FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Universal Acceptance of the Novus Ordo for us.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Maybe everyone accepted the Ordinary Form of Mass universally in the Church, or so it seemed to us, despite Quo Primum, in providence, so that we could all accept the Ordinary From on Faith, so we could say, "This is something Universally Accepted in the Church, and as such, I know with the certainty of Faith, that this is acceptable and laudable."  And maybe in 30 or 40 years, we will see more Priests offering the extraordinary Form, but we passes theough that time when the Ordinary form was practically Universal in the Larin Rite, and so we have a divine guarentee of its' Catholicity.

Good?
Er... Eastern Catholics.

Edit : also you use accept very loosely. What does it mean ? Accept validity ? Accept superiority ? Also, check this article.


edited by San Giuse.  Please remember to label pdf's and to post either the entire artice or (at a minimum) a sumary.


Quote:It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church. While it is not our intention to denigrate the new rite, we must recognize that the ritual of Mass used in the old rite is more meritorious and therefore more beneficial for the people who assist at it and for the priests who offer it.
I'm not sure if it's as simple as that, but I agree that the Pauline Liturgy is the official Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and barring sedevacantism or some trad fantasy that is not going away anytime soon, if ever. My take on it is that in time the Pauline Mass will probably take on more traditional elements, the options might be cut back etc, but the 1962 Missal and Breviary ( which, in terms of the calendar and some feasts is more 20th century than Tridentine) will remain an option on the margins, and will never become the norm again.

A good argument against trads is exactly that, the Church has changed things and interpreted Vatican II and basically rejected the SSPX/FSSP way of doing things on a global scale for half a century or more.  The new catechism, code of canon law, sacramental rites etc are not going away, they are now the official rites, rituals and teachings of the Church, end of story. .  To question it, at least for me, makes me think sedevacantism is most likely, more likely than R and R where you pay lip service to obedience while rejecting lawful authority.

Any understanding of the Church today must take into account this business of Vatican II, the new Mass and the new rites as being official. One cannot just reject them, live in a ghetto mentality and piously pray that some super pope is going to appear to foist a style of Catholicism on millions of people that no longer know anything of it nor want anything to do with it. You have that option under Summorum Pontificum, but you will always remain on the margins. The Church has moved on, and there is no turning back.  Take what you can get and live your life.

On the flip side, the Church should take into account the Traditions it rejected after the Council as well, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm skeptical either way, because to me the papacy and the hierarchy have mostly been bar none terrible about defending or promoting Tradition.

Maybe an Orthodox ecclesiology of Sobornost is better than the top down Roman Catholic model. In the Sobornost model there would be room for groups like the SSPX, or even various Sede groups, all who are loosely bound by commitment to Catholicism as they understand it, without having to follow one particular model or show obedience to hierarchs that betray the faith. Certainly to me the SSPX are closer to an Orthodox style than Traditional.

Even this business of betraying the faith is hard to say, because really, can we say that and actually remain Catholic in good standing? The new stuff is now officially part of the Churches teaching....unless of course sedevacantism or something is correct and the last 60 years is nothing but a robber council, graceless sacraments from non popes, non bishops and other assorted laymen in clerical garb etc. I don't know what to say really. It's a very strange situation.

Or maybe today is great to be Catholic, because there are so many different options and avenues. Again, I don't know.

Look at the Eastern Rites, I mean, those of us who are Eastern can even follow the rites of the Russian Old Ritualist, who do not even pray the filioque in the creed, and whose saints stop at the 16th century on the calendar. Or the Copts, Assyrians, Marionites et al, all who have no skin in the Roman Rite, although sadly many of these have updated based on the modern Roman model. There's a Syriac Church in Jacksonville that's basically Novus Ordo, barren walls...crazy.

Here are some current things that Catholics universally accept: the non-reality of the Real Presence, same-sex marriage, religious indifferentism, universalism.

The fact that the same Catholics who universally accept the Novus Ordo also universally accept all these doctrinal errors tends to show that their acceptance of the Novus Ordo is not reliable. 

