Lord perpetuates through the priests of His Church the continual offering of His Body and Blood as a propitiatory Sacrifice to God the Father. If every priest in the world could be mystically transported to the foot of Calvary, could receive in the sacred chalice the precious blood of the Savior and offer it to God, they would not offer to His Divine Majesty any less a propitiatory Sacrifice than they in fact do now. And that in a sense is what actually happens in Holy Mass. Now, let's look at the words of the so-called "Eucharistic Prayer III" in particular which you critique, "we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim." While not as expressive as the traditional Roman rite (many of the "options" in the New Mass, and the new rites in general, including the famous "blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation" and the "governing Spirit" part used in the rite of episcopal consecration come from a text attributed to St. Hippolytus) they still sufficiently signify both that the Victim, now slain, is offered to God in sacrifice by the Church here and now, and the very word victim suggests one who makes atonement or propitiation for sins. I grant that this is ambiguous enough - and therefore bad - that a good priest can say it with a Catholic intention, while a bad or poorly catechized priest can end up losing faith in the Real Presence and the Sacrificial nature of the Mass if he keeps using it.
-
3. Third, you are mistaken when you say even "Eucharistic Prayer I" does not sufficiently connote the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice. You may perhaps make that case about the others, but Eucharistic Prayer I is simply an abridged form of the Roman canon. This part "we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation" is not sufficient to denote that? Where does the traditional Roman canon denote in your opinion that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice if not where it speaks of the offering of the victim to God? A victim is one whose blood is spilt before God in atonement for sin.
And this brings us to what is the correct understanding of the New Mass. The New Mass is essentially a truncated form of the Mass with many of the parts necessary to the "integrity" of the Sacrifice missing. +ABL, following Fr. Garrigou Lagrange and traditional theology, distinguishes between integrity and validity, validity concerns the bare minimum without which a sacramental rite cannot be effected, it is like the head and heart of a man without which he cannot live. What is necessary for the integrity of a man is other things like his hands and feet, and that is what is true of the other prayers +ABL mentions, which are suppressed, altered or watered down in the New rite. The New Mass is like a Mass that contains little more than the bare minimum.
The Church cannot give or even universally use inherent or intrinsic evil. This is dogma. As I said, there are only two ways for those who insist the New Mass is such to square it with that doctrine. Either you rationalize it by saying that, no, contrary to dogma, the Church can indeed, does and has given and uses evil. Or you rationalize it by saying the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is not the Church and there is no Church teaching or Ecclesia Docens today. You must also deny the indefectibility promised to the particular Church of Rome even as a local Church according to Catholic doctrine. Whatever the past, whatever the future, the fact that this Mass has been used now for almost 50 years means it cannot be intrinsically evil, to deny this is to deny God's promise to His Church. God can indeed chastise His bride for the sins of Her children and deprive Her of everything beyond the minimum, as He chastised even His own Son for our sake, but He cannot and will not do anything that alters Her very nature as a divine society or that annuls His promise to Her.
4. Finally, you err when you state anything forbidden by positive papal legislation becomes intrinsically evil. No, if it is forbidden at one time but allowed at another, it is only extrinsically evil. Something is intrinsically evil if and only if it was always and everywhere evil in any and every circuмstance. Clearly, the other Missals disallowed by Pope St. Pius V are such. If a priest were to offer any of those other Missals today that were in use for less than 200 years before St. Pius V forbad them, he would sin not because of the intrinsic evil of those rites but because of the law of the Church (a factor extrinsic to the rites themselves). If, however, he celebrated in good faith, not knowing he was contravening the law of hte Church and sincerely believe he was doing what the Church commanded, he would not sin. But if it is a deficient rite, the grace called down on the people will be less as Our Lord once said in a private revelation of a Mass celebrated by a bad priest, and the same is true of Mass said in a deficient rite. The same would be true if Holy Mass, on account of a true necessity as in a case of persecution or in prison, were said with little more than the words of consecration.
This is the right way to conceive of the New Mass, it offers several times less glory to God and is therefore bad, it also obtains less grace from God and neither ignorance nor culpability nor any other attenuating factor can change that objective fact. From what I have said, where I differ from Gerard should be abundantly clear, and my position is also that which +ABL indisputably held originally and at least arguably held throughout his life. But if it is not clear, I will elaborate on that subsequently. Those who, therefore, wish to offer the best possible Sacrifice we can to God's Majesty - as we should all always wish - will not make use of it, but without any bitterness or rebellion, as +ABL said, will continue to make use exclusively of the true Mass, which is their right under Quo Primum, which Pope Benedict XVI and a commission of 9 Cardinals in 1984 confirmed. Of course, it is much easier simply to exaggerate and say, Oh the New Mass is invalid, is a sacrilege, is a Black Mass! and what not. But God will not bless exaggerations and embellishments, and truth has no need of it, which is why Bishop Williamson said what he did.
Whatever a few uninformed rigorists - contrary to the better judgment of +Williamson and many traditional priests - say or think, the New Mass is nothing like a Black Mass, but is instead a deficient or truncated rite of Mass which obtains much less grace. One does not intrinsically sin by attending such an abridged form of the Mass until one comes to know that the true Mass is much richer, is a more magnificent and fitting rite of worship and sacrifice that Christ through His Church offers to the Father. That's why +ABL said in the beginning, as the SSPX article sums it up, "In the early days of the reforms, Archbishop Lefebvre advised them to keep at least the traditional Offertory and Canon and to say them in Latin." That would cause priests to have the correct understanding of the Mass - which of course is watered down in the new rite - to be more open to Tradition and in time make for themselves the decision to offer it exclusively, while we continue to work within the Church and under the Pope for the universal restoration of the true Mass and Tradition.
-
You're claiming I'm trying to merge an unspecified "new faith" with the Catholic faith. What exactly are you describing? What the doctrine of the "new faith" that I've merged with Catholicism?
All I need do is use practically anything you post, here is another example showing the NO thinking you harbor which needs purging. See your own reply to Myrna's; "By their fruits you will know them".......... you replied: "The problem is when there are good fruits, some Neo-trads deny them."
Yet Our Lord said: "For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit; nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit." - Luke 6:43
This obvious NO thinking comes from the land of no absolutes is embedded in the minds of NOers and stands out like a sore thumb among those who've never been influenced by NO speak or NO thinking.
.....Lex orandi lex credendi
Except that does not explain the phenoma that actually occurred. There was a serious problem in the living out of the faith while the TLM was still the norm. This was a catechetical error brought on before the council and created a resentment among the laity. They knew what the Mass was due to their Baltimore and Penny Catechisms, but they just didn't care that much.
Meanwhile the Novus Ordo by itself did not change much, it wasn't until the catechisms were stopped being used, additional abuses were added like communion in the hand, all signs of reverence were minimized. and heterodox theology and morality was taught all outside of the Mass that the attendance started to collapse.
The truth is Fr. Wathan brought a lot to his analysis of the crisis that thinks he saw. But the crisis as it is contained a number of things he didn't see in the pre-conciliar era. This is manifested by Archbishop LeFebvre's reaction to the lack of reaction in the Assisi scandal by the laity.
The phenomena that actually occurred was the True Mass was taken away and replaced with the new "mass". The way people believe comes from the way they pray, this is the maxim, Lex orandi lex credendi.
The reason the Churches, convents, seminaries and schools and etc. emptied, and contraception, abortion, divorce and etc. ad nausem increased after the perpetration of the new "mass" is statistically factual. Those were times when the people attending the new "mass" only "read meanings into words which the words they heard did not say" as Fr. Wathen said.
So the phenomena that happened is because of the new "mass", the people no longer believed, literally, that the faith is necessary at all - that is the lex orandi of the new "mass". That is why people do not know what the Holy Sacrifice is, what the Eucharist is and why communion in the hand (CITH), which used to be a sacrilege, is normal.
If you still don't believe me, then feel free to just go ahead and tell any NOer that CITH is a sacrilege and see what they tell you.
-
Nishant,
The Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Eucharist in the Mass are inseparable, if the one is effected validly, so is the other.
This is not true. In a black mass, the consecration can be valid but the mass is not. Also, the consecration is PART of the mass; it is not THE mass. The offertory and communion are the other 2 ESSENTIAL parts of the mass.
It is also part of canon law that if a priest gets sick/drops dead after (a valid) consecration, that mass is not finished and must be resumed/restarted. It would not fulfill the sunday obligation.
-
"we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation" does not denote (a propitiatory sacrifice)?
No it does not. Is there anywhere in the above language that mentions sin, or atonement for sin? No. The offertory is the main part of the True Mass where the propitiatory purpose is laid out, but the NO gutted the offertory, so it's not there any more. There's a reason why the offertory is one of the 3 PRIMARY parts of the Mass...because it contains the reasons for the offering and the Mass:
1. Adoration
2. Contrition
3. Thanksgiving
4. Supplication
Nowhere in the novus ordo is there the ideal of #2 contrition, which is the propitiatory part and which includes the ideals of atonement, contrition and satisfaction for sin. It was gotten rid of.
-
A victim is one whose blood is spilt before God in atonement for sin.
No. A sacrifice, just like prayer, can be done for any or all or only one of the previous 4 reasons. It does not automatically cover all 4.
If you say a novena for the intention of a new job, you have defined the intention's parameters. The novena does NOT also offer satisfaction/contrition for your sins. If you want to do that, you should say a novena specifically for that intention.
