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
(04-10-2010, 02:14 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Me thinks the comments are too focused on see sede-isms when none lay.  There are many non-sede people (like myself) who believe the NO is not Catholic.  This forum is where people like you and I would discuss things -- so I am puzzled as to your comments about imparting views.  I have seen clown messes and boudhists messes (from third parties).  I have been  to masonic messes, costume messes, folk-polka messes, pumpkin-harvest messes, rock messes, disco messes,  charismatic messes (sleeping-on-the-floor messes), theatrical stations of the cross, weird liturgical rosaries, confession only one sin penitential unrites, group absolution, divine mercy messes (even though John XXIII put Faustina on the Index), healing messes, where-you-are-from messes, vestal virgins(?) messes.  All these are not the imparting of views my friend: these are examples and "glorious" fruits of the NO.  Some of these messes where presided by the NO bishop -- so no one can say oh, that is just the renegrade priest of the diocese doing his thing!!!

In one mess presided by the NO bishop, where there was Indian sweet grass, incense, and feathers, the priest was actually opposed to it (and so were most of the Catholic Indians on that reservation).  Father X made many acts of reparation after all the performers had left.  This priest has been under suspension for almost five years now because he dared preach on one particular Sunday about the four last things -- so you tell me, how is this imparting my "sede" views???

The only thing I lean towards, is the Catholic Faith, minus the NO innovations, which are forbidden by Quo Primum (Pius V), Sacramentum Ordinis (of Pius XII), Cantate Domino of the infallible Council of Florence (Eugene IV), and Veterum Sapientia  (John XXIII).  Furthermore I stay away from Faustina's cult because John XXIII put in on the Index, and according to then Card Ratzinger, the Index still maintains its moral force.  If leaning towards the Catholic Faith (of all time, not just the post-1960s version of the non-infallible V2) and that is Pretzel logic, than I stand guilty as charged.

You also bring up the Dimond Bros -- why don't tell the forum what you think about them.  As far as I know, they have some good video productions like on UFOs and Creation, and they also hurl out anathemas at almost everyone else whose not part of Dimond et al.  So question to you:  are they Ok?

IMHO, if a person including cleric believes that the NO is licit, valid, and is the ordinary, preferred rite of the Church (which then must be very pleasing to Our Lord), that person must attend (or say) the NO to the exclusion of all others.  Furthermore, since there is no standard universal NO, but that all NO rites are in-acculturated in varying degrees, if a clown-mess (or one where the consecration is mimed) is approved by the NO bishop, the NO priest should have no problem saying it, and NO faithful are obliged to witness it by attendance.

Then there is the comment: Are you more of an authority than the pope?

If the pope commands what is unlawful, we must obey the higher authority who is none other than Jesus Christ who teaches us through the authority of His Catholic Church.  We know the commandments. If the pope allows fornication as a moral norm, would you not say, that the Commandments and teachings of all his predecessors forbid it?  If a current pope commands you to do something that his predecessor has forever forbidden, would you do it?  Would you?

It is papalotry to assign more authority to the pope than the infallibly defined dogmas of the Church permit.  Pope Saint Pius X once made this humbling remark when he was persuaded to change the Roman Canon of the Mass (btw this has been altered/abolished for NO unrites):  I am only a pope.

This is extracted from the defined dogma on Papal authority.

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."  Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus.

Also, it is worthwhile to read the Oath against Modernism: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

(04-10-2010, 02:14 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

In Nomine Patris, I really think it's better if you stop focusing on the sede speculation. It's going to incite a discussion of sedevacantism and the thread is going to be locked. He already said he is not a sede so I think it is prudent if you stop trying to get to him say something that might discredit him in either your eyes or the eyes of the other forum members. There are some very subjective forum members who see the word "sede" and will refuse to believe anything you say simply because they are not objective enough to understand the position. Not all sedevacantists are as extreme as you seem to think. There are those who believe it is a valid theological opinion (it could happen, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) and hold it as a private, personal opinion, but submit to the authority of the Church and "hold out" to wait for an official declaration from the Church.
(04-10-2010, 10:54 AM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]  I have seen clown messes and boudhists messes (from third parties).  I have been  to masonic messes, costume messes, folk-polka messes, pumpkin-harvest messes, rock messes, disco messes,  charismatic messes (sleeping-on-the-floor messes), theatrical stations of the cross, weird liturgical rosaries, confession only one sin penitential unrites, group absolution, divine mercy messes (even though John XXIII put Faustina on the Index), healing messes, where-you-are-from messes, vestal virgins(?) messes.  All these are not the imparting of views my friend: these are examples and "glorious" fruits of the NO.  Some of these messes where presided by the NO bishop -- so no one can say oh, that is just the renegrade priest of the diocese doing his thing!!!

