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
(04-09-2010, 05:40 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]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:

You can check out the multiple threads in the subforum on EENS so as not to hijack these thread even more than I already have  :-[ . Even Archbishop Lefebrve taught that non-Catholics could be saved, not be virtue of their false religion, but due to their relationship to the one Church. This just explains in more detail how that grace would be communicated in such a case.
(04-09-2010, 05:40 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]
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:



I NEVER advocated that any other reiigion is acceptable. I said if all thats offered is the NO, then thats better than not going. You already pointed out you could be leaning toward being a sede; I see where you are coming from. I already has this talk with a very holy trad priest, the NO is valid, noy licit.
(04-09-2010, 05:53 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?




I have heard much to the contrary re Traditio. And you are the one who will answer to God for calling it a mess, not me. If its not Catholic, explain how there have been 3, that I know about so far, Eucharistic Miracles, with the sacred Host bled. At a NO *mess*.

How about the Dimond bros? Are they also enlightened?
(04-09-2010, 06:45 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2010, 05:40 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]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:

You can check out the multiple threads in the subforum on EENS so as not to hijack these thread even more than I already have  :-[ . Even Archbishop Lefebrve taught that non-Catholics could be saved, not be virtue of their false religion, but due to their relationship to the one Church. This just explains in more detail how that grace would be communicated in such a case.

No intention here of hijacking the EENS thread.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not teach universal salvation nor any religion as good as the other nor that the Church of Christ may subsist elsewhere.  The notions of partial communion or universal salvation are encapsulated in the NO Mess and its many liturgies.  Hence the fabricated NO is unCatholic.
Quote:I NEVER advocated that any other reiigion is acceptable. I said if all thats offered is the NO, then thats better than not going. You already pointed out you could be leaning toward being a sede; I see where you are coming from. I already has this talk with a very holy trad priest, the NO is valid, noy licit.

Most Novus Ordites believe all religions are salvific, as we all going the same direction!!  As they pray (NO mess), so they also believe.

Please read carefully: Sedevacantism is a real possibility as it happens between the death of one pope and the reign of an other.  Also, when anti-popes purport to occupy the Chair.  The Sedevacantists of "today" have very good "plausible" reasons, but it remains a matter of private judgment.  In other words, one could suspect that so-and-so may not be so-and-so etc.  But all this does not change the fact that the NO is unCatholic and unHoly. 

If a holy trad priest believes the NO is valid, then he should stop saying the TLM as virtually all the world's bishops approve the NO Mess, and forbid the Catholic Mass.  Furthermore this trad priest (with all respect that is due to him) ought to read Quo Primum and then figure what part of Pope St. Pius V Apostolic Constitution, does not apply to him.
Well I can certainly  see that this debate is going nowhere real fast!! :deadhorse:
(04-09-2010, 11:25 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I NEVER advocated that any other reiigion is acceptable. I said if all thats offered is the NO, then thats better than not going. You already pointed out you could be leaning toward being a sede; I see where you are coming from. I already has this talk with a very holy trad priest, the NO is valid, noy licit.

Most Novus Ordites believe all religions are salvific, as we all going the same direction!!  As they pray (NO mess), so they also believe.

Please read carefully: Sedevacantism is a real possibility as it happens between the death of one pope and the reign of an other.  Also, when anti-popes purport to occupy the Chair.  The Sedevacantists of "today" have very good "plausible" reasons, but it remains a matter of private judgment.  In other words, one could suspect that so-and-so may not be so-and-so etc.  But all this does not change the fact that the NO is unCatholic and unHoly. 

If a holy trad priest believes the NO is valid, then he should stop saying the TLM as virtually all the world's bishops approve the NO Mess, and forbid the Catholic Mass.  Furthermore this trad priest (with all respect that is due to him) ought to read Quo Primum and then figure what part of Pope St. Pius V Apostolic Constitution, does not apply to him.



I do think you lean toward sede. What about the Dimond bros? They OK?
The NO is not uncatholic, its illicit. As for unholy, they vary. Some are very reverant.
The holy trad priest is fully aware of Quo Primum, he is the one who confirmed that the NO was valid but illicit. He only says the TLM
Because he knows its valid but does not say it, how do you equate that to your foolish comment that he should then say the NO?
Being valid does not mean he must abandon the TLM. Pretzel logic.
This priest has been written up in Catholic Family News and writes articles, on occassion,  for Tradition in Action. I dare say he is well versed in his comments.
Because you lean toward sede does not mean you can impart your views on me or others and say we, I, am uncatholic because I do not accept them.
Are you more of an authority than the pope?  And if I were you, I would not refer to the mass as a mess.
(04-09-2010, 11:25 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I NEVER advocated that any other reiigion is acceptable. I said if all thats offered is the NO, then thats better than not going. You already pointed out you could be leaning toward being a sede; I see where you are coming from. I already has this talk with a very holy trad priest, the NO is valid, noy licit.

Most Novus Ordites believe all religions are salvific, as we all going the same direction!!  As they pray (NO mess), so they also believe.

Please read carefully: Sedevacantism is a real possibility as it happens between the death of one pope and the reign of an other.  Also, when anti-popes purport to occupy the Chair.  The Sedevacantists of "today" have very good "plausible" reasons, but it remains a matter of private judgment.  In other words, one could suspect that so-and-so may not be so-and-so etc.  But all this does not change the fact that the NO is unCatholic and unHoly. 

If a holy trad priest believes the NO is valid, then he should stop saying the TLM as virtually all the world's bishops approve the NO Mess, and forbid the Catholic Mass.  Furthermore this trad priest (with all respect that is due to him) ought to read Quo Primum and then figure what part of Pope St. Pius V Apostolic Constitution, does not apply to him.


Unfortunately, today's horrible situation in the Church has spurred on sedevacantism - and I too sympathize with them - BUT, they are ignoring the Vatican I declaration that Peter will have perpetual successors.  Regardless, the rules of this board forbid such discussion, it can be seen clearly that sedes make themselves mightier than the Pope, for no one has the right to judge him - only a future pope.  Here is a good link that shows a very intersting conversation between John Salza and a sede: 

http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/70397...authority/
(04-10-2010, 01:06 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]Well I can certainly  see that this debate is going nowhere real fast!! :deadhorse:

That's because it ended on page 1 when I posted.
(04-10-2010, 06:54 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2010, 01:06 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]Well I can certainly  see that this debate is going nowhere real fast!! :deadhorse:

That's because it ended on page 1 when I posted.

If the discussion ended every time you posted something wrong, there wouldn't be any discussions here at all.
:fish:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21