This is why the Mass is called the 'perfect prayer' because it offers to God all 4 intentions, perfectly. The novus ordo is defective in this regard.
-
You're claiming I'm trying to merge an unspecified "new faith" with the Catholic faith. What exactly are you describing? What the doctrine of the "new faith" that I've merged with Catholicism?
All I need do is use practically anything you post, here is another example showing the NO thinking you harbor which needs purging. See your own reply to Myrna's; "By their fruits you will know them".......... you replied: "The problem is when there are good fruits, some Neo-trads deny them."
Yet Our Lord said: "For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit; nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit." - Luke 6:43
This obvious NO thinking comes from the land of no absolutes is embedded in the minds of NOers and stands out like a sore thumb among those who've never been influenced by NO speak or NO thinking.
Assinine. The apt Scriptural citation is: "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good."
The Neo-Trad thinking is one that avoids reality and makes the crisis in the Church political, so the Neo-Trad presupposes something to be intrinsically evil and therefore, it cannot possibly have any good fruit.
Go do some homework and see what the traditional commentaries are on your abuse of the "by their fruits you will know them.." It's virtually Protestant prooftexting on the part of you and Myrna.
-
The phenomena that actually occurred was the True Mass was taken away and replaced with the new "mass". The way people believe comes from the way they pray, this is the maxim, Lex orandi lex credendi.
They stopped believing before the TLM was taken away. EENS was already reduced to dust by the 1950s. Obviously a set of beliefs through progressivism and modernism came about and festered in the Catholic culture that the TLM was not capable of defending against in it's form. Actually the Popes probably should have put reinforcements into the liturgy prior to the 20th century.
The reason the Churches, convents, seminaries and schools and etc. emptied, and contraception, abortion, divorce and etc. ad nausem increased after the perpetration of the new "mass" is statistically factual. Those were times when the people attending the new "mass" only "read meanings into words which the words they heard did not say" as Fr. Wathen said.
Not really, there were heterodox programs forced upon the nuns, classes, attempts to dissuade people from pious devotions, psychology etc. These things were foisted into and in addition to the Novus Ordo itself to create the misunderstandings.
Any parish or diocese that implemented the Novus Ordo and maintained traditional devotion and catechesis had no problems until the additional changes that are not part of the missal itself were added.
So the phenomena that happened is because of the new "mass", the people no longer believed, literally, that the faith is necessary at all - that is the lex orandi of the new "mass". That is why people do not know what the Holy Sacrifice is, what the Eucharist is and why communion in the hand (CITH), which used to be a sacrilege, is normal.
First, Sacrilege is determined by the legal authority of the Church. Communion in the hand is a bad idea, not a sacrilege in and of itself. The early Church was not committing sacrilege regularly until communion on the tongue
If you still don't believe me, then feel free to just go ahead and tell any NOer that CITH is a sacrilege and see what they tell you.
Odds are they would not be able to give me a definition of sacrilege. But if they receive communion reverently they are not committing sacrilege since the legalities of it are murky at best. I tend to cite JPII stating the matter but he, like usual didn't put any teeth into it.
At a local diocese, if it's the TLM, the priests will not give CITH, for the Novus Ordo they have implemented simply by encouragement the use of the altar rail and communion being received kneeling (unless impossible ) and on the tongue.
Due to the vigilance of the priests and their control of the liturgy and encouragement, at this parish, Communion in the hand is almost extinct.
And if we're talking vigilance, Communion in the Hand as an abuse actually began prior to Vatican II in the TLM.
The final point is the Novus Ordo as written does not grant nor address Communion in the Hand.
-
You're claiming I'm trying to merge an unspecified "new faith" with the Catholic faith. What exactly are you describing? What the doctrine of the "new faith" that I've merged with Catholicism?
All I need do is use practically anything you post, here is another example showing the NO thinking you harbor which needs purging. See your own reply to Myrna's; "By their fruits you will know them".......... you replied: "The problem is when there are good fruits, some Neo-trads deny them."
Yet Our Lord said: "For there is no good tree that bringeth forth evil fruit; nor an evil tree that bringeth forth good fruit." - Luke 6:43
This obvious NO thinking comes from the land of no absolutes is embedded in the minds of NOers and stands out like a sore thumb among those who've never been influenced by NO speak or NO thinking.
Assinine. The apt Scriptural citation is: "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good."
The Neo-Trad thinking is one that avoids reality and makes the crisis in the Church political, so the Neo-Trad presupposes something to be intrinsically evil and therefore, it cannot possibly have any good fruit.
Go do some homework and see what the traditional commentaries are on your abuse of the "by their fruits you will know them.." It's virtually Protestant prooftexting on the part of you and Myrna.
It is as I said, you have to purge the NO thinking from within you - I quoted the apt Scriptural citation, but you are impervious. You reject reality while insisting others reject it - which is typical of those impregnated with NO thinking.
I did my homework in real life 50 years ago as the revolution was happening, you are attempting to convince me that I did not see what I actually saw, that I did not live through what I actually lived through, so not sure what you think you will gain but one thing I can tell you for positive, is that you will never convince me that I did not see what I saw. OTOH, I suggest you find better books to read about those days, the ones you've been reading are certainly novus ordo.
-
The final point is the Novus Ordo as written does not grant nor address Communion in the Hand.
Nuff said. You are beating the wind.
Another thing I can say is that in my time, those who think they are trads yet defend the NO as you do, can expect to go full NO, just a matter of when, not if.
-
The Novus Ordo is like a battlefield with an intense bombardment of artillery occurring. The wounded are all over the place; some with no legs, others with a big hole in them, others bleeding out. Some, of course, are dead. But there are a few survivors that are extremely lucky that somehow have escaped with no wounds, or just a few superficial bullet wounds, after 5 hours of this bombardment. You can't say "they're all dead" when right now there are still survivors. Yes, they need to get the heck out of there, and anyone would be foolish to run in and join them on that battlefield, but you can't deny the reality: there are survivors.
I entered the twilight zone after 9 years of exile from the church which had been imposed upon me when my parents abandoned it in the summer of'69.
I don't blame them anymore. It was God's will I not grow up in the upheaval.
Away at college, I was not prepared for what I found inside a 'Catholic' church. They were not too charitable to this confused Catholic teen who had sought reconciliation. So I wandered away. I never found what I was looking for in Protestant churches. I came close to finding my cradle faith at an Eastern Orthodox parish. So I gave up searching. Then a Catholic young person discerning a vocation came under my wings, sent from God. She took me to a Solemn High Mass in Latin at a retreat center. It was there that God transported me back to my mother's knee and tears flowed throughout the whole Mass. It was a taste of heaven. But alas, the priest offering that Mass has abruptly been reassigned. Demons have a stronghold in my diocese. I tried for years to reconcile. God does not want me at an NO Mass. I am being protected. I am Catholic, but I am no longer Roman.
So yes, to answer your question, the NO Mass is evil.
-
It is as I said, you have to purge the NO thinking from within you - I quoted the apt Scriptural citation, but you are impervious.
You have yet to provide any evidence of any "NO thinking:" within in me.
I suggested you go read the traditional commentaries on the scriptural passage.
Frankly, I trust the Haydock commentaries more than you and they are certainly free from "NO thinking"
You reject reality while insisting others reject it - which is typical of those impregnated with NO thinking.
And I do this by citing concrete examples? You are stretching. And incidentally you are avoiding dealing with the counterarguments I've proposed.
I did my homework in real life 50 years ago as the revolution was happening, you are attempting to convince me that I did not see what I actually saw, that I did not live through what I actually lived through, so not sure what you think you will gain but one thing I can tell you for positive, is that you will never convince me that I did not see what I saw. OTOH, I suggest you find better books to read about those days, the ones you've been reading are certainly novus ordo.
On the contrary, I don't doubt you saw what you saw. I'm simply aware of the fact that you didn't see everything.
You are attempting to convince me that I didn't see what I saw 40 and 35 and 30 and 25 years ago.
There is also numerous firsthand testimony of numerous people who were active Catholics in the years preceding the Novus Ordo and the Council.
We have the testimony of the Popes describing the troubles of the pre-conciliar era from before Pascendi to Humani Generis. Was everything so wonderful that a Pope would write an encyclical with the subtitle "Some false opinions that threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine."
Feel free to recommend any books you like. I'd be curious to see what you recommend and if you've accepted everything you've read uncritically or had a healthy skepticism.
-
I already agreed that the enemy was infiltrating the Church long before V2, even decades (at least) before Pope St. Pius X's time. Remember me saying that? Well, I said it because today, it's a known fact thanks to hind site.
So yes, prior to V2 people were already being groomed and the way was being paved for the NO and it's new "mass" by the Modernist authorities within the Church. These facts alone SHOULD tell you everything you need to know about the new "mass", why it is evil and must always be avoided and the reason why it offers no good fruit, not ever. It was decades at least in the making, it is the invention of the enemy, it's lex orandi encourages the loss of faith, so what are you defending?
-
Stubborn,
I think that you have amply demonstrated clear examples of both conciliar thinking and behavior.
It is possible that you might provide one hundred more and your opponent would still see none of it.
And what you did experience first hand, which I and a number of good souls have also confirmed in this thread, is docuмented history, it is not imagination or a picture fabricated from second and third hand accounts and interpretations.
This is the ongoing conflict between truth and falsehood. It will not end until Catholicism triumphs or the Novus Ordo religion completely replaces it.
