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
(04-13-2010, 12:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2010, 10:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]INPEFESS

If your problem is that the wrong facets of her life are being held up, then I would think you would want to address that rather than attack the whole of her mission.

Historically, when people were wheeled into Catholic hospitals, a team of Dominicans wasn't there beating them with pamphlets.  So I'm not sure what you're complaining about unless it was those two-three short quotes that the Evangelicals hold up when saying she wasn't Christian.

Different Saints have served God differently.  Not all of them preached with words to others to convert.  A lot of them preached by example, and their value is in the example, not 5-10 sentences uttered over the course of a lifetime.  The fact that she saw a value in every human being, even lepers, especially in a place like India where there are castes, etc.,. probably did more to cause people to even consider Catholicism than an army of Jesuits could have accomplished.

So if you are sincere in what you are saying, it would seem to me that you would point out those were 5-10 sentences which pale in comparison to her actions and the other things she had said which are witnesses to the Faith.  Such as refusing to send her nuns to a place where Mass was not available.  But TIA and the Protestants will never mention that, of course.

I'm talking about the effect of those 5-10 sentences on the souls of those entrusted to her care. She was explaining her position. How could she have kept this view from manifesting itself in her contact with these Indians? We're not just talking about receiving patients into a hospital, we're talking about what she said: "If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God." So she wants her care to make someone a better heretic? How is becoming a better Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist getting someone closer to God? The closer one is in heresy, the farther one is from truth. This statement was in response to a question which qualified the original question concerning the lack of converts to Catholicism. It would be miraculous that her personal (dangerous) views were not manifested in (and did not contribute to) the lack of conversions. If this statement reflects her views at all, (this is how she supported her answer) it seems apparent that conversion wasn't that important to her. How is that charity?

Let us hope that her words were completely unrepresentative of her actions, and the lack of conversions was coincidental. But I think we should be honest. I think we all know why she was so highly esteemed by the world media and by the vast majority of Catholics. She would be placed on a pedestal for this perception of charity (as she has been). She was "charitable" according to the world's standard of charity. But then again, the world media hasn't the slightest idea of what charity is. To them, charity is not interfering with homosexual marriage, abortion rights, or anything else that "expresses" human rights. Charity is being accepting of all, of not condemning anything, of never reproving malefactors, of remaining indifferent, of believing in the salvific nature of all faiths, and of not condemning other faiths. Of course, as we know, this is not true charity.

Why she is esteemed by the media could be different than why she should be esteemed, and I argue that it is.  And she showed the charity you are talking about - including taking the president to task on abortion.  The media just ignores that.

But if you want me to offer an apology for her statement, what I would offer is this:  those religions contain elements of the Natural Law; they promote the Natural Law more or less.  By encouraging people to follow the Natural Law, they do, in fact, become closer to God and their hearts are more open to receiving Christ.  In fact, that is the only use of non-Catholic religions - or philosophies - that I can see.  Someone who doesn't give a fig about the Natural Law will have a hardened heart and will in no way be open to anything because they are broken at the root.

I'm not sure about your point on the number of conversions.  Do you want people to convert because Mother Teresa was nice?  Or do you want them to convert because the Church teaches the truth?  Her being nice, her helping the poor and sick, was living the Gospel and preaching it in that way.  However, for conversion to a different religion, intellect is necessary, and that requires a different type of preaching, one that is for apologists and priests.  She was neither.  I'm sure she had priests available to anyone who wanted to talk to one, and I'm sure she let priests talk to people.  As I've said, that wasn't her "job" - her "job" was to tend to the weak and poor and emulate Christ in that manner, and that is what we should emulate her in.

But I think she had a lot of conversions in this sense:  I think her best conversions were of those who were already Catholic and could learn some things from her life about love of neighbor.  They were conversions of heart, not to a different faith, but they are just as important.
(04-13-2010, 06:19 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm... that's funny.  Nowhere in my very short post did I say that the authority of the Pope is limited to infallible statements.  Why don't you quit trying to "burn me" on things I never said and quit making silly implications just because I have pushed you into a corner that you cannot logically get out of.  I think you know wht I meant - and that is people these days place authority on EVERYTHING a Pope says and does, when what he says and does has to be measured by the unchangable Catholic Faith.  If what he says and does doesn't jive with revealed Truth, then we are duty bound to resist.

I am not trying to burn you and I sure don't feel pushed into a corner.  From my perspective, I'm winning this argument.  You might not have said it in those words but every time somebody says something about obeying the Pope or the existence of his authority, you come back with something about infallibility. (Just as you do in your next paragraph.) As the quote I gave showed, everything the Pope teaches does have authority: "The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule."