There are two separate issues that you keep on combining.  There is the NO in itself and the NO with abuses.  Let me try an analogy to explain how I understand these.  Imagine that I have a favourite symphony that  I  like to listen to on the radio.  Unfortunately, what usually gets played on the radio is a new arrangement that is not as good as the original, but I still like it.  Some of the stations have a lot of static.  Sometimes the static is so bad that it ruins the symphony and it isn't even worth listening to.  Of course, what I like best is listening to the original arrangement but that is not always possible.  Since I love this symphony so much I will listen to the new arrangement when I can't find the other.

Your argument is like saying that the new arrangement is a totally different piece of music than the original and trying to prove it by describing all the static that exists on many of the stations.  There actually are problems with the new arrangement but talking about the static does not address these problems.  And it would be silly to tell people that they should not look for a station that doesn't have static because the symphony is exactly the same whether or not it has static.  Of course, the static makes a difference.  It is really annoying.

To establish whether the new arrangement is so drastically changed from the original that it is different piece altogether, you need to discuss the music as written.  If you want to claim that  the NO is not a real Mass, you need to talk about the NO "as written"  not go on and on about various abuses.
(04-10-2010, 11:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Not all sedevacantists are as extreme as you seem to think. There are those who believe it is a valid theological opinion (it could happen, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) and hold it as a private, personal opinion, but submit to the authority of the Church and "hold out" to wait for an official declaration from the Church.

What is a good example of one of these? I guess you would label Bishop McKenna one of these, or am I off base?? I still have a hard time understanding the whole Sedev./ Sedep. issue.
(04-10-2010, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]There are two separate issues that you keep on combining.  There is the NO in itself and the NO with abuses.  Let me try an analogy to explain how I understand these.   Imagine that I have a favourite symphony that  I  like to listen to on the radio.  Unfortunately, what usually gets played on the radio is a new arrangement that is not as good as the original, but I still like it.  Some of the stations have a lot of static.  Sometimes the static is so bad that it ruins the symphony and it isn't even worth listening to.  Of course, what I like best is listening to the original arrangement but that is not always possible.  Since I love this symphony so much I will listen to the new arrangement when I can't find the other.

Yes, I agree with you JayneK, some NO have abuses and some NO don't but the fact is, the Order itself is still the New Order.

(04-10-2010, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Your argument is like saying that the new arrangement is a totally different piece of music than the original and trying to prove it by describing all the static that exists on many of the stations.  There actually are problems with the new arrangement but talking about the static does not address these problems.  And it would be silly to tell people that they should not look for a station that doesn't have static because the symphony is exactly the same whether or not it has static.  Of course, the static makes a difference.  It is really annoying.

To establish whether the new arrangement is so drastically changed from the original that it is different piece altogether, you need to discuss the music as written.  If you want to claim that  the NO is not a real Mass, you need to talk about the NO "as written"  not go on and on about various abuses.

JayneK, you seem to believe that the New Order of the Mass is the Revised Order of the Mass.
It is a New, not changed, revised, or altered -  it is, as the name says, New. It is completely different.

The NO *replaced* The Holy Sacrifice. 
 
(04-10-2010, 01:14 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]JayneK, you seem to believe that the New Order of the Mass is the Revised Order of the Mass.
It is a New, not changed, revised, or altered -  it is, as the name says, New. It is completely different.

The NO *replaced* The Holy Sacrifice. 
 