Obviously, it is still making inroads into the remnant of Tradition, in both clerical and lay circles.
-
For the life of me, I'll never understand Gerard's particular viewpoint. This is what I gather, but he never agrees with anyone, he just argues with them, so this could be wrong too.
Pro-indult,
pro-williamson,
pro-paul VI,
pro-Pius XII,
anti-exclusive TLM,
condones novus ordo,
anti novus ordo liturgical defects,
condones V2 modernism,
anti-pre V2 modernism,
pro EENS and Feeney,
It's an amazing display of contradictions.
-
Stubborn,
I think that you have amply demonstrated clear examples of both conciliar thinking and behavior.
It is possible that you might provide one hundred more and your opponent would still see none of it.
And what you did experience first hand, which I and a number of good souls have also confirmed in this thread, is docuмented history, it is not imagination or a picture fabricated from second and third hand accounts and interpretations.
This is the ongoing conflict between truth and falsehood. It will not end until Catholicism triumphs or the Novus Ordo religion completely replaces it.
Obviously, it is still making inroads into the remnant of Tradition, in both clerical and lay circles.
Yes, I don't know how many different ways there are to answer the same questions worded differently that no matter how one slices it, the answers are the same - the new "mass" is a product of many decades of planning from the enemy, it is evil by design and needs to be abolished for the abomination that it is.
-
For the life of me, I'll never understand Gerard's particular viewpoint. This is what I gather, but he never agrees with anyone, he just argues with them, so this could be wrong too.
Pro-indult,
pro-williamson,
pro-paul VI,
pro-Pius XII,
anti-exclusive TLM,
condones novus ordo,
anti novus ordo liturgical defects,
condones V2 modernism,
anti-pre V2 modernism,
pro EENS and Feeney,
It's an amazing display of contradictions.
This, exactly.
-
I already agreed that the enemy was infiltrating the Church long before V2, even decades (at least) before Pope St. Pius X's time. Remember me saying that? Well, I said it because today, it's a known fact thanks to hind site.
So yes, prior to V2 people were already being groomed and the way was being paved for the NO and it's new "mass" by the Modernist authorities within the Church. These facts alone SHOULD tell you everything you need to know about the new "mass", why it is evil and must always be avoided and the reason why it offers no good fruit, not ever. It was decades at least in the making, it is the invention of the enemy, it's lex orandi encourages the loss of faith, so what are you defending?
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.
It was lacking in perfections so therefore it was evil, if we want to abuse St. Thomas in the manner he is frequently abused around here.
And again by your thinking it could not possibly offer any good fruit ever. Because it was already infiltrated by the enemy.
It's amazingly hypocritical how suddenly when faced with the undeniable proof of corruption and problems in the Church prior to Vatican II, suddenly there is room for "nuance."
But when it comes to post-conciliar period. Nope. It's all bad and nothing good could possibly be going on. God is simply not there. Nobody could possibly be in the Novus Ordo and learning the faith and being "groomed" for the restoration of the Church could it be?
-
For the life of me, I'll never understand Gerard's particular viewpoint. This is what I gather, but he never agrees with anyone, he just argues with them, so this could be wrong too.
Pro-indult, right, TLMs are good.
pro-williamson, Yep. He's usually always spot on.
pro-paul VI, Nope. Terrible Pope but still a valid Pope.
pro-Pius XII, Generally, he did his best and only made a few mistakes.
anti-exclusive TLM, If you can get it, promote it to the hilt and use it for your soul
condones novus ordo, Nope. I just don't go off the rails with phony condemnations
anti novus ordo liturgical defects, Nope, I'm all for abolishing it or improving it. I'm against complaints about phony defects.
condones V2 modernism, Nope. Not true at all, and I actually read Pascendi, so I don't call every error "modernism."
anti-pre V2 modernism, Anti-modernism in every era. I'm also against all errors against the Church's teaching. Anti-Neo Ultramontanist as well.
pro EENS and Feeney, Absolutely.
It's an amazing display of contradictions. nope
No. There are no contradictions at all. Everything is measured against the doctrine of the Church with proportionality where called for, moderate rationalism in the approach and it's all moderated by an awareness of the Catholic sensibilities when it comes to keeping the intellect above the passions.
Contradictory is lauding the Church as being at it's peak when it's been infiltrated and claiming all of the good and denying good in the Church remains when the infiltration has reached its peak. It's tantamount to a denial of the indefectibility of the Church. And there is nothing more contradictory than claiming to be Catholic while denying a dogma of the Church.
-
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.
-
I already agreed that the enemy was infiltrating the Church long before V2, even decades (at least) before Pope St. Pius X's time. Remember me saying that? Well, I said it because today, it's a known fact thanks to hind site.
So yes, prior to V2 people were already being groomed and the way was being paved for the NO and it's new "mass" by the Modernist authorities within the Church. These facts alone SHOULD tell you everything you need to know about the new "mass", why it is evil and must always be avoided and the reason why it offers no good fruit, not ever. It was decades at least in the making, it is the invention of the enemy, it's lex orandi encourages the loss of faith, so what are you defending?
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.
It was lacking in perfections so therefore it was evil, if we want to abuse St. Thomas in the manner he is frequently abused around here.
And again by your thinking it could not possibly offer any good fruit ever. Because it was already infiltrated by the enemy.
It's amazingly hypocritical how suddenly when faced with the undeniable proof of corruption and problems in the Church prior to Vatican II, suddenly there is room for "nuance."
But when it comes to post-conciliar period. Nope. It's all bad and nothing good could possibly be going on. God is simply not there. Nobody could possibly be in the Novus Ordo and learning the faith and being "groomed" for the restoration of the Church could it be?
You have a very distorted idea about the pre/post conciliar church.
Yes, the enemy infiltrators helped pave the way for the NO and it's "mass", and as saboteurs, they remained hidden in plain sight. You don't know it but the poison you are referring to is the actual product of the saboteurs, the new "mass", not the pre-V2 Church.
Ask yourself how is it that the product of saboteurs can in any way be fruitful when it is by design evil.
Pre-V2, while the enemy was setting up shop, we still had the True Mass throughout the world, the Catholic world still believed the same 2000 year old truths - because they still prayed the same - that's lex orandi lex credendi.
It wasn't until they took away the True Mass and replaced it with the new "mass" that the Catholic world experienced mass defections from the faith along with unprecedented chaos, confusion and sin. The reason for the defections from the faith and the unprecedented chaos, confusion and sin, is due to the 180 degree 'about face' of the new lex orandi from the new "mass".
-
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.
-
You have a very distorted idea about the pre/post conciliar church.
No I don't.
Yes, the enemy infiltrators helped pave the way for the NO and it's "mass", and as saboteurs, they remained hidden in plain sight. You don't know it but the poison you are referring to is the actual product of the saboteurs, the new "mass", not the pre-V2 Church.
There is your inconstancy, the poison was in the pre-conciliar Church long before the Novus Ordo. You don't seem to mind evil if it's hidden within a beautiful shell, but you deny the possibility of good being present in a not so pretty shell.
Ask yourself how is it that the product of saboteurs can in any way be fruitful when it is by design evil.
God uses all things for His glory. The cross is by design evil and all good fruit comes from it.
Pre-V2, while the enemy was setting up shop, we still had the True Mass throughout the world, the Catholic world still believed the same 2000 year old truths - because they still prayed the same - that's lex orandi lex credendi.
You keep pretending that, but the very fact of the existence of the Novus Ordo says otherwise. EENS was already in essence denied in the same way it is denied today. The devotions are still around, the Creed is still the same, the Sacraments are still the same seven sacraments.
The zeal and the faithfulness of the majority of Catholics was gone prior to Vatican II. It was a veneer or cultural Catholicism. If it were the genuine thing, there would have been a bigger fight against the changes. There wasn't. The changes did nothing but exacerbate the problem, but the problem was already there.
When it all comes down to it, the enemies of the Church have always been there, but it's the people of the Church that ultimately bear responsibility for giving in and giving up.
It wasn't until they took away the True Mass and replaced it with the new "mass" that the Catholic world experienced mass defections from the faith along with unprecedented chaos, confusion and sin.
They took away the True Mass? How in the world could this happen? The True Mass is obviously the thing that makes a Catholic a Catholic. It's what gives the Church it's strength.
So, how did the wimpy, light weight, sub par, watered down Novus Ordo get imposed on such powerful, militant, perfectly catechized and wonderful Catholics?
It must have been an incredible fight with numerous pre-Vatican II saints of the 1960s being willing to die rather than give up the Church to "pure evil."
The reason for the defections from the faith and the unprecedented chaos, confusion and sin, is due to the 180 degree 'about face' of the new lex orandi from the new "mass".
No. The defections had already occurred. The people got what they wanted, an excuse to leave the Church for whatever reason. Rarely have people said they left the Church because the liturgy had changed.
Some of the craziest liberals out there like Ann Rice or Rober Ebert wouldl talk of their memories of the Latin Mass and how wonderful everything looked aesthetically but they weren't affected enough to believe anything of the faith and they certainly don't call for the TLM to be restored and the Novus Ordo to be abolished.
God simply gave a lackluster Catholic populace what they wanted, They didn't hold the faith, He allowed the liturgy to be replaced with an inferior rite and they degraded it further and anyone who is serious about God has a difficult path to follow to find Him. They have to work far more than someone in the 50s who had it right in front of them and let it be taken away.
