Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-22-2011, 08:37 AM)Nic Wrote: In reality, it is the N.O. and Vatican II defending neo-cons that are the true "Cafeteria Catholics."  They now accept religious liberty and (false) ecumenism when the Tradition of the Church tells them not to.  They accept a Mass that clearly doesn't teach the traditional Catholic Faith and is based upon a rite that was previously condemned by the Church.  They choose to reject the sustaining nutrition of tradition and "feed" upon the novelty of the day - just because "Rome" says it tastes good.

What absolutely blows my mind is that these people, who call themselves "trads," thus showing that they have some knowledge of this current crisis, defend and attend a Mass that has done so much destruction to the Church.  This is absolutely ridiculous! Can they not see just what happened at its arrival?  Can they not see that the altars were stripped out of the churches and Protestant tables brought in when this rite usurped within the official structure of the Church?  Can they not see that the use of "for all" instead of "for many" goes strictly against what the Church has always taught?  Can they not see the countless abuses that are allowed and even encouraged by this rite? (altar girls, women wearing no veils, women speaking in church, Holy Communion under both forms, Holy Communion received in the hands) - these are all abuses ALLOWED by the N.O. to keep people away from true Catholicism and to make them believe that the Mass is nothing more than a symbolic community meal.  AND GUESS WHAT!?  That is EXACTLY what has happened?  Come on people, let's get real here!  The statistics don't lie - the state of the Church is plain to see for those who care to see it.  This isn't because of some "deficiencies" with the New rite of Mass - this is because the New rite of Mass itself is what is deficient.  Anything that allows such "deficiencies" is deficient itself.  The Latin Mass never allowed such things and still doesn't. 

Blind obedience simply doesn't cut it, folks.  Just because a rite of Mass is (falsely) called the "Ordinary Form" doesn't mean at all that it is a Catholic Mass that truly teaches the traditional Catholic Faith and that we should attend it no matter what, just because it is "all that is available."  It is absolutely NOT Catholic to just put up with all of the abuses and sacrileges just to receive a (possibly) valid sacrament.  When Arianism thoroughly infected the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, do you think that St. Athanasius and his followers just "put up with" the Arian abuses in the Mass just to get their Sunday Obligation "stamp" for the week?  Absolutely NOT! - they were "excommunicated" for their strict adherence to tradition.  When Protestantism was infecting England in the 16th century and many Masses were becoming Protestant or "Protestantized", do you think those Catholics just "put up with" those abuses to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  Absolutely NOT! - many died for their traditional stance.  This plague of blind obedience is a major factor in tearing down the Church.

Just how far does it go?  We have a rite of Mass that is so thoroughly Protestant (or "Protestantized), with so many abuses and sacrileges, yet people STILL attend it just to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  How far does it go?  If a Mass that was said by a naked priest was "all that was available," would I be duty-bound to attend it?  If a Satanic Black Mass was all that was available, said by a validly ordained priest with a valid consecration, would I still be duty bound to attend it?  It is this same reasoning that keeps me away from the N.O. Mass.  If Catholics even 100 years ago were asked "Would you attend a Mass that is strictly based off of Thomas Cranmer's rite, a rite previously condemned by the Church, and this new rite was manufactured by 6 Protestants and a Freemason - would you attend this Mass if it was all that was available, even if Rome calls it the Ordinary Form."  I am sure that the overwhelming answer would be NO.  It is only because of the relatively slow pace that these abuses became prevalent that Catholics today are so blinded to them.  It is like the frog and the boiling water experiment.  Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he immediately jumps out.  Put a frog into cool water and bring it to a steady boil and he will boil himself to death.  The great thing is that many people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, began to notice the water getting hot.  They wouldn't let the errors, novelty and sacrileges boil them to death.  They got out and took a courageous stand.  God Bless them for that.  One day many of these people will be called saints by the Catholic Church, much like St. Athanasius is today - for taking the same stance that these folks did.

This is so clear for one who understands it and is willing to accept that you may be correct.

You have spoken well!
Reply
(09-21-2011, 09:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:40 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:31 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.

At the very least, it echoes the intentions of the council. It was approved by the pope himself.

It was only later changed because of the reaction it received.

But the question here is important: the original meaning is what they actually intended it to mean, and they approved it with (allegedly) the authority of Almighty God.

I don't care so much what the new definition says. They are only trying to please all parties involved so as not to lose half the Church. Their original definition is indicative of the intentions of the authors and the principles of the whole Novus Ordo; and it is manifestly anti-Catholic.
The GIRM teaches at the level of Church discipline.  It is not definitive teaching with the authority of God.

The disciplines of the Church aren't legislated by the authority of God? Even the laws of state are legislated with the authority of God. They, however, are not protected in the same way the Church is, so if the state "binds" something against the law of God, it does not actually bind because God cannot bind Himself against God.

