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
Ex NO, "est" means a present reality while "subsistit in" means a perduring reality. As the CDF has clarified multiple times, the phrase "subsistit in" cannot be said to apply to anything other than the Catholic Church--it cannot be applied to Protestant communities, etc. Sometimes I think "subsistit in" is similar to "Filioque" in the Creed as the objections to it are often given a meaning different than those given to it by the Church, despite repeated clarifications (people misunderstand subsistit in to apply to non-Catholics the same way others misunderstand Filioque to mean a double spiration).

Here are two good explanations of it (as an aside, both of these priests are part of the Holy See's reps in the ongoing SSPX discussions). I think they were written before the latest CDF doctrinal note which dealt with this term, but it said the same thing.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

http://www.ewtn.net/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

Just to add some things from the latest doctrinal note (the above give more detailed explanations and are worth the read):

"In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth."

And again

"Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...es_en.html
EX N.O.  are you a sede?
(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.  

Well I guess I am "going too far" by your standards, because I am stating boldly that the N.O. Mass is NOT Catholic.  Also, if you openly admit that the TLM is superior to the N.O. Mass, then why in the WORLD do you attend the N.O. Mass when God demands the very best of us.  Why would you submit to, in your words, an inferior form of worship when you know damn good and well that there is a superior form out there?  What you advocate is pure opportunism, a wretched sin.

You are ready to fall into the pit of neo-Cath papolotry.  No, I am not calling you a papaloter, but you are placing WAY too much stock into the person of the Pope.  He is a human being who can make mistakes, you know.  History proves that a Pope can, on a personal level, lead the Church, even the majority of the Church, astray in matters of faith and worship.

There are three things you really need to understand:   First, Pope Paul VI did NOT impose the NO on the universal Church. He offered it as an alternative in the Latin Rite of the Church. Second, because the pope didn't bind the universal Church to use the NO, his act does not invoke the charism of infallibility. Third, you are simply wrong to say that a pope cannot impose a harmful rite upon the Church or even use it himself. The Council of Trent disagrees with you. Trent anathematized anyone who would create a new rite, so it obviously contemplated that such could occur. Nicea II also anathematized anyone who would set aside the ecclesiastical traditions of the Church. The pope was never excepted from these possibilities, because he too can do such a thing. The fact that Paul VI did not invoke his authority to bind the universal Church (he couldn't for the Holy Ghost wouldn't allow it) should put you at ease, at least somewhat.

Understand that what is going on today (for the last 40 plus years) is VERY similiar to the Arian Crisis that occured1500 years ago.  At the time, the majority of the Church slipped into heresy - even the pope!  What we see today parallels that crisis, but only the modern crisis is so much worse due to the subverted nature of the thing.  Archbishop Lefebvre couldn't have said it any better concerning the crisis of our time:  "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Traditon through obedience." (i.e. false obedience)
(04-09-2010, 03:40 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]EX N.O.  are you a sede?

That might not be a fair question to ask as it could be difficult to answer while following the forum rules, i.e.:
Quote:Sedevacantists are welcome, but are not allowed to promote sedevacantism or post in such a way that invites debate about whether, in fact, the sede is vacante.
Just asking. He does not have to promote it, just yes or no. But I'm guessing he is.
(04-09-2010, 03:07 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Jayne, I am confused by the use of the word "efficacy" in context of this document. The statement reads: "...55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to [those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not...in...communion with the Catholic Church], it needs to be stated that '[those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not...in...communion with the Catholic Church] derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church'."

So what does efficacy mean? I will consider the broadest definition of the word to be fair. According to Merriam-Webster, efficacy is: "the power to produce an effect."

About what effect are we speaking? The effect of salvation? Though it could be disputed that there is a possibility one who is a part of an ecclesial community could be saved, the community itself can't produce this effect - only the Catholic Church can - so I certainly hope that is not what the document is addressing. But it's ambiguous so let's give it the benefit of doubt and consider another, more likely interpretation: the effect of grace. But how can that be? Though one who lives within these ecclesial communities can receive grace, this grace does not pass through these "churches and ecclesial communities" first. These churches themselves are bare and provide nothing: they are man-made centers for worship not guaranteed the protection of the Holy Ghost. Those who attend these churches and ecclesial communities can receive grace through the Catholic Church, yes, but that comes directly from the Catholic Church, not from, through, or by the other churches and ecclesial communities. The devil has encouraged the creation of these religious institutions to keep men away from the Catholic Church; but the devil can't stop the Catholic Church from directly and supernaturally providing these goodwilled, grace-accepting men (who are in the process of discerning Truth) with the graces She distributes and emits. The implication of the document is exactly where the danger lies.

This "reconciliation" document directly states that these "churches and ecclesial communities" themselves provide this efficacy. I can not, in good conscience, believe that because that is not continuous with what the Church has always taught. The efficacy of grace can manifest itself in the soul of person who is within or a part of one of these churches and ecclesial communities, but that efficacy comes from the grace of the Catholic Church. Even if these churches and ecclesial communities are specifically teaching certain elements of truth (such as Baptism), the grace comes from the Catholic Church to the person of the church or ecclesial community who is teaching the truth and/or the person of the church or ecclesial community who is receiving the truth. There is nothing coming from the churches and ecclesial communities themselves because they (the churches and ecclesial communities) are not in communion with the Catholic Church and, therefore, have not been guaranteed the Holy Ghost as a guide. Even if someone is being Baptized within and apart of one of these churches or ecclesial communities, the person performing the Baptism is not drawing from the grace of his church, which is grace that comes from the Catholic Church; it is coming directly from the Holy Ghost through the Catholic Church to his own soul without being routed through his church at all.