But God rewards those that do search for Him. And He does it in different ways, He provided grace where they are if in the Novus Ordo, despite the inferior liturgy and He provides the TLM for a number of people that can really benefit from it, or they are so weak they would be totally lost without it.
-
Gerard,
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.
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.
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.
-
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?
-
conciliar,
There is your inconstancy, the poison was in the pre-conciliar Church long before the Novus Ordo. You don't seem to mind evil if it's hidden within a beautiful shell, but you deny the possibility of good being present in a not so pretty shell.
The Novus Ordo is the fruit of that poison.
They took away the True Mass? How in the world could this happen? The True Mass is obviously the thing that makes a Catholic a Catholic. It's what gives the Church it's strength.
So, how did the wimpy, light weight, sub par, watered down Novus Ordo get imposed on such powerful, militant, perfectly catechized and wonderful Catholics?
It must have been an incredible fight with numerous pre-Vatican II saints of the 1960s being willing to die rather than give up the Church to "pure evil."
They suppressed the immemorial Lex Orandi/LexCredendi of the Church and replaced it with a new Lex Orandi which undermined the Catholic faith of many millions and is doing so as we speak.
Lets be honest here, this was a long planned and well executed revolution in the Church. It is docuмented history now, denying it is dishonest at best, doing it to mitigate and protect the Novus Ordo is much more serious.
-
You have a very distorted idea about the pre/post conciliar church.
No I don't.
Yes, the enemy infiltrators helped pave the way for the NO and it's "mass", and as saboteurs, they remained hidden in plain sight. You don't know it but the poison you are referring to is the actual product of the saboteurs, the new "mass", not the pre-V2 Church.
You Gerard are so wrong, while Stubborn is so correct.
Consider the Bible in the end time after the founding of Vatican II, ( fornication = interfaith), fits perfectly in the scheme of Vatican II.
Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. [4] And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. [5] For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities.
Read Chapter 17 also in book of Apocalypse 17
-
You have a very distorted idea about the pre/post conciliar church.
No I don't.
I'm afraid you really do.
-
Gerard,
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.
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.
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.
-
You have a very distorted idea about the pre/post conciliar church.
No I don't.
I'm afraid you really do.
No. You're wrong.
-
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.
-
Gerard,
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.
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.
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.
-
Gerard,
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.
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.
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!
-
By comparison that is an accurate observation for those remaining few who remember and were witness to it.
-
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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,
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.
-
:tv-disturbed:
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
-
Pray much in these times that we support each other and
do not ever quit on the true faith.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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:
-
A prime example of speaking much and saying little.................................
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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 will try to get to them.
Can you give me some more information on him?
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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:
I have. You haven't answered mine.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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:
I have. You haven't answered mine.
Did you have a specific coherent question to ask of us?...... :confused1:
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
Do you get paid to troll this site? That's the only reason I can think of that would
explain why you would gin up with an attempt to bait me like that.
-
Do you have a specific coherent question to ask of us?
I have already asked specific and coherent questions. Just on this thread, I've asked you numerous specific and coherent questions.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
Do you get paid to troll this site? That's the only reason I can think of that would
explain why you would gin up with an attempt to bait me like that.
Trolling is an excellent way to catch a fish.............................
-
Do you have a specific coherent question to ask of us?
I have already asked specific and coherent questions. Just on this thread, I've asked you numerous specific and coherent questions.
Really? And NO one has answered you???
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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 will try to get to them.
Can you give me some more information on him?
If you expect you won't be able to attack the message, prepare in advance to attack the messenger, eh?
-
Do you have a specific coherent question to ask of us?
I have already asked specific and coherent questions. Just on this thread, I've asked you numerous specific and coherent questions.
Really? And NO one has answered you???
Plenty of people have answered me on numerous occasions.
You haven't.
-
If you expect you won't be able to attack the message, prepare in advance to attack the messenger, eh?
No, but considering that I haven't heard of him before and I've been paying very close attention to trad speakers of various stripes and listening to lectures and sermons going back to Fr. Coughlin and onwards, I was curious.
I listened to a few minutes of one lecture and it was a lot of sloganeering and hot rhetoric which is understandable in the crisis, but when the rubber meets the road, the emotional approach does not make something unfortunate into a heresy.
I admit a few minutes isn't enough to give a fair report, but if it's in that same mode, it's going to be a waste of time. And to be fair, he did put a caveat in the beginning of his speech to the effect of "setting aside what is good in the docuмents of Vatican II" etc. which is good. Unfortunately the faithful need to be reminded of those caveats frequently or they will go off the rails in their fervor.
I prefer people who can keep a cool head while they tackle the problem, indignation is fine and even righteous in circuмstances but if there's no intellectual substance behind it, it just becomes hysterical mewling.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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 will try to get to them.
Can you give me some more information on him?
I don't know a lot about him, we met Fr. Altenbach when I was only a young teen - had to drive all the way up to Baraga, MI for the true Mass back then, a Mass which he was celebrating. I know he was kicked out of his rectory for refusing to say the new "mass" a few years prior. He was not sede when he made those recordings but some 8 or 10 years after we met him he went sede and was later consecrated a sede bishop.
When you listen, try to remember the times, that by 1974 the shock of the NO was still fresh in the minds of many.
-
Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.
-
Gerard, this (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Altenbach-1974) 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.
I don't think so, the ones who have me on ignore are the dogmatic sedes and BODers, some don't even post any more anyway.
My opinion is Gerard is his own nemesis, he cannot accept historical fact of what happened in the 60s/70s for what it is, as it continues to play out before his very eyes.
There are many who cannot accept in totality that the new "mass" is one of the scandals that Our Lord said "must needs be" and "woe to the world because of it" and "woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh", but like so many before him, Gerard remains convinced that "the new "mass" is not a scandal because it can't be!" He is convinced that some graces comes through it, not because of what it actually is, but because of what it replaced. He is convinced that there is some inherent goodness in it that remains through it's inherent evil, provided one dissects it's cells under an electron microscope with rose colored lenses - and that it must be this goodness that prompts people to avoid it.
Same o same o.
-
Do you have a specific coherent question to ask of us?
I have already asked specific and coherent questions. Just on this thread, I've asked you numerous specific and coherent questions.
Really? And NO one has answered you???
Plenty of people have answered me on numerous occasions.
You haven't.
Now Gerard, there is no need to lie. I have answered you ad nauseum many times.
My answers were not to your liking and did not agree with your opinions, and thus you say that I did not answer you.
You regularly accuse others of not answering you, for the same reason. I am not alone.
-
Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.
The Holy Office had a most effective and sound policy, if a book, docuмent, or someone's teaching contained anything faintly pointing towards heresy or error, it went on the index and was forbidden. Using that Holy standard, what might be "good" in such works is irrelevant. The whole must be rejected entirely.
That is the clear case with Vatican II and the New Order ritual.
And yes anything else is collaboration born of modern subjectivism.
Bishop Williamson in past times stressed the perils of just a drop of poison rending the entire cake inedible and dangerous.
-
Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.
The Holy Office had a most effective and sound policy, if a book, docuмent, or someone's teaching contained anything faintly pointing towards heresy or error, it went on the index and was forbidden. Using that Holy standard, what might be "good" in such works is irrelevant. The whole must be rejected entirely.
That is the clear case with Vatican II and the New Order ritual.
And yes anything else is collaboration born of modern subjectivism.
Bishop Williamson in past times stressed the perils of just a drop of poison rending the entire cake inedible and dangerous.
So correct even nature proves it, put a rotten apple among the good and they all become rotten.
-
(http://www.silverdoctors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sterling-silver.gif)
-
Now Gerard, there is no need to lie. I have answered you ad nauseum many times.
No. I haven't lied.
You've replied ad nauseum. You haven't answered any questions that I've posed that dismantle your position.
My answers were not to your liking and did not agree with your opinions, and thus you say that I did not answer you.
You did not address anything about the Eastern rites, you did not defend your position when I asked where the big fight was put up by the blameless pre-vatican II Catholics. I could sift through the thread and repost the questions you've asked but it would amount to pages of repostings.
You regularly accuse others of not answering you, for the same reason. I am not alone.
No, it's pretty quantifiable that people with bad catechesis and positions and opinions based on emotion tend not to answer questions that rain on their parade.
-
Pax Vobis said:
Q. Is a "crime of passion" murder evil like a "premeditated, terrorist bombing" murder?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Q. Is the novus ordo evil like a black mass?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Gerard said:
Do you offend God? Yes or no?
The analogy is logical. It's it not, tell me why. My sinfulness is irrelevant.
-
Setting aside what is good in V2 is sifting. The obvious liberal motivation behind a comprehensive re-examination of the bequeathed Church with a view to making her suitable for the triumphant new world has to be recognised and condemned or praised in toto. Anything else is collaboration and indicates a willingness to view the Church as an institution going through a painful process of change.
The Holy Office had a most effective and sound policy, if a book, docuмent, or someone's teaching contained anything faintly pointing towards heresy or error, it went on the index and was forbidden. Using that Holy standard, what might be "good" in such works is irrelevant. The whole must be rejected entirely.
That is the clear case with Vatican II and the New Order ritual.
And yes anything else is collaboration born of modern subjectivism.
Bishop Williamson in past times stressed the perils of just a drop of poison rending the entire cake inedible and dangerous.
Williamson has also pointed out the analogy of the apple with both rotten parts and good, healthy parts. The distinction is to know where the poison actually is.
And that includes the Pre-Vatican II period of the Church as well.
