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
(04-07-2010, 05:12 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I also will never truly understand that quote from the Pope.  He indeed called it a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Then why in the world doesn't he do something about it!?  Why doesn't he totally nullify this "banal production" and return the Church fully to her true universal form of worship?  This boggles my mind...
Does anyone have a reference to where and when the Holy Father said this?





I found this on a blog, lost the link but I'll look for it.

Edited: here it is!  :) :laughing: Isn't that so cute?

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/20...-mass.html

[Image: papabens.jpg]

Thank you.  :)
(04-11-2010, 08:25 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.

Only people who are ignorant of Church teaching claim that everything a pope says and does is infallible.  It is very clear with even minimal investigation that papal infallibility only occurs under specific and rare conditions.  The more common misunderstanding, in my experience, is among those who think that Catholics only need to pay attention to the Pope when he is teaching infallibly.  Almost every liberal and cafeteria Catholic takes this position.  This is how the justify their support of abortion, birth control, women's ordination, etc.

When the Pope teaches infallibly we know with complete certainty he is correct.  The rest of time we only presume he is correct.  He is the leader of the Church and we follow him.  If you study the lives of the saints you will see that a common characteristic is love of the Pope.  Enemies of the Church very often demonstrate hatred of the Pope (as we see in the current attacks in the media).

Anyhow, I want to let you know that this thread has convinced me to change my profile.  I decided that I need a signature that proclaims my loyalty to the Pope.  I want a statement of loyalty to appear with my every post so it will be very clear where I stand.  My appreciation of the TLM does not lead me to rejection of the Pope's authority.  While I recognize flaws in the NO Mass, as well as its widespread abuses, I accept the authority of the Holy Father. 
(04-12-2010, 08:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2010, 08:25 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.

Only people who are ignorant of Church teaching claim that everything a pope says and does is infallible.  It is very clear with even minimal investigation that papal infallibility only occurs under specific and rare conditions.  The more common misunderstanding, in my experience, is among those who think that Catholics only need to pay attention to the Pope when he is teaching infallibly.  Almost every liberal and cafeteria Catholic takes this position.  This is how the justify their support of abortion, birth control, women's ordination, etc.

When the Pope teaches infallibly we know with complete certainty he is correct.  The rest of time we only presume he is correct.  He is the leader of the Church and we follow him.  If you study the lives of the saints you will see that a common characteristic is love of the Pope.  Enemies of the Church very often demonstrate hatred of the Pope (as we see in the current attacks in the media).

Anyhow, I want to let you know that this thread has convinced me to change my profile.  I decided that I need a signature that proclaims my loyalty to the Pope.  I want a statement of loyalty to appear with my every post so it will be very clear where I stand.  My appreciation of the TLM does not lead me to rejection of the Pope's authority.  While I recognize flaws in the NO Mass, as well as its widespread abuses, I accept the authority of the Holy Father. 

I accept the authority of the Holy Father as well, and if you are trying to imply that I don't, then shame on you.  In the pre-conciliar Church, we COULD listen to almost every word of the Pope and be assured of orthodoxy.  Today, with the arrival of the new evangelization and the "spirit of Vatican II," we most definately CANNOT be assured of that.  Also, what you stated is not really what liberal and "cafeteria" Catholics do.  We do have another infallible authority, you know?  It is called Scripture and Tradition, which both condemn abortion, birth control and woman's ordination.  The simple fact is that a true Catholic will stand with the perpetual papacy while a neo-Cath will stand with only the post-conciliar papacy.  True Traditional Catholics support the Pope more so than anyone else, but we are within our rights to resist ANYBODY who says or teaches someting contrary to revealed Truth, whether it be priest or Pope.

But by defending disobedience to modern church officials in some case, are we not encouraging anarchy and disorder in the church? NO ! It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying sacred traditions.

CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH.