I do not see is a completely different.  It is a new *order*.  It has the same basic contents but has changed their arrangement.  All the truths about the Eucharist are there but not presented as well as in the TLM.  It seems to me that the emphasis has been changed so that it is no longer as clear that it is the Holy Sacrifice.  It still mentions the Sacrifice but it doesn't convey the importance and centrality anywhere near as well as the TLM.  It is not as good at conveying a sense of mystery and sacredness as the TLM either.

I was at a retreat this past Lent at which we attended a completely abuse-free NO Mass.  No laity performing priests' roles.  Communion received on the tongue and kneeling.  Ad orientem. Ordinary prayers in Latin.  No altar girls.  The music was beautiful classic Latin hymns.  It was an opportunity to see the NO at its very best.  While it still wasn't as good as the TLM, it was obvious that it was related to it, especially since the homily was about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.   

It was an excellent homily on the subject.  I had just been reading about this in the Baltimore Catechism with my children so I really noticed how completely and clearly it explained the Church's doctrine.  I also noticed that the Mass itself hadn't been as clear as the homily.  The Mass needed that further explanation.  Even so, it was a beautiful and uplifting experience.

The NO Mass was meant to be a simplified and more accessible version of the Mass.  A teacher friend describes it as a "dumbing down" just like like we've seen in the education system.  I think this is an excellent comparison.  The attempts to make school subjects easier have had very similar negative consequences to trying to make Mass "easier".  But dumbed down math is still math.  Dumbed down science is still science.  Dumbing down doesn't change what subject is being taught; it just means it isn't being done as well.  Similarly, dumbing down does not stop the Mass from being Mass.  It just isn't as good.
(04-10-2010, 11:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2010, 02:14 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

In Nomine Patris, I really think it's better if you stop focusing on the sede speculation. It's going to incite a discussion of sedevacantism and the thread is going to be locked. He already said he is not a sede so I think it is prudent if you stop trying to get to him say something that might discredit him in either your eyes or the eyes of the other forum members. There are some very subjective forum members who see the word "sede" and will refuse to believe anything you say simply because they are not objective enough to understand the position. Not all sedevacantists are as extreme as you seem to think. There are those who believe it is a valid theological opinion (it could happen, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) and hold it as a private, personal opinion, but submit to the authority of the Church and "hold out" to wait for an official declaration from the Church.



I see Jayne K already answered and said much the same as I would have but this:
You say you are not a sede, good, I believe you, its just that much of what you wrote seemed to lean that way.
And there is 1 Catholic Church, regardless of what you think, that does not change.
Currently the church offers 2 rites, I wish it were only the TLM, but nevertheless there are 2 rites. I know the TLM has many more graces, however if its the NO or nothing, its the NO. They still have the real presence, and I recieve on the tongue only, from the priest only, when I have to go, which is now b/c the trad priest is currently absent. This happens occassionaly.The NO priest is a 40 something Filipino priest, and he is a good priest, and gives some of the better sermons I have heard. He does not rationalize sin, tells you to choose between the sin and God, its your choice,and has said to me that yes the Catholic religion is the only true faith. As for others being saved, thats up to God, not me or you.You can cite abuses like the Indian thing, thats not the point. I'm sure most here could cite abuses. I have seen them too. Just stay and be a good example. Your position is like saying throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because a priest knows the NO is valid, does not automatically mean he should rush to say it. One of our priests (trad) told me yes, its valid, not licit. But he will never say it.

The trad pastor said in a sermon the Dimond (dim mind) bros are sedes, not ordained religious, and if they send you something, throw it out. My position also. They did send me a few things. It made good kindling for the wood burning stove.
(04-10-2010, 11:42 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2010, 11:08 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Not all sedevacantists are as extreme as you seem to think. There are those who believe it is a valid theological opinion (it could happen, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia) and hold it as a private, personal opinion, but submit to the authority of the Church and "hold out" to wait for an official declaration from the Church.

What is a good example of one of these? I guess you would label Bishop McKenna one of these, or am I off base?? I still have a hard time understanding the whole Sedev./ Sedep. issue.

