The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL!
(12-07-2009, 02:28 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-06-2009, 02:38 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-03-2009, 04:50 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: That's called wrestling!  LOL...and I already won.

Has nothing to do with "wrestling."

If you seriously believe that attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass is "sinful" then you hold a ludicrously erroneous belief.  One that would be instantly laughable (and/or lamentable) to most Catholics including Pope Benedict XVI.

Most "Catholics" aren' what's your point...some guys that intended to ruin the Faith would tell someone it's not sinful to scandalize folks by lending the errors and abuses credence...You have the reasoning capacity of Micky Mouse...Go back to my first post where I shut you down.

I hold no erroneous beliefs...ludicrous or otherwise...your belief that the sin of scandal ceases to be a sin if the place you are causing it is at a "Catholic" church shaking a tambourine...or even a so called true to the rubrics, as conservative as you please NO...well...that's just Ludacris

No, this guy is Ludacris.

[Image: ludacris.jpg]
I was going to post a video...but could not find one that really fit...I almost posted "Slap"...LOL
(12-07-2009, 02:28 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Most "Catholics" aren' what's your point...some guys that intended to ruin the Faith would tell someone it's not sinful to scandalize folks by lending the errors and abuses credence...You have the reasoning capacity of Micky Mouse...Go back to my first post where I shut you down.

I hold no erroneous beliefs...ludicrous or otherwise...your belief that the sin of scandal ceases to be a sin if the place you are causing it is at a "Catholic" church shaking a tambourine...or even a so called true to the rubrics, as conservative as you please NO...well...that's just Ludacris
:laughing:  There you go again.  Offering your ludicrous opinions as if they are facts you have proven.  LOL!!  Your really don't realize just how transparent your mistakes are, do you?  Take a course in logic and get back to us...

You didn't shut-down a single thing -- except what must be your very atrophied brain...

Your belief that it is sinful to attend the Ordinary Form of the Mass is ridiculous.  More than that, it's stultified.  It may even be sinful if one were not as abjectly ignorant about the Mass and Church as you are...
(12-07-2009, 02:42 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: I was going to post a video...but could not find one that really fit...I almost posted "Slap"...LOL

Lol, better than his song about young ladies, and their necessity of not blocking his progress...
(12-07-2009, 02:31 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Thankfully for him...he never had to see a prot Mess...sinful and often invalid   where you might get a chance at Our Lord insulted...or worse...a Well Worshiped Wheat Wafer.....then if you get one of those you can add the sin of idolotry...LOL.   Yeah, thats right.

And we already know of instances where at least one of the three elements is missing or incorrect...Just sick it in the sand like a good little lemming.

(12-06-2009, 12:34 PM)Carnivore Wrote: I love them all of course but my all-time favorite is the Ordinary Form of the Mass with all the Smells & Bells -- much like Pope Benedict XVI celebrates.

LOL, love having to worry about if the presbyter is eyeing your kid do ya?

Are you even Catholic?  Or even a Christian or any kind or just some odd parody?  Sinful to attend an OF Mass?  LOL!!
Carnivore, folks like myself and Scipio are what is called Traditional Catholics.  We hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and we exclusively attend the Mass that has produced so many saints and blesseds.  We see the Second Vatican Council as the Root Cause of the revolution in the human element of the Church, for it can be seen that the Church made a 180 after the council.  We see the New Mass as not presenting the Catholic Faith, as the Ottaviani Intervention pointed out:  "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent." We have much knowldege of the current situation in the Church through years of research and seeing it with our own eyes.  We have spent countless hours reading pre-conciliar texts that teach the Catholic Faith inviolate and other books that explain the novelties and errors of our times (i.e. Iota Unum, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics etc.).  We believe that the Novus Ordo Mass was never truly "promulgated," and thus cannot be the "Ordinary Form" of the Roman Rite, for in essence it is not the Roman Rite at all, but a "banal, on-the-spot production."  Just refer to the so-called "promulgators" of this New Mass, for revolution can be found in their words.  Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the highly suspected Freemason, is at the summit of our suspicions of the New Mass, for he was its primary architect.  In March of 1965, in the periodical L'Osservatore Romano, Bugnini was quoted as saying: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants." In 1974 preceding his second downfall, Bugnini proudly proclaimed Vatican II to be a "major conquest of the Catholic Church". Also, there is the infamous Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass who pointed out that: "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed."