The Holy Office had its problems.
The standards for the Index was pretty corrupt according to the whims of the Holy Office.
Visionaries' works approved by the pre VII Holy Office with imprimaturs from bishops and Nihil Obstats have written horrible blasphemies about the Blessed Mother as if they were the words of the Blessed Mother herself.
I was recently reading "The Life of Mary as seen by the mystics" published in 1950 with ecclesiastical approval. The visions are compiled from the works of St. Bridgeet of Sweden, St. Elizabeth of Schoenau, Mother Mary Agreda and Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich.
The Blessed Mother is quoted as saying she was "sanctified in the womb" which is a denial of the Immaculate Conception.
She is constantly cited with horrible assertions about herself. She is described as praying that because of the dangers of conversing with others she is so frail she is afraid of losing God and would rather be silent her whole life.
She is cited as saying she inherited all the infirmities of the body. Basically she had inherited Original Sin and the natural evils that are its consequences.
God withdraws Himself from her to put her through a 'Dark Night of the Soul" and to make her "increase her merit" And our Lady feared that it was due to her "unworthiness" and "ingratitude" towards God.
When she is a young girl and calumniated by her peers, she agrees with the calumny and lies about herself by agreeing with the faults attributed to her.
When the temple priests were told of her bad behavior by jealous girls, they scolded her. Our Lady begged their forgiveness and described herself as "..the most imperfect and despicable of creatures…"
It's a scandal as bad as anything to come from Vatican II and it was allowed for centuries before Vatican II.
It's disgusting to put those words in our Lady's mouth.
So, no. I'm not dazzled nor deluded about the state of human failings in the Church both before and after Vatican II.
Sifting is exactly what you have to do. It's not a compromise nor collaboration any more than an examination of conscience is.
-
Pax Vobis said:
Q. Is a "crime of passion" murder evil like a "premeditated, terrorist bombing" murder?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Q. Is the novus ordo evil like a black mass?
A. They do not incur the same guilt, but both are evil and sins against God.
Gerard said:
Do you offend God? Yes or no?
The analogy is logical. It's it not, tell me why. My sinfulness is irrelevant.
Q. Is Pax Vobis evil like Satan who offends God?
A. They both offend God, but in different degrees, but both are evil.
As you can see from above, the analogy is forced by equivocation.
You are proving the evil of the Novus Ordo Mass by asserting the Novus Ordo Mass as evil.
It's like the old syllogism, God is Love, Love is Blind, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God.
Premeditated murder = Black Mass
crime of passion-murder = Novus Ordo
It's' an unproven analogy.
A more apt analogy.
Black Mass = Cup of hydrochloric acid. deadly in all ways
TLM = Cup of perfectly made coffee, enjoyable and invigorating on all levels
Novus Ordo = cheap cup of coffee, gets the job done for a caffeine jolt and a boost.
-
Gerard,
You've replied ad nauseum. You haven't answered any questions that I've posed that dismantle your position.
What you mean is that I have not admitted to agreeing with your position.
You did not address anything about the Eastern rites, you did not defend your position when I asked where the big fight was put up by the blameless pre-vatican II Catholics. I could sift through the thread and repost the questions you've asked but it would amount to pages of repostings.
All questions which were not based upon the subject of discussion. Question which you inserted to support your narrative and exhonerate the revolution. Your comparisons were mischaracterized as well.
Sift and post if you must.
No, it's pretty quantifiable that people with bad catechesis and positions and opinions based on emotion tend not to answer questions that rain on their parade.
There it is again, you always accuse anyone who does not buy into your narrative as being deficient in one way or another. We could sift and post a hundred such examples. A well established technique of Novus Ordo thinkers.
-
Gerard,
Williamson has also pointed out the analogy of the apple with both rotten parts and good, healthy parts. The distinction is to know where the poison actually is.
And that includes the Pre-Vatican II period of the Church as well.
Bishop Williamson's analogy is false and inaccurate. The poison pre, during, and post is one and the same from the same source and all a part of the same subversion which was incarnated at Vatican II.
-
Gerard,
Williamson has also pointed out the analogy of the apple with both rotten parts and good, healthy parts. The distinction is to know where the poison actually is.
And that includes the Pre-Vatican II period of the Church as well.
Bishop Williamson's analogy is false and inaccurate. The poison pre, during, and post is one and the same from the same source and all a part of the same subversion which was incarnated at Vatican II.
So the poison pre-existed the incarnation of the poison?
But Williamson is correct, evil cannot exist without good, even the demons still retain some of the goodness of their angelic nature, where it lacks in its perfections is the extent of the evil.
You may not like it, but that's the Catholic position.
-
J. Paul,
"What you mean is that I have not admitted to agreeing with your position."
No. I mean you've avoided at all costs conceding to what is self-evidently true.
Gerard:
"You did not address anything about the Eastern rites, you did not defend your position when I asked where the big fight was put up by the blameless pre-vatican II Catholics. I could sift through the thread and repost the questions you've asked but it would amount to pages of repostings."
J. Paul:
"All questions which were not based upon the subject of discussion. Question which you inserted to support your narrative and exhonerate the revolution. Your comparisons were mischaracterized as well.
Sift and post if you must."
No. The questions were specific and applicable to the discussion directly. But no matter what, they are objectively questions which you have avoided answering.
It's obvious to anyone why you avoid answering them. It ruins your false narrative.
Gerard:
"No, it's pretty quantifiable that people with bad catechesis and positions and opinions based on emotion tend not to answer questions that rain on their parade."
J. Paul:
"There it is again, you always accuse anyone who does not buy into your narrative as being deficient in one way or another. We could sift and post a hundred such examples. A well established technique of Novus Ordo thinkers."
I dispute that it's a technique of Novus Ordo "thinkers" because they pull the same stunt all of the time. You aren't special because you make a common mistake. But it's irrelevant, even if they did, the point is valid. The assertions laid out by the Neo-Trads on this thread betray a weak catechesis, loose grasp of the facts and high emphasis on their emotional state to justify their unsupported conclusions.
Wrong is wrong if 1 or a thousand people make the same errors.
-
I don't think so, the ones who have me on ignore are the dogmatic sedes and BODers, some don't even post any more anyway.
My opinion is Gerard is his own nemesis, he cannot accept historical fact of what happened in the 60s/70s for what it is, as it continues to play out before his very eyes.
There are many who cannot accept in totality that the new "mass" is one of the scandals that Our Lord said "must needs be" and "woe to the world because of it" and "woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh", but like so many before him, Gerard remains convinced that "the new "mass" is not a scandal because it can't be!" He is convinced that some graces comes through it, not because of what it actually is, but because of what it replaced. He is convinced that there is some inherent goodness in it that remains through it's inherent evil, provided one dissects it's cells under an electron microscope with rose colored lenses - and that it must be this goodness that prompts people to avoid it.
Same o same o.
On the contrary, I've actually faced up to historical facts of the crisis in the Church that was going in the 60s ,50s 40s and prior, going back before Vatican I even.
The "scandal" of the New Mass isn't the New Mass itself. The scandal is the people who abused and took for granted the TLM. The Church prior to Vatican II warranted the Novus Ordo. It put the faithful down from the Pro-leagues and into the minors. Whatever the intentions of the architects, God is the one who permitted it and God uses it to cull the herd and find the sheep that are worthy. He may give us the TLM because He knows we can't handle it. In other words, not because we are great shakes but because He's shown undue to mercy to us and exempted us from particular purgatories to hopefully get the best out of us and not confirm our own corruption and condemnation.
-
Gerard,
The "scandal" of the New Mass isn't the New Mass itself. The scandal is the people who abused and took for granted the TLM. The Church prior to Vatican II warranted the Novus Ordo. It put the faithful down from the Pro-leagues and into the minors. Whatever the intentions of the architects, God is the one who permitted it and God uses it to cull the herd and find the sheep that are worthy. He may give us the TLM because He knows we can't handle it. In other words, not because we are great shakes but because He's shown undue to mercy to us and exempted us from particular purgatories to hopefully get the best out of us and not confirm our own corruption and condemnation.
-
The argument here hangs on two propositions:
1) V2 was necessary to clean up corruption and make the mission of the Church clearer to the modern ear, or
2) V2 was a conspiracy headed by a core of reformers influenced by a growing movement over time which sought to replace the supernatural nature of the Church with a man-centred ideology using the resources of the past where useful.
The second proposition concerns hardline traditionalists more than the first which is really the domain of softliners, now regarding the second as a no-go area. As far as I am concerned there is little point in saying V2 was a noble cause but was abused. V2 was a deliberate attempt to effect fundamental change. And it succeeded.
-
The argument here hangs on two propositions:
1) V2 was necessary to clean up corruption and make the mission of the Church clearer to the modern ear, or
2) V2 was a conspiracy headed by a core of reformers influenced by a growing movement over time which sought to replace the supernatural nature of the Church with a man-centred ideology using the resources of the past where useful.
The second proposition concerns hardline traditionalists more than the first which is really the domain of softliners, now regarding the second as a no-go area. As far as I am concerned there is little point in saying V2 was a noble cause but was abused. V2 was a deliberate attempt to effect fundamental change. And it succeeded.
Such is the objective reality, but the post conciliar generations have internalized enough of the first proposition to neutralize their concern over the second.
We have some fifty pages here which proves it.
And sadly some level of that accommodation is interwoven throughout the "Traditional" movement of today, clerical and lay alike.