If I provide the information here, it could be construed that I am promoting it (or whatever is contained in the links) so I will send you a PM.
(04-10-2010, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2010, 10:54 AM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]  I have seen clown messes and boudhists messes (from third parties).  I have been  to masonic messes, costume messes, folk-polka messes, pumpkin-harvest messes, rock messes, disco messes,  charismatic messes (sleeping-on-the-floor messes), theatrical stations of the cross, weird liturgical rosaries, confession only one sin penitential unrites, group absolution, divine mercy messes (even though John XXIII put Faustina on the Index), healing messes, where-you-are-from messes, vestal virgins(?) messes.  All these are not the imparting of views my friend: these are examples and "glorious" fruits of the NO.  Some of these messes where presided by the NO bishop -- so no one can say oh, that is just the renegrade priest of the diocese doing his thing!!!

There are two separate issues that you keep on combining.  There is the NO in itself and the NO with abuses.  Let me try an analogy to explain how I understand these.   Imagine that I have a favourite symphony that  I  like to listen to on the radio.  Unfortunately, what usually gets played on the radio is a new arrangement that is not as good as the original, but I still like it.  Some of the stations have a lot of static.  Sometimes the static is so bad that it ruins the symphony and it isn't even worth listening to.  Of course, what I like best is listening to the original arrangement but that is not always possible.  Since I love this symphony so much I will listen to the new arrangement when I can't find the other.

Your argument is like saying that the new arrangement is a totally different piece of music than the original and trying to prove it by describing all the static that exists on many of the stations.  There actually are problems with the new arrangement but talking about the static does not address these problems.  And it would be silly to tell people that they should not look for a station that doesn't have static because the symphony is exactly the same whether or not it has static.  Of course, the static makes a difference.  It is really annoying.

To establish whether the new arrangement is so drastically changed from the original that it is different piece altogether, you need to discuss the music as written.  If you want to claim that  the NO is not a real Mass, you need to talk about the NO "as written"  not go on and on about various abuses.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the N.O., in itself, is an abuse.  This is due to the fact that ALL N.O. Masses have stripped important essentials from the Mass - the prayers that protected the holiness of the Mass and the intentions of the priest.  The N.O. has removed much of the Mass that was "offensive" to Protestants.  This is openly admitted by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the suspected Freemason who was a major architect of the New Mass -- “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Prostestants.”

And again, MOST Trads claim that the N.O. Mass is indeed valid (most of the time, but not all of the time), but that it is the SACRILEGE that is the concern.  The stripping away of essential elements of the Mass represents a huge sacrilege.  Also, the VAST majority of N.O. Masses alow countless other abuses, from EEMs to women speaking in Church to altar girls - it is everyday in the Novus Ordo.

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent." Pope St. Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: "Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching ... Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed." How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy."

When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive." Here are some examples:

1.  Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar." The New Mass begins instead with a "Penitential Rite" which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.

2.  The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. "That abomination called the Offertory," said Luther, "and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!" In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called "The Preparation of the Gifts." The prayers "offensive" to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation," based on a Jewish grace before meals.

3.  The "Eucharistic Prayer": The traditional Mass has only one "Eucharistic Prayer," the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of "Eucharistic Prayers," only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an "edited" version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further "editing." Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an "Institution Narrative," instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) Even Christ’s own words in the Consecration were altered: ". . . Which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins" was changed to ". . . It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." (Rome acknowledged this "mistranslation" recently.) The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated.

4.  Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church's practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of "a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration." The practice in Protestant churches of "communion in the hand" is thus based upon their rejection of Christ's Real Presence and the priesthood. At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand – he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment's notice. Let us recall St. Thomas Aquinas' (1225-1274)* words on this subject: "The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity" (III, 82 a.3). (*St. Thomas Aquinas was given the title "Angelic Doctor". His canonization decree states, "His doctrine was none other than miraculous. He has enlightened the Church more than all other Doctors")

5.  Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church's veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as "superstition." The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints' feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.

6.  False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 "Sundays in Ordinary Time." The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God's wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which "burden our consciences," God's majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven – many more could be listed. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word "grace." It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English "translation"!