So, we have the primary authors of the New Mass stating that we must strip what is Catholic out of the Mass - and that this "New Mass" isn't even truly the Roman Rite at all, but a whole new Rite - and we know that a new rite for the Latin church cannot lawfully be promulgated.  But, it wouldn't be entirely prudent to rely on just a couple of quotes to form an opinion.  The rest can be seen in just how this new Rite of Mass truly is, just how truly Protestant it is.  When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the Traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive."  Now, would ANY person who claims Catholicism as their religion who has seen such evidence be able to attend the New Mass and not be culpable of at least a venial sin?  This is a matter of debate - a matter of culpability that only God truly knows.  Although, as I believe, it can be logically expressed that those who claim the Catholic Faith who are well aware of the novelties and abuses in the Novus Ordo, and know full well that it is inferior to the Traditional Latin Mass, and attend the New Mass regardless, are indeed guilty of a grave sin - for one cannot wilfully submit themselves to an inferior form of worship when one knows that there is a superior form available - because God demands the very best of us.  There can be no doubt about it, though, that the New Mass is indeed a sacrilege (although there are those who attend it who may not be culpable of the sin of sacrilege), and from the evidence cannot be seen as pleasing to God compared to the true Mass.  Here is an article from the SSPX site that helps clear things up a bit:

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. (Carnivore, the following includes Traditional Catholics like Scipio and myself) - To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.
(12-07-2009, 10:12 AM)Nic Wrote: Carnivore, folks like myself and Scipio are what is called Traditional Catholics.  We hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church... 

I have an idea of what a "traditionally-minded Catholic" is, but there is no separate rite or recension within the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church or even the greater Catholic Church know as "Traditional Catholic" and that has me puzzled.  Is it like an "Old Catholic" or a "Polish National Catholic" that is not in perfect communion with the Pope?

Your comment "we hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church" also rings untrue in the wake of a comment that attending the Ordinary Form of the Mass is "sinful."  You don't seem to "hold fast to each and every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church."  You seem to follow those you personally agree with while attacking those your personally dislike.

Just my observation.
For a few hours I was wondering if you were a NOtard I know and love who had come here just to give me a hard time...the above comment proves otherwise since that fellow is not so simple, and not quite a NOtard.   The comment about liking and disliking would be dissembling by him...but I really thing you're that foolish.


Let me see if I can break it down to brass tacks for the guy that thinks I need a logic course, Mickey Mouse.

Scandal and Idolatry are sins...this we agree on.

If there is a service that calls itself Catholic...and there are abuses...especially repeated ones...but not necessarily...then at least the presider is sinning...anyone who understands what the Mass also sinning by attending despite this knowledge by causing scandal...because it appears they are condoning that behavior.  So in this instance we have a sin in attending the NO

Not to mention the sin committed if you don't admonish the presider

Now in general...the NO has caused millions to loss the Faith, therefore it is a ineffective tool, in fact, it is worse than ineffective, it is counter productive, it is this way for one of two possible reasons, 1) it contains error, or 2) it omits truth....possibly both.   But let's just work from the least egregious...number 2....if you know that your "mass" omits truth, and thus does a piss poor job of passing on the Faith...such a piss poor job that it actually drives people out of the Church....then every time you attend...knowing what it is and what it has sin the sin of scandal.

Further, it is possible for attendance to be a mortal sin under certain circumstances, assuming you know the three essential elements AND you know they are lacking, and you know the "priest" knows they are not only sin by way of Scandal, if you take the service are idol worshiping the "Well Worshiped Wheat Wafer"

In case you are not aware of the three elements and the result of KNOWN it is spelled out:

[quote]Once again it comes down to the three essentials -- matter, form, and intention.  Now, some Novus Order folks don’t seem to understand that since we believe as we pray, that in short order there will be services of the NO that are invalid due to belief changes.  The abuse of not using the correct matter is known, of not using the correct form is known, not having the proper intention can only be suspected but is not a bad bet in some cases.  Since this is the case it would be best to avoid those known and suspected invalid services, be they any one of the sacraments.  Let’s see what those are:

1)   Baptism
2)   Confession
3)   Confirmation
4)   Marriage
5)   Holy Orders (any of them)
6)   Extreme Unction
7)   Holy Eucharist

All of these can be called into question because they all require the same three elements.  I’ll let each of you follow the logic of what happens over time with each invalid sacrament, but the conclusion is this, fewer real Masses, priests, bishops, marriages, Christians, etc., not in any particular order but the whole thing snowballs.  And when is that critical mass point reached where it becomes unsafe to attend NO services?  I have described the NO as a mine field and suggested.  I would not step in the field were I to know that the

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)