It really is not an argument as such either. It is a division of being. For one side there is the Church as it was before the subversive became dominant and no other, and for the others, they still think that it is fine to keep what was good of the old Church, but are equally generous as to what they have convinced themselves is "good" in the marxist conciliar regime.
-
The argument here hangs on two propositions:
1) V2 was necessary to clean up corruption and make the mission of the Church clearer to the modern ear, or
2) V2 was a conspiracy headed by a core of reformers influenced by a growing movement over time which sought to replace the supernatural nature of the Church with a man-centred ideology using the resources of the past where useful.
The second proposition concerns hardline traditionalists more than the first which is really the domain of softliners, now regarding the second as a no-go area. As far as I am concerned there is little point in saying V2 was a noble cause but was abused. V2 was a deliberate attempt to effect fundamental change. And it succeeded.
No, the two points you bring up are not mutually exclusive.
There were multiple factions on a wide spectrum of understanding involved in Vatican II.
You had conservative politicians in the Church, they were "trad" because being "trad" served them and the status quo was good for them.
You had conservatives that knew the Church needed revitalizing but did not like the way the Council went. LeFebvre and the others that drew up the original schemata.
You had moderates and moderate liberals, Paul VI, Ratzinger, Du Lubac, Bea that were excited about the idea of the changes for the betterment of the Church but were disappointed with the results, but not enough to definitively give up and declare it a mistake.
And then you had the real villains in the Church that hid themselves under a veneer of Catholicism and then after 1965 went haywire and they had heterodox views, and wanted to change the doctrine of the Church to suit their multiple agendas. Kung, Schillebeexcks, Suenens, Brown, McBrian and the whole host of power brokers that have been calling most of the shots for decades. They blew through the loopholes and ambiguities in the docuмents, espoused the "spirit" and marched headlong into heteropraxis and heterodoxy.
-
One salient point that I should have thought of to bring up earlier is this:
In stating the the Novus Ordo as written is not intrinsically evil and that most of the complaints that traditionalists have consist of legitimate ones, (ie. that it is not equal to the TLM in clearly expressing the faith) and then complaints that are actually directives applied after the publication of the Novus Ordo.
I argued that the Novus Ordo was proving insufficient to the liberals in separating the faithful from the faith, so more and more novelties were imposed such as communion in the hand, women no longer covering hands, encouraging casual dress etc.
I all that I failed to bring up the example of the howls of protest that emerged when Pope Benedict XVI enforced the correction of the Latin translations of the Novus Ordo in which "for all" was corrected to "for many" and various corrections were made to the Creed, and the "Et cuм spiritu too"
If the Novus Ordo were as intrinsically evil as the Black Mass (!?) the liberals enemies of the Church within the Church would not have howled with such pearl-clutching anxiety.
-
correction of the Latin translations of the Novus Ordo in which "for all" was corrected to "for many"
Let's not forget that for 40 years until Benedict corrected this teeny, tiny "mistranslation" (it was a mistake of course. Who would do such a thing on purpose?), the novus ordo consecration was invalid. Every single mass said with "for all" is invalid. Every. single. one. And who knows how many "priests" today still use "for all"?
Nevermind, I forgot, the novus ordo is still "beneficial"...
-
correction of the Latin translations of the Novus Ordo in which "for all" was corrected to "for many"
Let's not forget that for 40 years until Benedict corrected this teeny, tiny "mistranslation" (it was a mistake of course. Who would do such a thing on purpose?), the novus ordo consecration was invalid. Every single mass said with "for all" is invalid. Every. single. one. And who knows how many "priests" today still use "for all"?
Nevermind, I forgot, the novus ordo is still "beneficial"...
No. It's one thing if you have personal doubts about the validity and would refrain. but it's another for you to declare something objectively invalid ipso facto.
St. Thomas is arguably the only theologian who may have argued for the additional words after the consecration of the blood absolutely necessary but that is debatable because of St. Thomas' acceptance of the Eastern rites which do not include "mysterium fidei" So, scholars think Thomas was unclear as to whether he was referring to only deviations that removed the "essence". The standard Latin rite formula either being omitted without good reason or out of laziness would be valid but sacrilegious. Since the essential words are still there.
St. Albert the Great and St. Bonaventure and others have taught that the only words necessary for the consecration are "This is my body…this is my blood."
And the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
"When we speak of consecration without any special qualification, we ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining. This change is produced in virtue of the words: This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood, pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches (Renaudot, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection", I, i)."
Baltimore Catechism:
242. Q. What happened when Our Lord said, "This is My body, this is My blood"?
A. When Our Lord said, "This is My body," the substance of the bread was changed into the substance of His body. When He said, "This is My blood," the substance of the wine was changed into the substance of His blood.
250. Q. How do the priests exercise this power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?
A. The priests exercise this power of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ through the words of consecration in the Mass, which are the words of Christ: "This is My body; this is My blood."
…. After saying some prayers the priest bends down over the altar and pronounces the words of consecration, namely, "This is My body," over the bread; and "This is My blood" over the wine. Then there is no longer the bread the priest brought out and the wine the boy gave, upon the altar, but instead of both the body and blood of Our Lord.
Catechism of Trent:
"When our Lord says: This is my body, this is my blood, no person of sound mind can mistake His meaning, particularly since there is reference to Christ's human nature, the reality of which the Catholic faith permits no one to doubt. The admirable words of St. Hilary, a man not less eminent for piety than learning, are apt here: When our Lord himself declares, as our faith teaches us, that His flesh is food indeed, what room can remain for doubt concerning the real presence of His body and blood?"
The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.
...The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. ... For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.
…With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.
You'll notice Trent makes the argument against reason for the proper use of "for many" instead of "for all" but it does not make the argument against validity in the use of "for all" but rather admits the orthodox understanding but reasons out the proper unambiguous meaning for the words which are not essential to the consecration but declarative of its fruit.
St. Pius X catechism;
5 Q: What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?
A: The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: "This is My Body: This is My Blood."
11 Q: What is the consecration?
A: The consecration is the renewal, by means of the priest, of the miracle wrought by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, of changing bread and wine into His adorable Body and Blood by saying: "This is My Body: This is My Blood."
-
It's like............ starting all over again....................... :popcorn:
-
Theologians aren't infallible. The Council of Florence and Pope St Pius V settled the matter, after St Thomas was dead. Also, the cathecism of Trent isn't infallible either.
What about the 'mystery of faith' problem of the novus ordo?
The Council of Florence, ratified by Pope Eugene IV, which ended in 1445, decreed the form of consecration of the wine as using “many” and "mystery of faith" exactly as found in all the pre-1969 missals and docuмents. The Council declared that all priests must use “for many” as well as "the mystery of faith" in the consecration of the wine.
"In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: 'For this is my body'; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: 'For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.'" (Council of Florence, Denzinger 715)
"The mystery of faith" is a reference to the fact that it is a "mystery" i.e. a sacrament. To remove this phrase is to doubt or deny the sacramental quality of the consecration. De Defectibus (Concerning Defects when saying Mass) by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 –
“Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
[Translation: Consecration of the bread: “For this is My Body.” Consecration of the wine: “For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.]
-
Thank you Pax,
Catholic truth vs conciliar error.
-
Thank you Pax,
Catholic truth vs conciliar error.
Yes, exactly.
Gerard has gone to great lengths to convince himself that the new words of consecration in the new "mass" are absolutely inconsequential. Like so many, he has convinced himself that the new formula means the same as the old formula.
Again, this falls back to "the new consecration must be valid because it has to be!"
We are expected to believe that no one in Rome knew about the new formula being said all over the world, or that no one in Rome or any of the priests knew of the Bull of Pope St. Pius V's De Defectibus, or about the confusion and doubt such a change would produce to the faith of so many. And if they did know about it, they did nothing because it was such a trivial matter that it did not warrant wasting any time on it.
As we sought to show in the [The Great Sacrilege], the issue has never been whether the New Mass is valid. Whether the New Mass is valid or invalid, it is an atrocity, an unspeakable attack on the True Mass. Unless a person is able to see it as such, he can never understand it, nor treat of it logically. After all these years, it should be clear to everyone that those who instituted the New Mass were anti-Catholic; they wanted to destroy the Church by taking it over and using it. No one would have done what they did, and what their successors are doing, unless that had been his intention.
-
Fr. Wathen said:
As we sought to show in the [The Great Sacrilege], the issue has never been whether the New Mass is valid. Whether the New Mass is valid or invalid, it is an atrocity, an unspeakable attack on the True Mass. Unless a person is able to see it as such, he can never understand it, nor treat of it logically. After all these years, it should be clear to everyone that those who instituted the New Mass were anti-Catholic; they wanted to destroy the Church by taking it over and using it. No one would have done what they did, and what their successors are doing, unless that had been his intention.
But wait! Did not Pius XII proclaim that this is what a pope has the authority to do?
BTW,
This really is a true and accurate analysis of the reality of the New Order ritual.
It is to our detriment that the Traditional clergy of today do not speak with such clarity and veracity.
-
Theologians aren't infallible. The Council of Florence and Pope St Pius V settled the matter, after St Thomas was dead. Also, the cathecism of Trent isn't infallible either.
What about the 'mystery of faith' problem of the novus ordo?
The Council of Florence, ratified by Pope Eugene IV, which ended in 1445, decreed the form of consecration of the wine as using “many” and "mystery of faith" exactly as found in all the pre-1969 missals and docuмents. The Council declared that all priests must use “for many” as well as "the mystery of faith" in the consecration of the wine.
