FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae (/showthread.php?tid=64572)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 02:08 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: Slightly related ... growing up I was at alot of masses where the matter used invalidated the Secret...bread mixed with honey and other things. I learned later that these additives made the matter for the Sacrament invalid...so no consecration and no Real Presence. I was born in 69, and on 70s and 80s, this was rampant in the US. Might still be in N.O. circles.

So what I'm saying is the notion that alot of people are not really worshipping and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist isn't so crazy as ya might think.

Agreed.  That is why I predicated my statements by making the qualification above that there were no abuses in the Mass and that there was proper intent.  I should have added valid matter of course.  You are entirely correct in that. 

There is a parish in our diocese which has been baking bread for their Mass for years and years.  Bread baking is an actual liturgical ministry that they advertise.  I have serious doubts as to whether anyone in that parish has received the Eucharist in some time. 

Thanks for pointing that out.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - guacamole - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 02:15 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: pollyanna-ish bliss ninny

this is going to be my new avatar caption.  thanks so much!  :jester:

now i'm a troll for telling people to be nice!  well, i could be worse things, i guess.  


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 02:18 PM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 02:15 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: pollyanna-ish bliss ninny

this is going to be my new avatar caption.  thanks so much!  :jester:

OK, so that was well played.  :P


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - lumine - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 02:08 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:58 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:37 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 11:54 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 05:36 PM)2Vermont Wrote: You know, I'm not sure these are the only possibilities.  I haven't considered it long enough.  But I will say that I find it hard to believe that after seeing 50 years of the fruits of this mass that anyone can believe that it is of God. 

So millions of Catholics have been unknowingly worshiping mere bread and wine every time they have gone to Mass or Eucharistic Adoration for the past 50 years?  There is no reason to get upset about EMHC's or treating the Eucharist with disrespect because hey, it isn't Jesus anyway right?   Those pictures of the Eucharist being passed around in a plastic cup at WYD are ultimately meaningless since it wasn't a valid Mass in the first place.   

OK, so now your posts just seem rude with the sarcasm.

I was not being sarcastic at all.  Not even in the slightest.  If you do not believe in the validity of the Mass. then you must believe at least the first point, and you have no legitimate reason to be concerned about the second two. 

Slightly related ... growing up I was at alot of masses where the matter used invalidated the Secret...bread mixed with honey and other things. I learned later that these additives made the matter for the Sacrament invalid...so no consecration and no Real Presence. I was born in 69, and on 70s and 80s, this was rampant in the US. Might still be in N.O. circles.

So what I'm saying is the notion that alot of people are not really worshipping and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist isn't so crazy as ya might think.

So, are we to believe that most NO parishes use such bread and so most NO parishes don't have the Eucharist?


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - 2Vermont - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:03 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:58 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:37 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 11:54 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 05:36 PM)2Vermont Wrote: You know, I'm not sure these are the only possibilities.  I haven't considered it long enough.  But I will say that I find it hard to believe that after seeing 50 years of the fruits of this mass that anyone can believe that it is of God. 

So millions of Catholics have been unknowingly worshiping mere bread and wine every time they have gone to Mass or Eucharistic Adoration for the past 50 years?  There is no reason to get upset about EMHC's or treating the Eucharist with disrespect because hey, it isn't Jesus anyway right?   Those pictures of the Eucharist being passed around in a plastic cup at WYD are ultimately meaningless since it wasn't a valid Mass in the first place.   

OK, so now your posts just seem rude with the sarcasm.

I was not being sarcastic at all.  Not even in the slightest.  If you do not believe in the validity of the Mass. then you must believe at least the first point, and you have no legitimate reason to be concerned about the second two. 

I have said that I question it.  You have gone out of your way to tell me off in so many words.  If that is not how you mean to come off then perhaps you could soften your comments to me.  Because you really aren't coming off anymore as someone who is concerned for me.

I get it.  You don't like the fact that I feel this way.  Yes, someone who used to never question it now questions it.  It is easier to get mad at that person than to get mad at why someone like me would even do such a thing.  Sounds like how I first reacted to my husband.  So, yeah, I get it.

I have gone out of my way to make actual points and debate your responses to them, rather than debating you as a person.  I have not gotten mad at you, or told you off.  I have proposed arguments, to which you then responded, and I then debated your responses to them.  I have done this through use of a classical "if - then" logic statement.  I have repeatedly said that "in order to believe X, you must also believe Y".  The only person bringing emotion into the discussion between the two of us is you. 

In addition, whether you have gotten to the point that you disbelieve in the validity of the NO Mass is not the point that I have been making at all.  Rather, my point is that you should consider the intellectual leap that you must make in order for you to actually come to that belief.  For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation.  There is no way around this.  The only way for you to come to the first conclusion is if you also accept the second.  If you cannot accept the second, then you cannot accept the first either as they must go together.  The "if-then" logic statement is a simple and effective way to help determine whether you really believe what you think you might. 

If you cannot accept the second conclusion intellectually, then it is probable that you do actually believe in the validity of the Mass, and are instead very frustrated that it is not as edifying as it could and should be, or perhaps just very disappointed with the manner that it is often celebrated. 

There is a stark difference between going after you as a person and going after the arguments made by you in the manner that I did.  I hope that this has helped to demonstrate the difference between that and I what I was trying to do. 


*EDIT - Confusing statement *

You have given me food for thought. I wish I could say without question that I was "just frustrated" because I think it's more than that at this point.

