Thoughts on going to the NO
#1
"This was split out of the "Concise reason for SSPX" thread with a vote button (by Quis I assume)-- that is the context, it was never ment to cause an argument but OP decided to go there.  Not interested in dicussing this further the only reason I originally posted was because the thread claimed there was going to be no argument since it was about each persons personal reason for SSPX or not SSPX.  I had recent ly been doing nothing but staying mostly in non controversial threads

Didi got to make his point and I said nothing.  Others did but not really to take him to task except for reason 4 which anyone could guess at and probably be right, but some folks need everything spelled out.   Sorry I'm not spelln'


as the guy that got arrested in...


There was even a caveat for the three people on the board I know are in a situation where they have no TLM.

So in short I did not start this thread.

If y'all want to discuss it have at it, but I ain't bitin'"



Like UD I choose SSPX or similar.


.....
Reply
#2
(06-07-2009, 06:23 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: This is because the NO is NEVER suitable.
The body of Christ is always suitable. Those who desecrate it have sinned and will answer for it.

Quote:Other trad groups with no bishop have the same issues as NO priests (except the first 12 FSSP - who we know were ordained properly) - who is the bishop ordaining and is he doing properly -- is he even ABLE to do it properly since he might not actually be a bishop!
If you followed this logic, you must admit you have no way of knowing if any bishop is validly ordained. The NO rite, while having problems, is valid, according to the Church. Are you the Church?

Quote:NO or CMRI -- CMRI, they got the Mass.  And the NO is a new Protestant religion.

That's the concise version. :)
The NO is a valid form of the mass in the True Church. The NO rite was influenced by protestants we could say (but that is beyond the scope of this thread and probably the forum), but to say it is a new religion (which doesn't make sense, it is just a rite) is probably not something we should be saying as Catholics.
Reply
#3
(06-07-2009, 07:20 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-07-2009, 06:23 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: This is because the NO is NEVER suitable.
The body of Christ is always suitable. Those who desecrate it have sinned and will answer for it.

Quote:Other trad groups with no bishop have the same issues as NO priests (except the first 12 FSSP - who we know were ordained properly) - who is the bishop ordaining and is he doing properly -- is he even ABLE to do it properly since he might not actually be a bishop!
If you followed this logic, you must admit you have no way of knowing if any bishop is validly ordained. The NO rite, while having problems, is valid, according to the Church. Are you the Church?

Quote:NO or CMRI -- CMRI, they got the Mass.  And the NO is a new Protestant religion.

That's the concise version. :)
The NO is a valid form of the mass in the True Church. The NO rite was influenced by protestants we could say (but that is beyond the scope of this thread and probably the forum), but to say it is a new religion (which doesn't make sense, it is just a rite) is probably not something we should be saying as Catholics.

Dude you are so boring I don't have any tears left.

And it is something we should be saying as Catholics.  Because it does make sense that it is a new religion.  It does not make sense otherwise...so there :laughing:

If you like getting a cookie on Sunday have at it.  I refuse to be part of idol worship.

And you're right about the bishop logic...It is what gives some people pause about B16 being a legit Pope since he is the first done in the NO.  That's even if you like the guy and hope he is the real deal (for his sake).

Besides in your OP you said this was not a discussion but a concise reason forum.  WTH.
Reply
#4
(06-07-2009, 07:54 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(06-07-2009, 07:20 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(06-07-2009, 06:23 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: This is because the NO is NEVER suitable.
The body of Christ is always suitable. Those who desecrate it have sinned and will answer for it.

Quote:Other trad groups with no bishop have the same issues as NO priests (except the first 12 FSSP - who we know were ordained properly) - who is the bishop ordaining and is he doing properly -- is he even ABLE to do it properly since he might not actually be a bishop!
If you followed this logic, you must admit you have no way of knowing if any bishop is validly ordained. The NO rite, while having problems, is valid, according to the Church. Are you the Church?

Quote:NO or CMRI -- CMRI, they got the Mass.  And the NO is a new Protestant religion.

That's the concise version. :)
The NO is a valid form of the mass in the True Church. The NO rite was influenced by protestants we could say (but that is beyond the scope of this thread and probably the forum), but to say it is a new religion (which doesn't make sense, it is just a rite) is probably not something we should be saying as Catholics.

Dude you are so boring I don't have any tears left.

And it is something we should be saying as Catholics.  Because it does make sense that it is a new religion.  It does not make sense otherwise...so there :laughing:

If you like getting a cookie on Sunday have at it.  I refuse to be part of idol worship.

And you're right about the bishop logic...It is what gives some people pause about B16 being a legit Pope since he is the first done in the NO.  That's even if you like the guy and hope he is the real deal (for his sake).

Besides in your OP you said this was not a discussion but a concise reason forum.  WTH.
Because it's so interesting to hear you go on and on about it? Seriously, instead of just calling everybody in disagreement names, why don't you start a thread with the reasons for your position? If you have an argument for why the NO Mass is just a protestant worship service and NO episcopal consecrations are invalid, make your case.
Reply
#5
Rosarium Wrote:
Scipio_a Wrote:This is because the NO is NEVER suitable.
The body of Christ is always suitable. Those who desecrate it have sinned and will answer for it.
Warning: don't equate Sacramental forms/uses with the Sacraments Themselves.

Quote:The NO is a valid form of the mass in the True Church.
Valid does not be orthodox nor indefectible.

Quote:The NO rite was influenced by protestants we could say (but that is beyond the scope of this thread and probably the forum), but to say it is a new religion (which doesn't make sense, it is just a rite) is probably not something we should be saying as Catholics.
You call it a form then a rite, which is it a form or a rite? I merely ask you to meditate upon the question.
Reply
#6
(06-07-2009, 07:54 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: And you're right about the bishop logic...It is what gives some people pause about B16 being a legit Pope since he is the first done in the NO.  That's even if you like the guy and hope he is the real deal (for his sake).

I'm just catching up on this thread, but, scipio, I'm telling you you're treading dangerous ground here with regard to the forum rules.  You may want to back up from the edge in your posts.
Reply
#7
(06-07-2009, 07:20 PM)Rosarium Wrote: If you followed this logic, you must admit you have no way of knowing if any bishop is validly ordained. The NO rite, while having problems, is valid, according to the Church. Are you the Church?

The NO rite does however leave room for some doubts; i.e. you need the assurance of the Church that it is valid.  I recall Fr. Zuhlsdorf saying that he was one of the first ordained in the safer, sounder, tighter-theologically rite.  Anyways, Jovan can talk about infallibility extending or not extending to translations of promulgated rites.
Reply
#8
You are a glutton for punishment aren't you, Scipio.  ;)
Reply
#9
Doesn't a sacrament  need matter, form, and intent to be "performed"?

And, aren't we called to assume, unless the evidence points very much so to the negative, that all the sacraments are "done" when matter/form/intent are there?

And, I know I'm treading VERY close to breaking the forum rules here, but I must ask the question.

To state that the Novus Ordo is a Protestant religion.. Doesn't that make one a sedevacantist?  I cannot possibly see how saying the Novus Ordo is not-Catholic, yet recognizing Pope Benedict XVI (or any of his last few predecessors?) as Pope, can be reconciled.
Reply
#10
(06-07-2009, 07:54 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: If you like getting a cookie on Sunday have at it.  I refuse to be part of idol worship.
DO NOT accuse me of idol worship without evidence. Also, DO NOT malign the priests at the church I attend. They use the proper form to the letter both materially and in the liturgy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)