"In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: 'For this is my body'; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: 'For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.'" (Council of Florence, Denzinger 715)
"The mystery of faith" is a reference to the fact that it is a "mystery" i.e. a sacrament. To remove this phrase is to doubt or deny the sacramental quality of the consecration. De Defectibus (Concerning Defects when saying Mass) by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 –
“Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
[Translation: Consecration of the bread: “For this is My Body.” Consecration of the wine: “For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.]
Apocalypse; "Come, I will show thee the condemnation of the great harlot who sits upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality."
-
Theologians aren't infallible. The Council of Florence and Pope St Pius V settled the matter, after St Thomas was dead. Also, the cathecism of Trent isn't infallible either.
What about the 'mystery of faith' problem of the novus ordo?
The "Mysterium Fidei" was added by the Church, it is not included in the consecration forms for all of the rites of Mass. The Liturgy of St. Basil does not contain it.
If the Church can add something, the Church can remove it later.
Liturgy of St. Basil:
CONGREGATION: Amen. Again, we believe, we confess, and we glorify.
PRIEST: He tasted, and gave it also to his own holy disciples and saintly apostles saying "Take, drink of it all of you. For this is my Blood for the new covenant which shall be shed for you and many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me."
Liturgy of St. James:
PRIEST:
In like manner, after supper, He took the cup, and having mixed wine and water, lifting up His eyes to heaven, and presenting it to Thee, His God and Father, He gave thanks, and hollowed and blessed it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit, and gave it to us His disciples, saying, Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the new testament shed for you and many, and distributed for the remission of sins.
CONGREGATION: Amen.
PRIEST:
This do in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death, and confess His resurrection, till He come.
-
If the Church can add something, the Church can remove it later.
Gerard,
True, the Church could remove it, but She hasn't, so it's still required. Ergo, if it's not there (like in the novus ordo), then the consecration is illicit, sinful and invalid.
Secondly, this is a rubric for the latin rite, since we are talking about St Pius V and his latin rite missal. It's irrelevant what other rites allow.
-
If the Church can add something, the Church can remove it later.
Gerard,
True, the Church could remove it, but She hasn't, so it's still required. Ergo, if it's not there (like in the novus ordo), then the consecration is illicit, sinful and invalid.
Secondly, this is a rubric for the latin rite, since we are talking about St Pius V and his latin rite missal. It's irrelevant what other rites allow.
True, She hasn't, Paul VI's Protestants did that...................
And true again, for the other particular rites are irrelevant, and not germane to the topic at hand.
-
If the Church can add something, the Church can remove it later.
Gerard,
True, the Church could remove it, but She hasn't, so it's still required. Ergo, if it's not there (like in the novus ordo), then the consecration is illicit, sinful and invalid.
Secondly, this is a rubric for the latin rite, since we are talking about St Pius V and his latin rite missal. It's irrelevant what other rites allow.
It's required for the 1962 missal and it hasn't been removed from the 1962 missal.
The Novus Ordo was published by Paul VI and like the liturgies of St. Basil and St. James it does not have the "myterium fidei" in its composition.
And as we know Pius XII in Mediator Dei ended the discussion on whether or not a Pope is allowed to introduce new rites or modify old ones.
So, the whole argument that the "mysterium fidei" was removed is false.
So, the argument regarding invalidity is false both from a sacramental/theological view and a legal view.
-
If the Church can add something, the Church can remove it later.
Gerard,
True, the Church could remove it, but She hasn't, so it's still required. Ergo, if it's not there (like in the novus ordo), then the consecration is illicit, sinful and invalid.
Secondly, this is a rubric for the latin rite, since we are talking about St Pius V and his latin rite missal. It's irrelevant what other rites allow.
It's required for the 1962 missal and it hasn't been removed from the 1962 missal.
The Novus Ordo was published by Paul VI and like the liturgies of St. Basil and St. James it does not have the "myterium fidei" in its composition.
And as we know Pius XII in Mediator Dei ended the discussion on whether or not a Pope is allowed to introduce new rites or modify old ones.
So, the whole argument that the "mysterium fidei" was removed is false.
So, the argument regarding invalidity is false both from a sacramental/theological view and a legal view.
This article by Jim Condit Jnr may be of some interest to you. However the Omlor link given therein no longer works:
http://realnews247.com/new_mass_falsifies_definition_of_mystery_of_faith.htm
-
Just as with all thing conciliar, they left the words there but moved them to a place where their meaning was entirely different. What was a Catholic idea is now transformed into a generic statement pleasing to the heretics.
This article draws upon many of the Magisterial statements which condemned almost everything about this un-Catholic New Order affair.
-
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Sean-Johnson-Defending-Bishop-Williamson-at-Mahopac-NY
-
In the world of the SSPX, ignorance is the Key to Heaven.
-
Possibly, but this Novus (dis)Ordo bishop is:
"Black Mass IN OKC – Exorcist Kicked Out By New Bishop (https://okietraditionalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/breaking-news-newly-ordained-bishop-of.html)"
-
I received this via e-mail:
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.
-
ABL isn't infallible.
-
ABL isn't infallible.
To many he is. This has always been the root of the problem in SSPX: excessive hero worship of ABL. How many times I have heard at St. Mary's the sheep reminding one another that "one day the Archbishop will be canonized", and "he is the one in the prophecy about a bishop who will restore the Church". Maybe some of that will come to pass, (and I am not against sainthood for ABL,either) but if the resistance is ever going to be effective the followers of ABL will soon have to imitate Aristotle, who was criticized when he separated from his teacher, Plato, and explained why he separated: I love Plato but I love truth more. God bless ABL, but not his errors.
-
From the mailbag:
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.
I saw this post on Catholic Info and immediately emailed my home alone friend who goes to Mass only 12 times a year because she believes that ABL taught that staying home is better than attending the New Mass. My friend's reaction was that this post was a fake. Is there any way I can verify the truth of the claim that ABL did in fact advise the widow that attendance at the New Mass is better than nothing? Thank you.
May Jesus and Mary Bless You,
My response:
You need to re-read the passage:
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.
Where in the passage does it state that it's not better to stay home, rather than attend the Novus Ordo Mass?
All the passage said was, "asking whether she COULD attend the New Mass..." obviously she was inclined to go.
There are plenty of Catholics who stay home rather than attend the Novus Ordo, with the full blessing of (most? all?) SSPX priests and virtually all the SSPX bishops.
Being allowed to do something is not the same as commanding them to do it. That's where your confusion lies.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre rightly said the Novus Ordo Missae leads to heresy, which sadly has been shown to be factual. What's worse is there were are many Conciliar priests who cannot or will not say a valid NOM. An egotistical love of improvisation (permitted to a large degree in the General Instruction) means that not even the Eucharistic Prayer (how Protestant sounding, although one variant in called the Roman Canon and is translation of that) is spared bad comedy. Not evil, but very capable of harm.
-
It always kind of surprises me when the question; "is it ok to attend the NO" comes up, seems +ABL is always referenced - as if whatever he, or anyone says for that matter, can change what the new "mass" is and why it was perpetrated in the first place.
All anyone need do is walk into any trad chapel, stand in the back and watch the Mass for 5 minutes or less, then walk into a NO church and do the same thing, watch that service for 5 minutes - if you can stomach it for that long.
The only thing similar between the two will be that the priest at each mass is wearing some sort of vestments, beyond that, one may just as well attend any prot service as attend a NO service. Seems one should notice this in less than 5 minutes imo.
I like this 1985 snip from Fr. Wathen where he speaks of the "externals" of the Mass, which, as I alluded to above, is something immediately noticeable to everyone and why all one need to do is compare the two to know that the new "mass" is not the Mass at all ......
"In the course of the last years, those who have carried through with the revolution within the Church, have said that they've not been changing the essentials of the Catholic faith. They have said that they have been changing "externals", that the spirit and the doctrines of the Church have been left in tact. Rather, they have simply been changing one Rite or ritual for another. They have been making purely pastoral and cosmetic changes so that the people of this age would be able to relate to them better.
And we now can say, on the basis of their error and our common experience, that the "externals" of the Church are rooted in the Church's history and in the Church's spirit. The "externals" are nothing other than the expression of our faith, so that of you try to remove the "externals", you tear the thing out by the roots. You destroy it, and those of us who know that there is a conspiracy, know that the conspiracy knew this from the start. That is they began to change the "externals", that eventually they would get to the marrow. They knew very well that if began to tamper with the Mass, there would be no standard whereby to judge the mass. ....
....We say that the externals of the Church are a sign of it's integrity and of it's genuineness because these "externals" have grown up from the very days of the Apostles. You begin to change these externals and you render the Church and the faith mute. You kill it. It is impossible to begin to tamper with these things without getting to the very quick...."
-
And I witnessd numerous times that Father had one answer only when queried about attending the Novus Ordo ritual and that was always,
" No you cannot, you must stop going there, then make a good confession and attend only the True Mass of the Church."
That was the most pastoral and Catholic advice one could hear.
-
And I witnessd numerous times that Father had one answer only when queried about attending the Novus Ordo ritual and that was always,
" No you cannot, you must stop going there, then make a good confession and attend only the True Mass of the Church."
That was the most pastoral and Catholic advice one could hear.
Yes, there was no question whatsoever where he stood. He said it was a mortal sin to attend the thing, period.