So it was in St. Peter's Day -
Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galations 2:14

So it was in St. Bellarmine's Day -
When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.
St. Robert Bellarmine

So it must still be today -

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances. - Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devasted Vineyard (chicago 1973), pp 3-5

Obedience to manifest error is sinful and the obligations to obey ceases once you are commanded to do some evil. Helping to destroy the Church in the name of "obedience" is also sinful. Blind obedience is not, and has never been Catholic (this is because true obedience can never conflicts with the will of God, namely that it can't contradict the Church's constant teaching).

The history of the Church gives us several examples of saints who, in order to remain faithful, have resisted the Church authorities (and were even excommunicated ) who were wrong. Thus St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you." (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).

We learn that St. Athanasius had to "disobey" Pope Liberius. But such apparent his "disobedience" was not real disobedience, but rather true obedience to the Church and it's constant teaching.

In Summa Theologica, Q.33 Art 4, St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that we are bound to correct even his superior saying "if the faith is endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: "Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects".

We become obedient to the Church and her officials only when we become obedient to the constant teaching of the Church as taught by the Magisterium throughout the ages. If what is taught by an appointed servant of God (bishop, priest or Pope) is contrary to Catholic teaching then they are NOT to be obeyed but even publicly rebuked (Titus 1:10) as they no longer speak on behalf of the Church but become representatives of their own novelty.

By acting in this way, do Traditional Catholics who reject blind obedience place themselves outside the Church? The answer is NO, positively NO. Traditional Catholics are one of the most precious parts of the faithful. We are following the divine example of Our Lord, Who obedient to the synagogue authorities in everything that was possible, nonetheless did not fear to disagree with them in discussions and deny them obedience in all that opposed true doctrine. This attitude does not imply either placing oneself outside the Church or of standing in judgment of the Pope.


Again you state that you recognize flaws in the N.O. Mass, but you still demand attendance to an inferior form of worship.  I do not see how this can be reconciled in any way but repentance and exclusive attendance of the superior rite - the true Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.  I will pray for you, JayneK, that your eyes may be opened.  God Bless.
(04-12-2010, 08:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-11-2010, 08:25 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Things like this are not exposed because neo-Caths, although normally claiming that everything a pope says and does is infallible, cannot obviously reconcile things like this with any fraction of truth or righteousness, which they do other things concerning the "spirit of Vatican II" and the "New Evangelization."  Things like this will be hidden from mainstream Catholics to shelter them, so that they can continue in their false belief that every word uttered and every action taken by the pope is praiseworthy and infallible.

Only people who are ignorant of Church teaching claim that everything a pope says and does is infallible.  It is very clear with even minimal investigation that papal infallibility only occurs under specific and rare conditions.  The more common misunderstanding, in my experience, is among those who think that Catholics only need to pay attention to the Pope when he is teaching infallibly.  Almost every liberal and cafeteria Catholic takes this position.  This is how the justify their support of abortion, birth control, women's ordination, etc.

When the Pope teaches infallibly we know with complete certainty he is correct.  The rest of time we only presume he is correct.  He is the leader of the Church and we follow him.  If you study the lives of the saints you will see that a common characteristic is love of the Pope.  Enemies of the Church very often demonstrate hatred of the Pope (as we see in the current attacks in the media).

Anyhow, I want to let you know that this thread has convinced me to change my profile.  I decided that I need a signature that proclaims my loyalty to the Pope.  I want a statement of loyalty to appear with my every post so it will be very clear where I stand.  My appreciation of the TLM does not lead me to rejection of the Pope's authority.  While I recognize flaws in the NO Mass, as well as its widespread abuses, I accept the authority of the Holy Father. 




Amen sister. The authority of the pope is foremost. Thank you. I agree.
(04-12-2010, 09:23 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]Amen sister. The authority of the pope is foremost. Thank you. I agree.