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the Faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

Also, JayneK, you never adequetely answered my question?  If you openly admit that the TLM is superior to the N.O., and that the N.O. is inferior to the TLM, then why do you attend the N.O. when God demands the very best of us?  You can give all the excuses in the world, but if you are within adequate distance of a TLM, and you are fully aware of the superiority of the TLM, you are obliged to abandon the N.O. and attend the TLM exclusively -- unless you bend to the opportunism and ease of attending an inferior rite when you know very well that there is a superior form out there.

(04-10-2010, 11:41 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-10-2010, 10:54 AM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]  I have seen clown messes and boudhists messes (from third parties).  I have been  to masonic messes, costume messes, folk-polka messes, pumpkin-harvest messes, rock messes, disco messes,  charismatic messes (sleeping-on-the-floor messes), theatrical stations of the cross, weird liturgical rosaries, confession only one sin penitential unrites, group absolution, divine mercy messes (even though John XXIII put Faustina on the Index), healing messes, where-you-are-from messes, vestal virgins(?) messes.  All these are not the imparting of views my friend: these are examples and "glorious" fruits of the NO.  Some of these messes where presided by the NO bishop -- so no one can say oh, that is just the renegrade priest of the diocese doing his thing!!!

There are two separate issues that you keep on combining.  There is the NO in itself and the NO with abuses.  Let me try an analogy to explain how I understand these.   Imagine that I have a favourite symphony that  I  like to listen to on the radio.  Unfortunately, what usually gets played on the radio is a new arrangement that is not as good as the original, but I still like it.  Some of the stations have a lot of static.  Sometimes the static is so bad that it ruins the symphony and it isn't even worth listening to.  Of course, what I like best is listening to the original arrangement but that is not always possible.  Since I love this symphony so much I will listen to the new arrangement when I can't find the other.

Your argument is like saying that the new arrangement is a totally different piece of music than the original and trying to prove it by describing all the static that exists on many of the stations.  There actually are problems with the new arrangement but talking about the static does not address these problems.  And it would be silly to tell people that they should not look for a station that doesn't have static because the symphony is exactly the same whether or not it has static.  Of course, the static makes a difference.  It is really annoying.

To establish whether the new arrangement is so drastically changed from the original that it is different piece altogether, you need to discuss the music as written.  If you want to claim that  the NO is not a real Mass, you need to talk about the NO "as written"  not go on and on about various abuses.

Hello Jayne

Thanks for you reply.

Council of Trent, Session 22, Canons of the Sacrifice of the Mass, promulgated by Pope Pius IV in 1562:
Canon 7: "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 stimulants to piety, let him be anathema."

Superficial, Maybe
It is possible (at a glance and on a superficial level) to say that on one hand there is the God-pleasing NO mass and on the other, there are NO abuse messes.  This is the view I had for many years and this kept me attached to the Conciliar religion and I was actually very annoyed that Catholics (of all time) would even question the NO and its new orientation on all things from the inversion of the end of matrimony, annulments, priest-as-a-presider  vs a sacrificing priesthood, religious liberty vs religious tolerance, universal salvation vs redemption of the many, mass as a Eucharistic meal vs the real Sacrifice of Calvary re-presented in an unbloody manner, the presence of Christ in all believers of the congregation vs the Real Presence in the consecrated species etc.

Overtime, after much study (I did not have youtube, google or what not) from books including the Catechism of Trent etc (most titles are available from TAN Books) and God's graces, the conclusion I drew was that the NO itself embodies a new religion quite alien to what was believed and practiced just barely a few decades ago.  What I saw and heard in virtually every parish across several countries was different, sometimes extremely different from the experience and practices of the Saints and learnt persons of even the proximate past.

Demolish Catholic Bastions (See Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic theology)
While all sacraments have been recovated (using trad parlance), focusing on the Mass alone, I drew two inescapable conclusions:  one that the Novus Ordo typical (so-called conservative NO) was stripped of anything essentially or distinctly Catholic and that by virtue of lex orandi, lex credendi, the faithful were being led to a new religion like the proverbial frog in hot water.  Archbishop Annibale Bugnini (see TANBOOKS commentary), who along with six protestant ministers (Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian), fabricated the Novus Ordo Missae ("NOM") using a Dom Botte's discredited reconstruction of the so-called Canon of Hippolytus, to make the Mass more Protestant (mess). 