If I am misunderstanding something, then let me know, but this is why I take issue with this particular reconciliation document.

EDIT: Clarity.
What INPEFESS has shown in his excellent post proves in spades that the ambiguities of the council were interpretted by liberal and modernist clergy and theologians to invoke a revolution - to create a "new religion" that is parallel to the true religion, even operating side by side in a confusing way.  This new religion, which we call "neo-Catholicism" began in 1965, and the majority of people who claim "Catholicism" actually adhere to this religion.  True Catholicism is noted by its unchangeable truths in doctrine and Tradition, and it began in 30 AD, and more publicly announced in 70 AD with the destruciton of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.  When these two religions are placed side by side, even a fool can see that they are NOT the same.

So in other and better words, JayneK, the Church of Christ subsists ONLY in the Roman Catholic Church.
(04-09-2010, 03:49 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]Also, if you openly admit that the TLM is superior to the N.O. Mass, then why in the WORLD do you attend the N.O. Mass when God demands the very best of us.  Why would you submit to, in your words, an inferior form of worship when you know damn good and well that there is a superior form out there?  What you advocate is pure opportunism, a wretched sin.

I regularly attend both forms of Mass, sometimes both on the same day.  I have various reasons to still go the NO.

Because at my NO parish I have a traditionally inclined pastor who needs parishioners who understand and support the changes he is introducing.  For example, he started a choir that will sing traditional hymns and Gregorian chant and I have joined it.

Because my husband does not like the TLM and I am hoping that moving slowly will help him to learn to appreciate it.  By going to the NO Mass with him, I hope to find him more open to attending the TLM with me.

Because I have health problems and sometimes I am not up to the longer drive to the TLM.
(04-09-2010, 04:55 PM)Nic Wrote: [ -> ]What INPEFESS has shown in his excellent post

You are too kind.

Quote:proves in spades that the ambiguities of the council were interpretted by liberal and modernist clergy and theologians to invoke a revolution - to create a "new religion" that is parallel to the true religion, even operating side by side in a confusing way. 

Yes, and I think it is believable in the sense that the devil inspires things like this all the time. When examining the question of why Satan would inspire the creation of a religion which adheres to esteemable morals and values contradictory to his own interests, we must think with a mind of evil.

I think these particular teachings (and other different teachings such as Mormonism, Islam, and Hinduism, which all teach a certain moral code) are a clever deception of the devil created to attract (and then ensnare) those men of good will who would otherwise attach themselves to the Truth Satan hates so much. He knows that there are both good-willed and bad-willed people in this world, but the bad-willed are already his, for they reject all manners of moral living and adopt selfish philosophies: his philosophies (particularly, the one which caused him to rebel against God's command to minister unto man). It is the good-willed he worries about, and so he must inspire the creation of a belief system that will attract men of good-will and deceive them from the Truth at the same time.

This time, however, the devil has hit very close to home - closer to home than he's ever struck before since his fall. Yes, Catholics have embraced heresy before and, in so doing, forfeited their Catholicity, but these are teachings taught by those of the Church herself through a Church council. They are wolves in sheeps clothing - the same wolves for whom have been reminded to be on the look-out. Individual clergy have embraced false teachings before, but this time, these false teachings were actually taught and implemented by these clergy using the Church as a vehicle.
(04-09-2010, 04:40 PM)In nomine Patris Wrote: [ -> ]Just asking. He does not have to promote it, just yes or no. But I'm guessing he is.

I am not "sedevacantist" though it may be a real possibility, and I sympathize with those who hold this opinion, given the ecclesial state of emergency.  However, the discussion on this forum topic has nothing to do with this.  If I recall, I did ask: must one follow every single thing Peter does (which is papalotry), especially since we know that even the Gospels etc record how Peter deviated even from matters of faith?  St. Paul even withstood him to his face, and yet St. Paul never declared the Petrine office vacant.  Rather, I adopt as my own certain principles of Archbishop Lefebvre who said we must focus instead on the essentials, i.e. the true sacraments, the ordination and consecration of valid clerics, teaching the Catholic faith, forming the next generation, passing on the deposit of Faith without change. And most important of all, stay away from all "bastard rites."

Furthermore, those who did ask me this question should likewise revisit whether the Fathers of Vatican I (include Pope Pius IX) -- who confirmed and forever decreed that the Pope is only infallible in faith and morals under very prescribed and narrow conditions -- are also sedevacantist. 

Absurd you may ask!!! 

No, this is the Catholic Faith. The Pope has definite limits (dogma defined at Vatican I) on his authority  Furthermore, the papal coronation oath further confirms that the Pope is also a member of the Church, subject to the same Faith and the infallible declarations of his predecessors.  Pope St. Pius V forbade forever any new rite for the Mass.  Paul VI, JP2, B16 are also subject to all their predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs.

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