There isn't a true Catholic who will disagree with that obvious statement, but his infallibility is only exercised in very specific ways, and we are duty bound to resist ANY prelate who speaks contrary to truth.
(04-12-2010, 09:22 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]True Traditional Catholics support the Pope more so than anyone else, but we are within our rights to resist ANYBODY who says or teaches someting contrary to revealed Truth, whether it be priest or Pope.

I agree on most of what you previously wrote, but when you say "True Traditional Catholics" I hope you are referring to the  official positions of the SSPX, the FSSP, the ICR and NOT the SSPV... From my research and personal experiences, the clergy of the SSPV do not pray for the Pope, even though they may or may not believe he is true Pope.  Perhaps I'm just having a hard time when you say "support the Pope more so then anyone else, but then you say "teaches something contrary to revealed Truth,"...Those phrases seem contradictory in my eyes.
(04-12-2010, 10:45 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2010, 09:22 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]True Traditional Catholics support the Pope more so than anyone else, but we are within our rights to resist ANYBODY who says or teaches someting contrary to revealed Truth, whether it be priest or Pope.

I agree on most of what you previously wrote, but when you say "True Traditional Catholics" I hope you are referring to the  official positions of the SSPX, the FSSP, the ICR and NOT the SSPV... From my research and personal experiences, the clergy of the SSPV do not pray for the Pope, even though they may or may not believe he is true Pope.  Perhaps I'm just having a hard time when you say "support the Pope more so then anyone else, but then you say "teaches something contrary to revealed Truth,"...Those phrases seem contradictory in my eyes.

SSPV, CRMI etc may or may not name so-and-so as occuping the Chair, but it is clear from their statements etc. that they have nothing against Papal authority viz the infallible teachings of Vatican I.    FSSP, ICR etc are moreorless Novus Ordo with smells, bells, and latin.  The FSSP supported JP2's apostacy against the 1st Commandment and they had no problem with JP2 praying together with all non-Catholic sects, mix God with gods (actually idols and demons).  I also believe that FSSP and ICR must also perform the NO when their ordinary requires it.  They must also use hosts that were con-secrated by during a NO mess.  That said, FSSP etc is a step stone towards full Catholic Tradition.

I my experience most con-servative catholics accept the non-infallible Vatican II as an infallible magna carta and they obey (as Nic nailed it right on) only the Post-Conciliar popes, but ignore every single pope and infallible council prior to V2's revolution.  So if B16 follows JP2 and worships at at Booodhist temple (like Mother Teresa did), and since they respect his authority to do against the commandments, con-servative catholics should be lining up to do the same.  After, is there really a difference between NO services and booodhism?

[Image: 156_PriestBuddha.jpg]
[Image: 058_BuddhistRetreat.jpg]

(04-12-2010, 09:22 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2010, 08:04 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Only people who are ignorant of Church teaching claim that everything a pope says and does is infallible.  It is very clear with even minimal investigation that papal infallibility only occurs under specific and rare conditions.  The more common misunderstanding, in my experience, is among those who think that Catholics only need to pay attention to the Pope when he is teaching infallibly.  Almost every liberal and cafeteria Catholic takes this position.  This is how the justify their support of abortion, birth control, women's ordination, etc.

When the Pope teaches infallibly we know with complete certainty he is correct. 
Was he infallible at Assisi I & 2?

The rest of time we only presume he is correct.  He is the leader of the Church and we follow him.  If you study the lives of the saints you will see that a common characteristic is love of the Pope.  Enemies of the Church very often demonstrate hatred of the Pope (as we see in the current attacks in the media).

Anyhow, I want to let you know that this thread has convinced me to change my profile.  I decided that I need a signature that proclaims my loyalty to the Pope.  I want a statement of loyalty to appear with my every post so it will be very clear where I stand.  My appreciation of the TLM does not lead me to rejection of the Pope's authority. 

While I recognize flaws in the NO Mass, as well as its widespread abuses, I accept the authority of the Holy Father.  
So the Holy Father may infallibly proclaim and command the abuses and flaws, which all must obey, even if its all sacrilegeous and blasphemy?

