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
(Quote from ExNo
Then you should attend any and all NO services regardless of the theatrics of the NO priests, or whether or not he even performs a consecration, whether or not he uses dorito chips and kool-aid, whether he does it himself or uses clowns or mimes or balloons or semi nude women.  His bishop has already approved the theatrics for his diocese, otherwise his NO priests would not feel emboldened to do what they do.  BettyM, if you believe the NO services are valid, then how come you want to seek out just the conservative NO masses?  Quote)

I am not saying that you should attend churches where such things happen.  The Catholic church is so large and there are so many parishes. There are many choices and the majority of the churches do not have such thing going on.  Large attendances at churches that are more traditional, more reverent send out a message.  There were human beings that attended the TLM mass pre-vatican II, also, and where there are people there are sins and I am sure there were problems.  Being angry and staying home does not solve any problem and you are missing out on being as close to Jesus as you can this side of heaven.
Both masses are equally valid and deserve our respect. That is what we should aim for, bringing back respect for both forms of mass.  I think the TLM shows more reverence and is so much more beautiful but I also see a large turn, at least in my area, of a return to reverence and respect at the NO mass.
If an NO mass is offered properly and not with such abuses it is a valid mass.
If you prefer a TLM and there is one around you then that is wonderful and that is where you should go but if you prefer an NO and it is offered respectfully then that is where you should go but it is not right to slander one form of the Mass over another.
In my area there is a Catholic church just about every 10 minutes with 3-5 mases a weekend, lots of choices and very few abuses, some but few . I just pray it is that way for everyone.



Quote:The word "subsist" does not even appear in Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II document concerning non-Christian religions including those.  All that document says is that there is a genuine search for God and some good in other religions and that Catholics ought to recognize this.  The word "subsist" is used in describing how Catholicism is related to non-Catholic Christianity.  

A bit off topic: have Hindhu's by being idolators found the true God (not their demons) by being devout Hindus?  Or are they burning down even NO temples as we see in news reports?  Nostra Aetate asserts seek the true God by being hindus!  An example of practical application, Hindus said their "mess" at the Fatima Shrine with full support to the entire hierarchy.  
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopi...nnari.html
http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/060304rit.asp
http://www.cardinalrating.com/cardinal_2...cle_12.htm

IMHO, it the NO, but with extreme Hindu-ness.

In Lumen Gentium, the V2 use subsist very deliberately.  If they wanted to be exclusive, they would have used is.  Where else JayneK does the Church of Christ subsist?
Ahhh, here they all are!!!  :laughing:

[Image: 227_LourdesHinduDances01.jpg]
(04-09-2010, 02:39 PM)BettyM Wrote: [ -> ](Quote from ExNo
Then you should attend any and all NO services regardless of the theatrics of the NO priests, or whether or not he even performs a consecration, whether or not he uses dorito chips and kool-aid, whether he does it himself or uses clowns or mimes or balloons or semi nude women.   His bishop has already approved the theatrics for his diocese, otherwise his NO priests would not feel emboldened to do what they do.  BettyM, if you believe the NO services are valid, then how come you want to seek out just the conservative NO masses?   Quote)

I am not saying that you should attend churches where such things happen.  The Catholic church is so large and there are so many parishes. There are many choices and the majority of the churches do not have such thing going on.   Large attendances at churches that are more traditional, more reverent send out a message.  There were human beings that attended the TLM mass pre-vatican II, also, and where there are people there are sins and I am sure there were problems.   Being angry and staying home does not solve any problem and you are missing out on being as close to Jesus as you can this side of heaven.
Both masses are equally valid and deserve our respect. That is what we should aim for, bringing back respect for both forms of mass.  I think the TLM shows more reverence and is so much more beautiful but I also see a large turn, at least in my area, of a return to reverence and respect at the NO mass.
If an NO mass is offered properly and not with such abuses it is a valid mass.
If you prefer a TLM and there is one around you then that is wonderful and that is where you should go but if you prefer an NO and it is offered respectfully then that is where you should go but it is not right to slander one form of the Mass over another.
In my area there is a Catholic church just about every 10 minutes with 3-5 mases a weekend, lots of choices and very few abuses, some but few . I just pray it is that way for everyone.

1. So, why is the NO Mess fabricated with 6 Protestants scholars, Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian -- with the avowed aim to make the Mess as Protestant as possible, while keeping very few accidental Catholic ornamentation -- in any way Catholic?   Keep in mind that Paul VI never imposed on the NO on anyone.

