FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Re:Novus Ordo Masses
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
This is something Catholics will never agree on. Myself, I greatly prefer the TLM, and that is always my first choice. Out here in the desert, the TLM chapel is 25 miles, so within range. The only problem is that the priest, a retired fellow, sometrimes is gone caring for a sick sister. Like now. So plan B is go to the NO 1 mile away, and the priest is very reverant and not wishy washy. He gives good sermons and goes out of his way if you need something. So its either that or nothing.

I do wish that the TLM is restored to all churches and outlaw the NO. Until then you can only go to whats offered.
Quote:As I already mentioned Dominus Iesus explained how we are to understand "subsist".  I draw your attention to this paragraph:
Quote:The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

For the record, this also represents my position on where the Church of Christ subsists.


One cannot have it both ways, either the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and everything else is not, or every religion (or non-religion) is salvific.  Dominus Iesus, despite its conservative tone, avoiding any clownish language, is still a modernist document that loudly proclaims that after all, little matters as to creed for all are saved.  To subsistit or not to subsistit?  Your salvation may depend on how you answer.
:titanic:

(04-09-2010, 04:49 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]If I am misunderstanding something, then let me know, but this is why I take issue with this particular reconciliation document.

I think that you are misidentifying the referent of the pronoun "they" in the the phrase “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.   It is not saying that non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities derive efficacy but that elements of  "sanctification and truth” within them derive efficacy.  I understand this paragraph to be taking a position much like yours when you state "Those who attend these churches and ecclesial communities can receive grace through the Catholic Church, yes, but that comes directly from the Catholic Church, not from, through, or by the other churches and ecclesial communities."  I also understand this document as agreeing with Nic's comment that "the Church of Christ subsists ONLY in the Roman Catholic Church."  That is indeed my position.

It is rather amusing to see you describe Dominus Iesus as a "reconciliation document."  There was a major kerfuffle when it was released as just about everybody was offended by it - liberal Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians.  It even seeped into the secular press a bit.  So I don't think it was as ambiguous as all that.  
(04-09-2010, 02:57 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]And I would not call it a "mess". You must read that sede site "traditio"

Traditio is not a "sede" site, according to the site owner, unless one wants to judge him a liar.  Just because "Father Moderator"  reports on the stench doesn't qualify for the title "Sede."  But if something is a mess when you see it, you have no choice but to call it a mess, wouldn't you agree?  The NO is not a Catholic Mass.  In fact calling it a mess is more polite.  Archbishop Lefebvre called it a bastard rite.

I suppose that the Novus Ordites would call the NO "mass" a glorious, enlightened, sublime, highest form of divine worship?  Or is something amiss?
(04-09-2010, 05:49 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2010, 04:49 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]If I am misunderstanding something, then let me know, but this is why I take issue with this particular reconciliation document.

I think that you are misidentifying the referent of the pronoun "they" in the the phrase “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.   It is not saying that non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities derive efficacy but that elements of  "sanctification and truth” within them derive efficacy.  I understand this paragraph to be taking a position much like yours when you state "Those who attend these churches and ecclesial communities can receive grace through the Catholic Church, yes, but that comes directly from the Catholic Church, not from, through, or by the other churches and ecclesial communities."  I also understand this document as agreeing with Nic's comment that "the Church of Christ subsists ONLY in the Roman Catholic Church."  That is indeed my position.

It is rather amusing to see you describe Dominus Iesus as a "reconciliation document."  There was a major kerfuffle when it was released as just about everybody was offended by it - liberal Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians.  It even seeped into the secular press a bit.  So I don't think it was as ambiguous as all that.  

Hummm. Okay, I see what you mean. I re-read it the way you mentioned and I see that it could refer to "sanctification and truth". But let's read it again carefully. I will insert comments to show you how I am reading it:

"With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these [this refers to the last object, which was 'Churches and ecclesial communities'], it needs to be stated that “they [I would think this refers back to 'these', which refers back to 'Churches and ecclesial communities'] derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

If it was talking about the elements of truth and sanctification, wouldn't the document have requalified "elements of truth and sanctification"? It uses the word "they", and the last thing that was mentioned was "these", and the last thing mentioned before that was Churches and ecclesial communities.
Going back to Deborah's initial post....

The NO is not Catholic even when it keeps up with some Catholic appearance.  One can call it the Conciliar church.  True this new 40-year old church occupies Catholic parishes, chanceries etc, but as  St. Anasthasius said, they have the buildings, we have the Faith.  Some of its ministers once ministered in the Catholic Church, but later adopted the Conciliar religion and phased out the Catholic Faith.  As any honest person can attest, the Conciliar religion is not identical with the Catholic religion.  In the NO, one shares with the Presider of the Liturgy a sacred meal (or snack) from a holy table; in the true Church, the validly ordained priests makes the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ present on the Altar in an unbloody manner.  In the one, the Presider blasphemes the words of Our Lord, the other, she is faithful to what she received from her Founder.
So the statement, “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church," is found in quotes. If I remember correctly, this is a direct cite from the Vatican II document itself. If so, then we would need to know to what Lumen Gentium was referring...in context. And if I remember correctly, Lumen Gentium is referring to "elements of truth and sanctification" (or somesuch). If that is true, then you are correct and I am misinterpreting this "reconciliation document" (as I have so eloquently titled it,  ;) ). If that is true, then perhaps I am just as bad as the modernists...  :-[
(04-09-2010, 06:04 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]If it was talking about the elements of truth and sanctification, wouldn't the document have requalified "elements of truth and sanctification"? It uses the word "they", and the last thing that was mentioned was "these", and the last thing mentioned before that was Churches and ecclesial communities.

The way you are understanding it makes sense in terms of following the usual rules of determining pronoun referents. It was perfectly reasonable for you to take it that way. I suspect this was a problem of translation and it is clearer in the Latin but I haven't been able to find a copy to check.  I'm pretty sure my understanding is right because there is a parallel structure between "elements of  sanctification and truth” and "fullness of grace and truth".  See how the contrast shows that the non-Catholics have elements while the Catholic Church has the fullness.
(04-09-2010, 06:11 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]. If that is true, then perhaps I am just as bad as the modernists...  :-[
Any misinterpreting you may have done was a genuine misunderstanding of an unclear sentence and not due to you trying to impose your agenda on the text.  You have not done anything bad at all.
(04-09-2010, 06:23 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2010, 06:11 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]. If that is true, then perhaps I am just as bad as the modernists...  :-[
Any misinterpreting you may have done was a genuine misunderstanding of an unclear sentence and not due to you trying to impose your agenda on the text.  You have not done anything bad at all.

I know, I know. But of course, everyone knows that I am part of an evil agenda: the traditional agenda.  :tinfoilhat:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21