It is theoretically possible that the Pope could teach in error if it were not under the conditions of infallibility, but we start with a presumption that he is right.  I would need to see extremely clear and compelling evidence that his teaching was in error before accepting that claim.  And I have not seen any such evidence.  It is clear that you believe his teaching does not jive with revealed truth.  What qualifications do you have to make this judgment?  Virtually every heretic or schismatic in history has used the reason that you are using.  There are countless examples of people who have believed that the Pope's teaching did not jive with revealed truth and these people were wrong.  How do you know that you are not one of them?

(04-13-2010, 06:19 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Also, show me how that "teaching" that I am so-called "rejecting" is in any way an infallbile declaraton from Holy Church.  It isn't, and since it places an experimental, sacriligious "rite" as the "ordinary form" of the Mass, I am obliged to RESIST it.  But, if you want to play this game, I could show some teachings that you reject as well by your stance of attending the N.O. over the Latin Mass.

Why do you think it is relevant that the teaching be infallible?  We do not have carte blanche to throw out teachings we disagree with just because they are not infallible.  You are not obliged to put your opinions of  the NO over magisterial teaching.  We are obliged to submit loyally to all teaching. 

My stance is that, in general, anyone with access to the TLM should attend it rather than the NO.  But I allow for individual circumstances in which this might not be so.  At any rate, if you think that I am disobeying or rejecting Church teachings then I want to see them.  Please do show me.
(04-13-2010, 12:38 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2010, 12:38 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-12-2010, 10:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]INPEFESS

If your problem is that the wrong facets of her life are being held up, then I would think you would want to address that rather than attack the whole of her mission.

Historically, when people were wheeled into Catholic hospitals, a team of Dominicans wasn't there beating them with pamphlets.  So I'm not sure what you're complaining about unless it was those two-three short quotes that the Evangelicals hold up when saying she wasn't Christian.

Different Saints have served God differently.  Not all of them preached with words to others to convert.  A lot of them preached by example, and their value is in the example, not 5-10 sentences uttered over the course of a lifetime.  The fact that she saw a value in every human being, even lepers, especially in a place like India where there are castes, etc.,. probably did more to cause people to even consider Catholicism than an army of Jesuits could have accomplished.

So if you are sincere in what you are saying, it would seem to me that you would point out those were 5-10 sentences which pale in comparison to her actions and the other things she had said which are witnesses to the Faith.  Such as refusing to send her nuns to a place where Mass was not available.  But TIA and the Protestants will never mention that, of course.

I'm talking about the effect of those 5-10 sentences on the souls of those entrusted to her care. She was explaining her position. How could she have kept this view from manifesting itself in her contact with these Indians? We're not just talking about receiving patients into a hospital, we're talking about what she said: "If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God." So she wants her care to make someone a better heretic? How is becoming a better Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist getting someone closer to God? The closer one is in heresy, the farther one is from truth. This statement was in response to a question which qualified the original question concerning the lack of converts to Catholicism. It would be miraculous that her personal (dangerous) views were not manifested in (and did not contribute to) the lack of conversions. If this statement reflects her views at all, (this is how she supported her answer) it seems apparent that conversion wasn't that important to her. How is that charity?

Let us hope that her words were completely unrepresentative of her actions, and the lack of conversions was coincidental. But I think we should be honest. I think we all know why she was so highly esteemed by the world media and by the vast majority of Catholics. She would be placed on a pedestal for this perception of charity (as she has been). She was "charitable" according to the world's standard of charity. But then again, the world media hasn't the slightest idea of what charity is. To them, charity is not interfering with homosexual marriage, abortion rights, or anything else that "expresses" human rights. Charity is being accepting of all, of not condemning anything, of never reproving malefactors, of remaining indifferent, of believing in the salvific nature of all faiths, and of not condemning other faiths. Of course, as we know, this is not true charity.

Why she is esteemed by the media could be different than why she should be esteemed, and I argue that it is.  And she showed the charity you are talking about - including taking the president to task on abortion.  The media just ignores that.

But if you want me to offer an apology for her statement, what I would offer is this:  those religions contain elements of the Natural Law; they promote the Natural Law more or less.  By encouraging people to follow the Natural Law, they do, in fact, become closer to God and their hearts are more open to receiving Christ.  In fact, that is the only use of non-Catholic religions - or philosophies - that I can see.  Someone who doesn't give a fig about the Natural Law will have a hardened heart and will in no way be open to anything because they are broken at the root.