All reference to the Real Presence, even ones indirect have been stripped from all prayers of the NOM.   All notions of propitiation and sacrifice has been expunged from the NOM.  Anything in the NOM that might even hint at a sacrificing priesthood has been eliminated.  Even the very words of consecration are said in the narrative sense like the telling of a story, as everything that will form of the celebrant's external intentions have been eliminated.  In English messes, the words of consecration narrated by the celebrant contain blasphemy (see pro multis).

Archbishop Bugnini stated: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants."  (L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965).  In 1974, prior to his dismissal by Paul VI, he called his liturgical revolution already unleashed on the unsuspecting Catholic world,  to be a "major conquest of the Catholic Church."  Is the NOM Catholic?  It is chief creator does not think so!  The aim of the NOM is ecumenism (in the modernist sense) to make the Mass of All Time less objectionable to Protestants, to bring it in line with Luther's Last Supper.  Under JP2, this was taken one step further using Nostra Aetate to bring ecumenism to non-Protestants, ie. Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Voodooism etc. The practical application of this expanded ecumenism was the interfaith prayer (sic) meetings of Assisi I and II.  This was not the action of some dissident renegade liberal priest in some liberal diocese, this was Peter apparently mixing Christ with the gods of Voodoo.  Pope Pius X must have been spinning in his grave.

After a while most Catholic practices and real belief in the Creed was dropped into some memory hole called the Spirit of V2 or V2 itself.   The only things distinctly Catholic that were retained was those few things which might pose no thread to the Conciliar creed.  (The Knights of Columbus recently sponsor a poll on the millennium generation and found that 4/5 self-identified "catholics" believed in some loose spirituality while assigning no importance whatsoever to Catholic dogma and morals.)

When one compares Bugnini's NOM with Cramers' (and Luther's) Last Supper, they are almost identical, except that ironically, Luther's service may seem more Catholic!!! Imagine that.

The second conclusion was that the so-called abuses cannot in any way be construed as abuses, for according to Conciliar thinking, these are legitimate expressions of the faith community.   Inculturation and integration (adaptation) are mandated by Vatican 2, which when it was implemented, had to bring out the NO of all the sacraments including the Mass.  One particular NO cleric who participated in the Lutheran liturgical consultations discussed inculturation and integration as follows:
Anscar J. Chupungco, OSB  [url=http://www.valpo.edu/ils/assets/pdfs/chupungco1.pdf Wrote:INCULTURATION OF WORSHIP: Forty Years of Progress and Tradition[/url]]Integration means that human values, cultural patterns, and institutions form with Christian worship a unified whole, so that they are able to influence the way prayer formularies are composed and proclaimed, ritual actions are performed, and the message expressed in art forms. Integration also means that local festivals, after due critique and Christian reinterpretation, become part of the liturgical worship of the local assembly. The immediate aim of inculturation is to create a form of worship that is culturally suited to the local assembly, which should be able to claim it as its very own. The ultimate aim of inculturation, on the other hand, is active and intelligent participation of all in the congregation. Inculturation properly understood and rightly executed will lead the assembly to a profound appreciation of Christ's mystery made present in the liturgy through the dynamism of cultural signs and symbols. Inculturation, in other words, aims to deepen the spiritual life of the assembly through a fuller experience of Christ who is revealed in the people's language, rites, arts, and symbols.

A lot of the so-called liturgical "abuses" where actually showcased not by rebel priests in a dungeon somewhere, but by none other than JP2 during his mega-world-tour liturgical services.

The avowed aim of all things Novus Ordo, is strip out anything distinctively Catholic to bring all worship in like with Protestant thinking:  Chupungco put this in all clarity:
It took twelve centuries for the Roman Catholic Church to recover the noble simplicity of its worship. It would not have taken this long, had Rome heeded in the sixteenth century Martin Luther’s call for liturgical reform.

Jayne, the NO is not Catholic.  If you are Catholic, you ought have no business with NOM and its sakraments.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21