The Church, however, is protected from binding against God: She cannot bind a discipline that is contrary to the teachings of the Faith. This is known as secondary infallibility.
Reply
(09-23-2011, 08:46 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:40 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:31 PM)JMartyr Wrote: I think it is amazing that the original general instruction on the NO was changed to sound more orthodox, but the mass itself remained the same.

At the very least, it echoes the intentions of the council. It was approved by the pope himself.

It was only later changed because of the reaction it received.

But the question here is important: the original meaning is what they actually intended it to mean, and they approved it with (allegedly) the authority of Almighty God.

I don't care so much what the new definition says. They are only trying to please all parties involved so as not to lose half the Church. Their original definition is indicative of the intentions of the authors and the principles of the whole Novus Ordo; and it is manifestly anti-Catholic.
The GIRM teaches at the level of Church discipline.  It is not definitive teaching with the authority of God.

The disciplines of the Church aren't legislated by the authority of God? Even the laws of state are legislated with the authority of God. They, however, are not protected in the same way the Church is, so if the state "binds" something against the law of God, it does not actually bind because God cannot bind Himself against God.

The Church, however, is protected from binding against God: She cannot bind a discipline that is contrary to the teachings of the Faith. This is known as secondary infallibility.

The passage in the GIRM you find so objectionable is not a doctrinal definition so it is not in the form of a doctrinal definition.  There was nothing in it that contradicts Church teaching.  Again you seem to be grasping at straws to come up with something to criticize.
Reply
not at all. the very people who unleashed the vile abominable NO said in black and white the motive. then later changed it and tweaked it to hid the fact.
the fruit speaks for themselves. u cant dismiss it. its from the horses mouth. you just deny a horse is horse a mouth a mouth
neat trick
Hope u wake up
Reply
(09-23-2011, 03:23 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: not at all. the very people who unleashed the vile abominable NO said in black and white the motive. then later changed it and tweaked it to hid the fact.
the fruit speaks for themselves. u cant dismiss it. its from the horses mouth. you just deny a horse is horse a mouth a mouth
neat trick
Hope u wake up

So are people who attend the NO prot bastards?
Reply
No.
Reply
(09-23-2011, 03:37 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: No.

How can you not be a NO prot bastard if you attend a NO prot bastard mass?

YA BASTA!

sip sip
Reply
By the way the SSPX announced that the leadership will be meeting on Oct 7-8 behind closed doors to discuss the doctrinal preamble. 
Reply
(09-23-2011, 03:23 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: not at all. the very people who unleashed the vile abominable NO said in black and white the motive. then later changed it and tweaked it to hid the fact.
the fruit speaks for themselves. u cant dismiss it. its from the horses mouth. you just deny a horse is horse a mouth a mouth
neat trick
Hope u wake up

I can just imagine you on the Titanic complaining about people moving the deck chairs.  "Look how the ship is sinking!  Obviously moving the deck chairs has caused it!"  Hello? THERE'S AN ICEBERG!!!!  You are the one who needs to wake up and realize that we live in a time of unprecedented social change and most of the problems you attribute to the NO would be happening if we still had the TLM.  

I believe that that TLM is a better Mass but all this nonsense about fruits of the NO is a crock.
Reply
(09-23-2011, 03:44 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-23-2011, 03:23 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: not at all. the very people who unleashed the vile abominable NO said in black and white the motive. then later changed it and tweaked it to hid the fact.
the fruit speaks for themselves. u cant dismiss it. its from the horses mouth. you just deny a horse is horse a mouth a mouth
neat trick
Hope u wake up

I can just imagine you on the Titanic complaining about people moving the deck chairs.  "Look how the ship is sinking!  Obviously moving the deck chairs has caused it!"  Hello? THERE'S AN ICEBERG!!!!  You are the one who needs to wake up and realize that we live in a time of unprecedented social change and most of the problems you attribute to the NO would be happening if we still had the TLM.  

I believe that that TLM is a better Mass but all this nonsense about fruits of the NO is a crock.

I actually had someone at my church the other day tell me that the focus on the TLM was a waste of time because despite the expansion of the TLM these past few years the Church hasn't gotten better.  I think this is a very sad statement.  It's like saying what did praying the rosary ever do.  The TLM is not a silver bullet and the NO isn't the cause of all the problems in the church.  But, one can't get around the fact that the NO isn't helping, and is probably making things worse.  The NO doesn't deny Catholic theology, but it does significantly downplay many parts of theology that were front and center in the old mass. The Virgin Mary, the saints, the trinity, man's sinful nature, and transubstantiation are all things that get downplayed in the new mass in favor of a focus on community.  Nothing wrong with community, but it is problem the emphasis on community is so great that many Catholics don't believe the Virgin was ever virgin, don't understand the basics of the trinity, don't understand why confession is important and what a mortal sin is, and don't believe in transubstantiation.  Maybe we would be in the same boat if the TLM had stayed, but at least you couldn't fault the mass for not trying to educate people in the faith. 

The NO is a Catholic mass (perhaps by the skin of it's teeth), but we can do so so so much better than that. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)