I'm not sure about your point on the number of conversions.  Do you want people to convert because Mother Teresa was nice?  Or do you want them to convert because the Church teaches the truth?  Her being nice, her helping the poor and sick, was living the Gospel and preaching it in that way.  However, for conversion to a different religion, intellect is necessary, and that requires a different type of preaching, one that is for apologists and priests.  She was neither.  I'm sure she had priests available to anyone who wanted to talk to one, and I'm sure she let priests talk to people.  As I've said, that wasn't her "job" - her "job" was to tend to the weak and poor and emulate Christ in that manner, and that is what we should emulate her in.

But I think she had a lot of conversions in this sense:  I think her best conversions were of those who were already Catholic and could learn some things from her life about love of neighbor.  They were conversions of heart, not to a different faith, but they are just as important.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Based on your response, I can see that we are coming from entirely different perspectives.
(04-13-2010, 01:05 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2010, 06:19 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Hmmm... that's funny.  Nowhere in my very short post did I say that the authority of the Pope is limited to infallible statements.  Why don't you quit trying to "burn me" on things I never said and quit making silly implications just because I have pushed you into a corner that you cannot logically get out of.  I think you know wht I meant - and that is people these days place authority on EVERYTHING a Pope says and does, when what he says and does has to be measured by the unchangable Catholic Faith.  If what he says and does doesn't jive with revealed Truth, then we are duty bound to resist.

I am not trying to burn you and I sure don't feel pushed into a corner.  From my perspective, I'm winning this argument.  You might not have said it in those words but every time somebody says something about obeying the Pope or the existence of his authority, you come back with something about infallibility. (Just as you do in your next paragraph.) As the quote I gave showed, everything the Pope teaches does have authority: "The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule."

It is theoretically possible that the Pope could teach in error if it were not under the conditions of infallibility, but we start with a presumption that he is right.  I would need to see extremely clear and compelling evidence that his teaching was in error before accepting that claim.  And I have not seen any such evidence.  It is clear that you believe his teaching does not jive with revealed truth.  What qualifications do you have to make this judgment?  Virtually every heretic or schismatic in history has used the reason that you are using.  There are countless examples of people who have believed that the Pope's teaching did not jive with revealed truth and these people were wrong.  How do you know that you are not one of them?

(04-13-2010, 06:19 AM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Also, show me how that "teaching" that I am so-called "rejecting" is in any way an infallbile declaraton from Holy Church.  It isn't, and since it places an experimental, sacriligious "rite" as the "ordinary form" of the Mass, I am obliged to RESIST it.  But, if you want to play this game, I could show some teachings that you reject as well by your stance of attending the N.O. over the Latin Mass.

Why do you think it is relevant that the teaching be infallible?  We do not have carte blanche to throw out teachings we disagree with just because they are not infallible.  You are not obliged to put your opinions of  the NO over magisterial teaching.  We are obliged to submit loyally to all teaching. 

My stance is that, in general, anyone with access to the TLM should attend it rather than the NO.  But I allow for individual circumstances in which this might not be so.  At any rate, if you think that I am disobeying or rejecting Church teachings then I want to see them.  Please do show me.

I would hardly say that you have "won the argument."  You actually cannot win.  You have admitted that the New Mass is lacking, and that it is inferior to the TLM - therefore, you are culpable.  But you attend the New Mass regardless.  This is opportunism, plain as day.  God demands the very best of us, and you have openly admitted that the TLM is superior.  Therefore, to offer God your very best, you should attend the superior form of worship exclusively.  The only thing you can do to get yourself out of your corner is 1) reject the N.O and attend exclusively what you yourself have stated is a superior form a worship, or 2) retract your statement of the N.O. Mass being inferior, which will ruin your credibility.  I see only one possible solution, for you have openly admitted that the N.O. Mass is inferior.

As for you disobeying or rejecting Church teachings, I don't want to even get into all of them concerning attending non-Catholic worship.  I would simply be overwhelmed!

You state that it is "theoretically possible" for a pope to teach error when not engaged in infallible language.  No, it is possible and it has been proven.  Take a step back and look past the 1900's why don't you?  Look at Pope Liberius.  The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When Vatican I was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years.  So what you state is "theoretically possible" is a proven fact.  Also, are you stating that the MANY very questionable things that John Paul II said are infallible?  If you are, then you are truly under the new regime, for they want you to think this.  That is why SO MANY Catholics apporve of JPII's false ecumenism, because they tell themselves, "well, if the Pope is doing or saying it, then it must be O.K."  This is a grave error to think such a way, and has led to the ruin of souls.  I can list numerous "teachings" of JPII that go strictly against the Faith of All-Time.  I can even show you some in the "new catechism."