To be fair to guacamole, I did see your comment earlier and I also got a bad vibe from it.  Then again, I seem to have been misinterpreting your motives/comments throughout this thread so take that FWIW.  You would think I would know you better.  I am sorry for that.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - St. Pius of Trent - 08-19-2013

Why is it so tough to imagine that there are invalid masses that have beem happening since the NO began?


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Sant Anselmo - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 03:33 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:45 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 01:03 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:58 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 12:37 PM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-19-2013, 11:54 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 05:36 PM)2Vermont Wrote: You know, I'm not sure these are the only possibilities.  I haven't considered it long enough.  But I will say that I find it hard to believe that after seeing 50 years of the fruits of this mass that anyone can believe that it is of God. 

So millions of Catholics have been unknowingly worshiping mere bread and wine every time they have gone to Mass or Eucharistic Adoration for the past 50 years?  There is no reason to get upset about EMHC's or treating the Eucharist with disrespect because hey, it isn't Jesus anyway right?   Those pictures of the Eucharist being passed around in a plastic cup at WYD are ultimately meaningless since it wasn't a valid Mass in the first place.   

OK, so now your posts just seem rude with the sarcasm.

I was not being sarcastic at all.  Not even in the slightest.  If you do not believe in the validity of the Mass. then you must believe at least the first point, and you have no legitimate reason to be concerned about the second two. 

I have said that I question it.  You have gone out of your way to tell me off in so many words.  If that is not how you mean to come off then perhaps you could soften your comments to me.  Because you really aren't coming off anymore as someone who is concerned for me.

I get it.  You don't like the fact that I feel this way.  Yes, someone who used to never question it now questions it.  It is easier to get mad at that person than to get mad at why someone like me would even do such a thing.  Sounds like how I first reacted to my husband.  So, yeah, I get it.

I have gone out of my way to make actual points and debate your responses to them, rather than debating you as a person.  I have not gotten mad at you, or told you off.  I have proposed arguments, to which you then responded, and I then debated your responses to them.  I have done this through use of a classical "if - then" logic statement.  I have repeatedly said that "in order to believe X, you must also believe Y".  The only person bringing emotion into the discussion between the two of us is you. 

In addition, whether you have gotten to the point that you disbelieve in the validity of the NO Mass is not the point that I have been making at all.  Rather, my point is that you should consider the intellectual leap that you must make in order for you to actually come to that belief.  For someone to believe that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, they must also believe that millions of Catholics have not really been receiving the Eucharist since its promulgation.  There is no way around this.  The only way for you to come to the first conclusion is if you also accept the second.  If you cannot accept the second, then you cannot accept the first either as they must go together.  The "if-then" logic statement is a simple and effective way to help determine whether you really believe what you think you might. 

If you cannot accept the second conclusion intellectually, then it is probable that you do actually believe in the validity of the Mass, and are instead very frustrated that it is not as edifying as it could and should be, or perhaps just very disappointed with the manner that it is often celebrated. 

There is a stark difference between going after you as a person and going after the arguments made by you in the manner that I did.  I hope that this has helped to demonstrate the difference between that and I what I was trying to do. 


*EDIT - Confusing statement *

You have given me food for thought. I wish I could say without question that I was "just frustrated" because I think it's more than that at this point.

To be fair to guacamole, I did see your comment earlier and I also got a bad vibe from it.  Then again, I seem to have been misinterpreting your motives/comments throughout this thread so take that FWIW.  You would think I would know you better.  I am sorry for that.

No worries.  I have a tendency to be direct, which sometime comes across the wrong way.  Its tough to interpret intent sometimes through the written word.  Body language helps a great deal in that regard. 

God bless,



Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - lumine - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 03:34 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Why is it so tough to imagine that there are invalid masses that have beem happening since the NO began?

Because Jesus said to the apostle Peter that the Church was built on him and the gates of Hell would not prevail.....Jesus doesn't lie.


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - Basilios - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 03:34 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: Why is it so tough to imagine that there are invalid masses that have beem happening since the NO began?

Definitely not hard to imagine. The NO itself though isn't invalid. TLM's can be invalid too and have been before 1962 when the Priest was careless (though I am sure back then it was 1 in every 10000 Masses now it's probably 1 in every 1000).


Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - JoniCath - 08-19-2013

(08-19-2013, 02:15 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: You on the other hand are a different story. (1.) First of all, you don't know a damn thing about me or my motivations for saying anything, so you only make yourself look like an idiot when you talk about them.  Secondly, and more broadly, you have added little if anything since you showed up on this forum outside of you chiding people to be nice and get along. (2.) I do not believe you to be a person of good will.(3)  You repeatedly behave like a pollyanna-ish bliss ninny with a strong dose of holier than thou thrown in to boot(3).[b]  Your track record of jumping into the middle of conversations which have a long history that you know nothing about is annoying, and your go to move of chiding people (4.) and telling everyone to be nice, suggests you to be little more than a troll with no intent in having serious conversations on the Faith, or no capability to do so.  In short, you are pretty much wasting everyone's time here.(4.)
  Perhaps you should check out CAF.  They love to show everyone how Christ-like they are through the exercise of false charity. You'll fit right in.

Thanks for giving me the perfect opportunity to highlight the differences I was referring to.  Enjoy CAF. 
[/b]

(1.) Your motivations for saying what you say are not important here. Your knowledge of Church teaching, a pleasant disposition, an ability to learn are what matters here.

(2) But, you see, I & others do consider her to be a person of good will, while your inability to control your temper is quite obvious in every post you write.
(3). Is just plain mean.
(4) takes a lot of nerve when you do not understand or accept Church teaching on PRIMACY OF CONSCIENCE.