The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL!
#81
(12-07-2009, 07:16 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: ...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...

So that's your stratagem?  Throw-up a few notions that run contrary to what the Church directs (OF Mass/attendance/sinful) and when they are rejected you become rude/crude?     :pazzo:
Reply
#82
You know, a sin was committed when the Novus Ordo was made and promulgated.

Why does it seem weird to you that some people think it's a sin to go to the thing?
Reply
#83
(12-07-2009, 09:08 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-07-2009, 07:16 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: ...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...

So that's your stratagem?  Throw-up a few notions that run contrary to what the Church directs (OF Mass/attendance/sinful) and when they are rejected you become rude/crude?     :pazzo:


As DK said about our last troll


"We got a live one here, folks."


I have said nothing counter to what the Church directs...is your stratagem to ignore that which you are unprepared to handle?  And I have been neither rude nor crude....but I can be if the situation merits.

You have not proven that it is not a sin to attend the NO while I have proven that it is (or at the very least can be if you know what's going on)...You simply employ contradiction.

You have no argument except "I was told by those in authority that it is the Ordinary Form and that's good enough for me."  Sorry but that won't hold water here.

This is for manifold reasons, not the least of which is that those same "authorities" are the same guys that oversaw and continue to oversee the destruction of the Church and the Faith...so no doubt they will tell you it's OK top attend the NO.

Some of them want you to loss the Faith, some of them still think the NO is some sort of springtime and they want you to be a warrior for it...whatever their motivation...it can safely be ignored since they are the culprits in the first place.....so you need to produce evidence or fold....I suggest folding...'cause you got nowhere to hide...and no reasonable argumet to produce...it has already bee countered above.
Reply
#84
Well, shoot. Since this thread is still going and has drifted off into The Argument That Never Ends, I may as well toss this in for fun. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...6639/posts
Facts everyone NEEDS to know about the "Traditional" Latin Mass

FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard "pre-Vatican II" neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:

“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”

Reply
#85
Now is a good time to respond to THK's last post:

(12-07-2009, 01:19 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
Klaus Gamber, via Zakhur Wrote:In fact, nowhere is it mentioned that the pope has the authority to change even a single local liturgical tradition. The fact that there is no mention of such authority strengthens our case considerably.

If the Pope truly has no authority to change even local traditions, the Missal of 1570 was a giant mistake.

I know for a fact (because he said it in another essay) that Klaus Gamber thought Pius V's liturgical reform was a "crystallization" of the Roman Rite, preventing it from growing beyond its European roots.  He also thought Pius XII reform was wrong.

I think he'd rather have kept the medieval trend:  every diocese has a different missal.
Reply
#86
The notion that the TLM is a radical break from the past is laughable...it goes back at least to the 500s and Gregory the Great....probably earlier,,,Certainly earlier

The encyclo calls what comes out in the 500s a radical change only after pointing out that we do not get to see the development of the liturgy in Rome itself....but then goes on to show the development in North Africa,,,which development was organic...


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm
Reply
#87
(12-07-2009, 09:56 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-07-2009, 09:08 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-07-2009, 07:16 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: ...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...

So that's your stratagem?  Throw-up a few notions that run contrary to what the Church directs (OF Mass/attendance/sinful) and when they are rejected you become rude/crude?     :pazzo:


As DK said about our last troll


"We got a live one here, folks."


I have said nothing counter to what the Church directs...is your stratagem to ignore that which you are unprepared to handle?  And I have been neither rude nor crude....but I can be if the situation merits.

You have not proven that it is not a sin to attend the NO while I have proven that it is (or at the very least can be if you know what's going on)...You simply employ contradiction.

You have no argument except "I was told by those in authority that it is the Ordinary Form and that's good enough for me."   Sorry but that won't hold water here.

This is for manifold reasons, not the least of which is that those same "authorities" are the same guys that oversaw and continue to oversee the destruction of the Church and the Faith...so no doubt they will tell you it's OK top attend the NO.

Some of them want you to loss the Faith, some of them still think the NO is some sort of springtime and they want you to be a warrior for it...whatever their motivation...it can safely be ignored since they are the culprits in the first place.....so you need to produce evidence or fold....I suggest folding...'cause you got nowhere to hide...and no reasonable argumet to produce...it has already bee countered above.

Attending an Ordinary Form of the Mass is "sinful?"  You lost ALL credibility with that post...  :pazzo:
Reply
#88
(12-07-2009, 10:02 PM)SoCalLocal Wrote: Well, shoot. Since this thread is still going and has drifted off into The Argument That Never Ends, I may as well toss this in for fun. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...6639/posts
Facts everyone NEEDS to know about the "Traditional" Latin Mass

FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard "pre-Vatican II" neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:

“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”

:thumb:

Thanks for the actual facts...  Beware though, Scipio_a's head might explode if you keep it up...
Reply
#89
LOL,

Thanks for making my point.
Reply
#90
(12-07-2009, 10:02 PM)SoCalLocal Wrote: Well, shoot. Since this thread is still going and has drifted off into The Argument That Never Ends, I may as well toss this in for fun. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...6639/posts
Facts everyone NEEDS to know about the "Traditional" Latin Mass

FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard "pre-Vatican II" neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:

“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”

Unfortunately, the author of this piece in Free Republic leaves out more than a few pertinent facts, the chief one being that in the first three centuries of the Church, Mass was offered, "on the run" because of persecutions. Consequently, there wasn't time for any type of stablility. Once Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, there was time for stability and development.  Latin was the vernacular until the fall of the Roman Empire, and that accident of history (the subsequent disuse of Latin by the people) wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence which is essential to the worship of God in the Mass. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)