In truth, the Pope is our safeguard.  Is he supposed to speak the truth concerning religion always?  Yes, he is.  But does he always?  Most definately not, especially since Vatican II.  To think otherwise of the pope would make him into a demi-god, which is exactly what many neo-Caths are doing, they are borderline or over the line papoloters.  BUT, when it comes down to the language of infallibility, the Pope CANNOT lead us astray, and that is our safeguard.  Everything else he says has to be measured by the only thing that matters, and that is the Traditional Faith of all-time.  If it strays even a little from this measuring rod, then it is our duty to resist that "teaching."

Anyway, I don't want to seem that I am pushing you around.  I will pray for you, that you will continue down the path of Traditional Catholicism.  You obviously have some dislikes of the Novus Ordo.  I think that you should pray, and that you should do some solid research.  I am just a random poster, and I can only tell you so much.  I would like to give you some links to follow.  God Bless.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode.../index.htm
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/
(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]You state that it is "theoretically possible" for a pope to teach error when not engaged in infallible language.  No, it is possible and it has been proven.  Take a step back and look past the 1900's why don't you?  Look at Pope Liberius. 

I was under the impression that Pope Liberius signed a "semi-Arian" document, which could make him a private heretic. But did he actually teach error?
(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I would hardly say that you have "won the argument."  You actually cannot win.  You have admitted that the New Mass is lacking, and that it is inferior to the TLM - therefore, you are culpable.  But you attend the New Mass regardless.  This is opportunism, plain as day.  God demands the very best of us, and you have openly admitted that the TLM is superior.  Therefore, to offer God your very best, you should attend the superior form of worship exclusively.  The only thing you can do to get yourself out of your corner is 1) reject the N.O and attend what you yourself have stated is a superior for m a worship, or 2) retract your statement of the N.O. Mass being inferior, which will ruin your credibility.  I see only one possible solution.

Since I am convinced that my reasons for attending the NO are acceptable to God, then it is quite possible that I would not be culpable, even if your views were correct at an objective level. 

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]As for you disobeying or rejecting Church teachings, I don't want to even get into all of them concerning attending non-Catholic worship.  I would simply be overwhelmed!

It is not very fair to say that I am rejecting Church teachings and not tell me what they are when I ask you.

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]You state that it is "theoretically possible" for a pope to teach error when not engaged in infallible language.  No, it is possible and it has been proven.  Take a step back and look past the 1900's why don't you?  Look at Pope Liberius.  The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When Vatican I was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years.  So what you state is "theoretically possible" is a proven fact.  Also, are you stating that the MANY very questionable things that John Paul II said are infallible?  If you are, then you are truly under the new regime, for they want you to think this.  That is why SO MANY Catholics apporve of JPII's false ecumenism, because they tell themselves, "well, if the Pope is doing or saying it, then it must be O.K."  This is a grave error to think such a way, and has led to the ruin of souls.  I can list numerous "teachings" of JPII that go strictly against the Faith of All-Time.  I can even show you some in the "new catechism."

I can see that I did not express myself clearly enough in using the expression "theoretically possible".  I meant that it is theoretically possible for any given papal teaching to be in error if it is not infallible.  I am not contesting that there are historical instances of popes teaching in error.

I do not see, however, how you could have thought I was claiming that everything taught by JPII was infallible.  I think that he had a gift for dramatic gestures that he tried to use in the service of the Church.  While this often allowed him to reach people with the Gospel, gestures are very open to misinterpretation (as has been much of Church teaching from V2 on).  Our current Pope has taught that recent teachings must be interpreted in continuity with the Tradition.  I expect it to take some time to get this straightened out as we establish the correct understanding of these things..

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]In truth, the Pope is our safeguard.  Is he supposed to speak the truth concerning religion always?  Yes, he is.  But does he always?  Most definately not, especially since Vatican II.  To think otherwise of the pope would make him into a demi-god, which is exactly what many neo-Caths are doing, they are borderline or over the line papoloters.  BUT, when it comes down to the language of infallibility, the Pope CANNOT lead us astray, and that is our safeguard.  Everything else he says has to be measured by the only thing that matters, and that is the Traditional Faith of all-time.  If it strays even a little from this measuring rod, then it is our duty to resist that "teaching."