Whether you liked his answer or not and whether he was right or wrong (I believe he was right) - but either way you were never left wondering or confused or arguing about validity or invalidity or whether or not certain circuмstances permitted attending it.
-
And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.
-
And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.
Which points to the fact that there are few if any hardliners left, only gradations of moderates and softliners within in neo-tradition.
-
And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.
Which points to the fact that there are few if any hardliners left, only gradations of moderates and softliners within in neo-tradition.
Fr. Wathen was just as firm in saying you couldn't go to the Indult Mass. As someone said to me recently, they don't make them like him anymore.
-
And time has proved that his stance, while still rejected by many (because it's "too hard"), is not rejected based on facts, but on emotion.
Which points to the fact that there are few if any hardliners left, only gradations of moderates and softliners within in neo-tradition.
Fr. Wathen was just as firm in saying you couldn't go to the Indult Mass. As someone said to me recently, they don't make them like him anymore.
Absolutely!
-
Yeah, there're a lot of subjective, lukewarm trads out there.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. (Apocalypse 3:16)
We have lost the notion of the Majesty of God, the Honor that is due to Him, the gravity of sin; we are blinded by the effects of subjectivism. No longer do we look at a thing for what it is, but rather we view it in light of what the individual feels, or thinks, or believes.
-
We have lost the notion of the Majesty of God, the Honor that is due to Him, the gravity of sin; we are blinded by the effects of subjectivism. No longer do we look at a thing for what it is, but rather we view it in light of what the individual feels, or thinks, or believes.
Is that not the nub of this whole recent NY Novus Ordo flap and the subsequent defenses and rationalizations of it?
When you peer through the prism of subjectivity, you can no longer discern the true nature of that which is before you.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
He has another sermon I'm looking for from just after V2, about 1972 or 1973 I think, where he is preaching to what seems to be a congregation of people going through the shock of the then, new revolution, in it he relates that a few weeks earlier when he was celebrating the Mass in another city how after his sermon, most of the people walked out after hearing him explain what was happening and the reasons they were at his Mass and not the new mass. If I ever get around to finding it, I'll post it.
Anyway, I like his old sermons as he says the same things I was taught when I was young.
-
Stubborn,
Anyway, I like his old sermons as he says the same things I was taught when I was young.
As was I, good friend.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
He has another sermon I'm looking for from just after V2, about 1972 or 1973 I think, where he is preaching to what seems to be a congregation of people going through the shock of the then, new revolution, in it he relates that a few weeks earlier when he was celebrating the Mass in another city how after his sermon, most of the people walked out after hearing him explain what was happening and the reasons they were at his Mass and not the new mass. If I ever get around to finding it, I'll post it.
Anyway, I like his old sermons as he says the same things I was taught when I was young.
That sermon, short as it may be, says all that is needed and all that must to be said. That kind of resolve and principle is no longer present in the neo-traditional
remnant.
We have lost far more than just the good priests of the past. We have lost the true Catholic spirit of resistance and refusal to abide the revolution.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
Did Fr. Wathen accept passive attendance at weddings, for example?
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
Did Fr. Wathen accept passive attendance at weddings, for example?
No.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
Did Fr. Wathen accept passive attendance at weddings, for example?
For weddings and funerals, we have always chosen to go to the reception/wake/graveside, but purposely avoided going to the Novus Ordo or the Indult. No one has ever been offended.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
Did Fr. Wathen accept passive attendance at weddings, for example?
No passive attendance. No "sitting in the back." No "just read my missal but did not participate." The New Mass is worse than abortion in that it is a sacrilege directly against the Divinity Itself. It masquerades as the True Mass, but isn't the True Mass! A true Catholic person would not attend an abortion, even as just "an onlooker" - though not an actual participant. Just the same and moreso, Fr. said we should not be at the New Mass in ANY respect, for any reason. When later the Indult came in, he said the same about the Indult. Reason being, the "ordinations" of the priests doing the Indult are usually suspect, but also because the Indult is usually said in the churches where the New Mass is said, and the New Mass makes a location of sacrilege out of those churches. Novus Ordo locations are profane locations. Plus, the Indult requires that those arranging for it and attending it are not doing so because of opposition to Vatican II. So, attendance means you support Vatican II, and are at the Indult through curiosity, sentiment, or whatever, not because you are resisting the Council. There is also the matter of mixing the ciboriums and their content between the two masses said there, and all other such problems. But Indult attendance is wrong on its face before even getting that far. We know the Indult is just a trick to lure in Traditionalists and lower opposition to the Modernists. It's a bone thrown just hoping to keep trads happy on the hierarchy's terms. There is only supposed to be ONE Mass! Quo Primum rules. Fr. would say anyone who can't see all this clearly, needs to pray for enlightenment and read their catechism - needs to realize what the Mass is, and that the rules and rubrics "creating" or protecting It are serious and firm indeed! Would that all priests had the charity and mercy to speak as did Fr. Wathen. And he did it because his own salvation depended upon it. No hireling, he.
-
These are canons from the 1917 Code of Canon Law on "Divine Worship". It addresses specifically the case of attending sacred services of non - Catholics. Personally, I think that they can also be applied to the NOM, which should be treated as if it was a Protestant or Schismatic service.
It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part, in the sacred services of non - Catholics.
Merely passive or material presence may be tolerated on account of a civil office, or for the purpose of showing respect to persons, to be approved in doubtful cases by the bishop for grave reasons, at funerals of non-Catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is danger of neither perversion of scandal.
-
Well....no. A Protestant marriage or funeral is still pleasing to God because it adheres to the natural law. However, if 2 Catholics get married by a Protestant minister, or any non-priest, this is an abomination because they are violating their Faith. One could not attend this under any circuмstances.
A NO funeral or marriage, while still adhering to the natural law, is wrong because it is not 100% catholic, and as such, those in attendance are sinning against the 1st commandment and the laws of the church.
A Catholic who divorces and remarries is more guilty than a Protestant or pagan who does the same because the catholic has been given more grace. In the same way, a NO service is way more offensive to God because it is catholics who are sinning, because of the Truth that is being corrupted and of the liturgy that is being violated.
-
Merry,
Would that all priests had the charity and mercy to speak as did Fr. Wathen. And he did it because his own salvation depended upon it. No hireling, he.
Indeed, indeed!... and all else that you said. Bless you!
-
Fr. Wathen was not someone who liked to be seen as a priest -- liked to dress the part -- as would some little boy with a toy altar who liked to play at being priest but without correctly handling the responsibilities required esp. in these times. From the earliest days of this fight he knew both the Communist Conspiracy and Catholic theology, as each applied to the Holy Mass and the attack upon It. He was adamant and assured about the conclusions and applications which applied of necessity to the Eternal Sacrifice and those issues touching It and souls.
Fr. Wathen on the Mass and Fr. Feeney on Extra Ecclesiam. Nay, J. Paul - may God bless them: The twin lights He has given us to make our way safely, with orthodoxy intact, through these current storms of Modernism.
-
Here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12396740/It-Is-A-Mortal-Sin-To-Attend-The-New-Mass-For-Any-Reason-%201989%20.mp3) is a link to a short 8 minute sermon from 1989 where Fr. Wathen bluntly states that it is a mortal sin to attend the new mass for any reason.
Did Fr. Wathen accept passive attendance at weddings, for example?
No.
Interesting. I have passively attended Novus Ordo Masses for weddings and funerals, but I usually leave the church at the Offertory and return after the people receive Holy Communion, and I usually sit at the back of the church.
Archbishop Lefebvre taught that passive attendance for grave reasons is permissible.
-
I know +ABL and other trad priests and lay people said it was OK to attend the NO for "social reasons", and that Canon Law says pretty much the same thing about non-Catholic services, but I do not think +ABL would say the same thing today if he were able to rise from the grave and speak, and I do not think Canon Law would give the OK for the new "mass" at all because of what it is.
Having been raised a trad and only going to the TLM all my life, I've only been to one NO "mass" for "social reasons", it was a NO funeral "mass" for a co-worker that I worked very closely with for about a year. I think he was about 33 years of age and died unexpectedly. That was 1999, and after that blasphemous farce of a mass, I vowed that I would never go to another NO service, not ever again and not for any reason no matter what. God willing I will keep that vow till I die.
-
I've never been to a NO mass but I've seen plenty on tv. I've seen the effeminate priest and deacon try to add solemnity and reverence to a church while people are relaxed and slouching in their chairs. I've seen women sing a melodious solo alongside a piano/guitar (more fit for an opera) in a misguided attempt at 'chant'. I've seen people in their jeans and casual attire walk up for communion, bow their heads and hold out their hands, in a strange attempt at humility. The Novus ordo is truly weird, paradoxical, and contradictory. It is not catholic.
-
As far as I know, N.O. masses do not rape, torture and kill children on their altars; all of which happens at Black Masses. There are levels of offending God.
-
Right you are. And a Novus Ordo is worse than a Black Mass because it purports to be the True Mass, the official act of worship to Almighty God, and is a sin against God directly in His worship and to His Face. The Novus Ordo is worse than a Black Mass. The Novus Ordo is seen so benignly, because the True Mass is not understood or appreciated as it should be. That was why we lost it! At Fatima Our Lady said that Communism is how God is punishing the world for its sins. The Novus Ordo is the work of Communism in the Church.
Why do people love, or protect or defend the Novus Ordo? It is from Satan as much as any Black Mass and moreso. We just see it in too human a way, not in spirit and in truth.