And never forget that Arianism was universally accepted by the bishops in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Numerical acceptance doesn't make something true or good. In fact, during times of great crisis, numerical acceptance might be a strong indication that something is false and bad.
(03-30-2016, 10:37 AM)Jan313 Wrote: [ -> ]Good?

No. Like has become your habit here, you are oversimplifiying, and erring.
I totally agree except with "the Church has moved on."  As more time passes, I think it becomes easier to see the hermeneutic of continuity.  There are the radicals like certain charismatic groups, but there are also very many Priests who practice traditions privately nowadays that I see becoming mkre mainstream.  In many dioceses, there are younger Priests who are trained to offer the traditional liturgy, but the episcopoatw keeps them from doing so at this time, maybe in providence, sonthat we can all have that sense of "This Ordinary Form is now the Ordinary, and the Extraordinary is now that."  Maybe there will be little pockets, or shrines of tradition in the future, where people understand and appreciate what they have, better than how they did in the 40s and 50s.  I think in the future there will be a more and more liberal application of Summorum Pontlficum around the world, as the older Episcopate dies, and they see their mission and Faith pass and handed on to the younger generation, who certainly are familiar with the traditional controversies, and teachings.  I think there is an orthodoxy that exisits in these younger generations of Priests that was in many places, confused and indeed lost in those cultural revolutions of the 60s.  Not that the revolutions have ceased altogether, however, I think the youthful clergy know, that the ground is quick, so they keep a via media more surely.
MM, I see you defend the SSPX, even in falsification of what is plainly online, however, I see the SSPX as the Old Catholics, schismatically speaking, of the Second Vatican Council.  They retain valid holy orders, and maintain an "unchangedness," however, they have lost communion, and as time passes, the arguments for their alleges justification grown tired.  The year of mercy changed very little besides another gracious offer of reconciliation in these difficult times for many poorly trained Society Priests.
(03-30-2016, 12:01 PM)Jan313 Wrote: [ -> ]MM, I see you defend the SSPX, even in falsification of what is plainly online

I have not falsified anything.

I will defend any thing against error and fallacious arguments.

If some SSPXer were unjustly and erroneously attacking the FSSP, the Novus Ordo or the Pope, I would happily correct them as well. I have regularly attacked sedevacantist errors. My long history here shows that while I certainly support the SSPX, I don't play favorites.

(03-30-2016, 12:01 PM)Jan313 Wrote: [ -> ]I see the SSPX as the Old Catholics, schismatically speaking, of the Second Vatican Council. 

Then you see them far differently than does the Holy See, Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Brandmuller, Cardinal Castrillon, the Ecclesia Dei Commission, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop Scheneider and any other traditional Catholic group.

If you truly value the union with the Pope, why do you think the Pope is wrong? Why do you think all of these notable people are wrong?



(03-30-2016, 12:01 PM)Jan313 Wrote: [ -> ]The year of mercy changed very little besides another gracious offer of reconciliation in these difficult times for many poorly trained Society Priests.

Interesting. Exactly what offer do you speak of, do you have some official information that the rest of us do not?
I dont think the Pope was wrong, especially in Ecclesia Dei, during the excommunications of all the Society Bishops that you defend from excommunication, which is against the Pope, already well said by me on the other thread.
(03-30-2016, 12:01 PM)Jan313 Wrote: [ -> ]MM, I see you defend the SSPX, even in falsification of what is plainly online, however, I see the SSPX as the Old Catholics, schismatically speaking, of the Second Vatican Council.  They retain valid holy orders, and maintain an "unchangedness," however, they have lost communion, and as time passes, the arguments for their alleges justification grown tired.  The year of mercy changed very little besides another gracious offer of reconciliation in these difficult times for many poorly trained Society Priests.

You can't have ever actually met any Society priests.  They are anything but "poorly trained".  In fact, they are routinely asked by bishops to provide training of the TLM  and often (unofficially) on theology.
Pages: 1 2 3