This sounds very similar to what heretics say.
HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THAT SOUND LIKE WHAT HERETICS SAY!  What a foolish statement.  You must not know much about Papal infallibility, which is right in-line with the vast majority of the modern Church.
(04-13-2010, 05:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]I would hardly say that you have "won the argument."  You actually cannot win.  You have admitted that the New Mass is lacking, and that it is inferior to the TLM - therefore, you are culpable.  But you attend the New Mass regardless.  This is opportunism, plain as day.  God demands the very best of us, and you have openly admitted that the TLM is superior.  Therefore, to offer God your very best, you should attend the superior form of worship exclusively.  The only thing you can do to get yourself out of your corner is 1) reject the N.O and attend what you yourself have stated is a superior for m a worship, or 2) retract your statement of the N.O. Mass being inferior, which will ruin your credibility.  I see only one possible solution.

Since I am convinced that my reasons for attending the NO are acceptable to God, then it is quite possible that I would not be culpable, even if your views were correct at an objective level. 

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]As for you disobeying or rejecting Church teachings, I don't want to even get into all of them concerning attending non-Catholic worship.  I would simply be overwhelmed!

It is not very fair to say that I am rejecting Church teachings and not tell me what they are when I ask you.

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]You state that it is "theoretically possible" for a pope to teach error when not engaged in infallible language.  No, it is possible and it has been proven.  Take a step back and look past the 1900's why don't you?  Look at Pope Liberius.  The popes can teach error, even on matters of the faith, when they are not exercising the charism of infallibility. When Vatican I was formulating the definition of papal infallibility, it found over 40 errors made by popes on faith and morals over the years.  So what you state is "theoretically possible" is a proven fact.  Also, are you stating that the MANY very questionable things that John Paul II said are infallible?  If you are, then you are truly under the new regime, for they want you to think this.  That is why SO MANY Catholics apporve of JPII's false ecumenism, because they tell themselves, "well, if the Pope is doing or saying it, then it must be O.K."  This is a grave error to think such a way, and has led to the ruin of souls.  I can list numerous "teachings" of JPII that go strictly against the Faith of All-Time.  I can even show you some in the "new catechism."

I can see that I did not express myself clearly enough in using the expression "theoretically possible".  I meant that it is theoretically possible for any given papal teaching to be in error if it is not infallible.  I am not contesting that there are historical instances of popes teaching in error.

I do not see, however, how you could have thought I was claiming that everything taught by JPII was infallible.  I think that he had a gift for dramatic gestures that he tried to use in the service of the Church.  While this often allowed him to reach people with the Gospel, gestures are very open to misinterpretation (as has been much of Church teaching from V2 on).  Our current Pope has taught that recent teachings must be interpreted in continuity with the Tradition.  I expect it to take some time to get this straightened out as we establish the correct understanding of these things..

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]In truth, the Pope is our safeguard.  Is he supposed to speak the truth concerning religion always?  Yes, he is.  But does he always?  Most definately not, especially since Vatican II.  To think otherwise of the pope would make him into a demi-god, which is exactly what many neo-Caths are doing, they are borderline or over the line papoloters.  BUT, when it comes down to the language of infallibility, the Pope CANNOT lead us astray, and that is our safeguard.  Everything else he says has to be measured by the only thing that matters, and that is the Traditional Faith of all-time.  If it strays even a little from this measuring rod, then it is our duty to resist that "teaching."

This sounds very similar to what heretics say.

Hi JayneK. I just noticed that your quote is a little misleading. I "quoted" it just to see what was wrong. It looks like you're just missing the "/" in your end quote tag from Nic:

(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]As for you disobeying or rejecting Church teachings, I don't want to even get into all of them concerning attending non-Catholic worship.  I would simply be overwhelmed!

Hopefully that helps make it a little clearer.

God bless you...
(04-13-2010, 05:30 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THAT SOUND LIKE WHAT HERETICS SAY!  What a foolish statement.  You must not know much about Papal infallibility, which is right in-line with the vast majority of the modern Church.

Actually I meant the last couple of sentences, not the part about infallibility.  I was talking about this:
Quote:Everything else he says has to be measured by the only thing that matters, and that is the Traditional Faith of all-time.  If it strays even a little from this measuring rod, then it is our duty to resist that "teaching."
(04-13-2010, 05:32 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Hopefully that helps make it a little clearer.

God bless you...

Thanks INPEFESS.  I fixed it but I think most of the lack of clarity came from my choice of words rather than bad formatting.  :)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21