I accept the authority of the Holy Father as well, and if you are trying to imply that I don't, then shame on you.  In the pre-conciliar Church, we COULD listen to almost every word of the Pope and be assured of orthodoxy.  Today, with the arrival of the new evangelization and the "spirit of Vatican II," we most definately CANNOT be assured of that.  Also, what you stated is not really what liberal and "cafeteria" Catholics do.  We do have another infallible authority, you know?  It is called Scripture and Tradition, which both condemn abortion, birth control and woman's ordination.

The simple fact is that a true Catholic will stand with the perpetual papacy while a neo-Cath will stand with only the post-conciliar papacy. 

Could not have said it any better!

True Traditional Catholics support the Pope more so than anyone else, but we are within our rights to resist ANYBODY who says or teaches someting contrary to revealed Truth, whether it be priest or Pope.

But by defending disobedience to modern church officials in some case, are we not encouraging anarchy and disorder in the church?

NO ! It is the modernists who are causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying sacred traditions.
Pope Pius X is disobeyed by all con-servative catholics.

CATHOLIC OBEDIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE TO THE FAITH.

So it was in St. Peter's Day -
Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galations 2:14
I suppose that for con-servation catholics, St. Paul must have been disobedient and meriting a stoning.

So it was in St. Bellarmine's Day -
When the Supreme Pontiff pronounces a sentence of excommunication which is unjust or null, it must not be accepted, without, however, straying from the respect due to the Holy See.
St. Robert Bellarmine

So it must still be today -

All disciplinary authority, all obedience to a bishop presupposes the pure teaching of the Holy Church. Obedience to the bishop is grounded in complete faith in the teaching of the Holy Church. As soon as the ecclesiastical authority yields to pluralism in questions of faith, it has lost the right to claim obedience to its disciplinary ordinances. - Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand, The Devasted Vineyard (chicago 1973), pp 3-5

Obedience to manifest error is sinful and the obligations to obey ceases once you are commanded to do some evil. Helping to destroy the Church in the name of "obedience" is also sinful. Blind obedience is not, and has never been Catholic (this is because true obedience can never conflicts with the will of God, namely that it can't contradict the Church's constant teaching).

The history of the Church gives us several examples of saints who, in order to remain faithful, have resisted the Church authorities (and were even excommunicated ) who were wrong. Thus St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you." (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).

We learn that St. Athanasius had to "disobey" Pope Liberius. But such apparent his "disobedience" was not real disobedience, but rather true obedience to the Church and it's constant teaching.

In Summa Theologica, Q.33 Art 4, St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that we are bound to correct even his superior saying "if the faith is endangered a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11: "Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects".
Is the fallible (that means liable to have lots of errors) V2 superior to the SUMMA, which has recommended as the norm for theology?


We become obedient to the Church and her officials only when we become obedient to the constant teaching of the Church as taught by the Magisterium throughout the ages. If what is taught by an appointed servant of God (bishop, priest or Pope) is contrary to Catholic teaching then they are NOT to be obeyed but even publicly rebuked (Titus 1:10) as they no longer speak on behalf of the Church but become representatives of their own novelty.

By acting in this way, do Traditional Catholics who reject blind obedience place themselves outside the Church? The answer is NO, positively NO. Traditional Catholics are one of the most precious parts of the faithful. We are following the divine example of Our Lord, Who obedient to the synagogue authorities in everything that was possible, nonetheless did not fear to disagree with them in discussions and deny them obedience in all that opposed true doctrine. This attitude does not imply either placing oneself outside the Church or of standing in judgment of the Pope.


Again you state that you recognize flaws in the N.O. Mass, but you still demand attendance to an inferior form of worship.  I do not see how this can be reconciled in any way but repentance and exclusive attendance of the superior rite - the true Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass.  I will pray for you, JayneK, that your eyes may be opened.  God Bless.

Nic, excellent post
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21