2.  So in NO Mess where someone dressed as a clown seems to reverently (as a mime) celebrate a liturgy with who knows what matter, is that reverent NO Mess valid, or if it is theoretically valid (near impossible), it is not blasphemous and sacrilegious?   And is it not just another bishop-approved NO Mess that all Novus Ordites must attend (btw  most of the NO see through this mess, and don't bother showing up)?





(04-09-2010, 02:23 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]These are not mere opinions or just assertions.  Did Pope Gregory say the Novus Ordo?  Chances not.  NO was made up (and is still ever-evolving) since the mid-1960s.
Are there clown, puppet, nude mass out there?  Try youtube and google for those topics.  Pictures are worth a thousand words.

NO Mass = Puppet Mess = Kool Aid Mess = Nude Mess
NO Mass + Latin + Incense + Gregorian = Puppet Mess + Latin + Incense + Gregorian = Kool Aid Mess +  ... = Nude Mess + ...  = NOT a Catholic Mass

I certainly don't deny that serious abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass have occurred.  I also consider it reasonable to call it "made up" since it did not develop organically.   Let me throw in that the NO is inferior in doctrinal clarity to the TLM.  However, anybody who says that the Mass that the Pope celebrates is not a Catholic Mass has gone too far.  
And I would not call it a "mess". You must read that sede site "traditio"
(04-09-2010, 02:55 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2010, 02:23 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]These are not mere opinions or just assertions.  Did Pope Gregory say the Novus Ordo?  Chances not.  NO was made up (and is still ever-evolving) since the mid-1960s.
Are there clown, puppet, nude mass out there?  Try youtube and google for those topics.  Pictures are worth a thousand words.

NO Mass = Puppet Mess = Kool Aid Mess = Nude Mess
NO Mass + Latin + Incense + Gregorian = Puppet Mess + Latin + Incense + Gregorian = Kool Aid Mess +  ... = Nude Mess + ...  = NOT a Catholic Mass

I certainly don't deny that serious abuses of the Novus Ordo Mass have occurred.  I also consider it reasonable to call it "made up" since it did not develop organically.   Let me throw in that the NO is inferior in doctrinal clarity to the TLM. However, anybody who says that the Mass that the Pope celebrates is not a Catholic Mass has gone too far.  

When Peter had denied Christ three times, would it be going too far to say that perhaps he should not have done this, or should we likewise continue to imitate this example?  I know that this may not be an equivalent analogy, but Peter and his successor can AND DO MAKE SERIOUS GREVIOUS mistake.  Vatican I defines papal infallibility with very strict and narrow boundaries.  Other than that Peter is called to be guardian (not innovator) of the Deposit Faith, and all received apostolic and ecclesial traditions.  Would you not agree that the contrary, (doing everything Peter does, just because Peter did it) is papalotry?
(04-09-2010, 02:40 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]In Lumen Gentium, the V2 use subsist very deliberately.  If they wanted to be exclusive, they would have used is.  Where else JayneK does the Church of Christ subsist?

As I already mentioned Dominus Iesus explained how we are to understand "subsist".  I draw your attention to this paragraph:
Quote:The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

For the record, this also represents my position on where the Church of Christ subsists.
(04-09-2010, 02:53 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]1. So, why is the NO Mess fabricated with 6 Protestants scholars, Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian -- with the avowed aim to make the Mess as Protestant as possible, while keeping very few accidental Catholic ornamentation -- in any way Catholic?  

Could you please support this with an exact quote and/or citation for this "avowed aim".  I would like to see exactly what was said and its context.
(04-09-2010, 03:05 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: [ -> ]When Peter had denied Christ three times, would it be going too far to say that perhaps he should not have done this, or should we likewise continue to imitate this example?  I know that this may not be an equivalent analogy, but Peter and his successor can AND DO MAKE SERIOUS GREVIOUS mistake.  Vatican I defines papal infallibility with very strict and narrow boundaries.  Other than that Peter is called to be guardian (not innovator) of the Deposit Faith, and all received apostolic and ecclesial traditions.  Would you not agree that the contrary, (doing everything Peter does, just because Peter did it) is papalotry?

Following the Pope as the visible head of the Church, Christ's vicar on earth, is not "papalotry".  It is accepting the traditional teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 

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