Thoughts on going to the NO
#21
Quote from: lumine
Hi Rosarium,
Rome gave the United States permission years ago to use the vernacular for the Mass, so in the U.S. according to the Bishops it is an integral part of Mass.

Quote from Rosarium:
The problems go beyond the language. The NO rubrics do not allow for the vernacular as default, so liking the NO because of it is a tenuous reasoning. It can be removed as easily as it was instituted.

Hi Rosarium,
The use of the vernacular in the Mass is not a default, it is an adaptation allowed by the Holy See that has been granted to the United States.  I am quite sure that this adaptation has also been granted to most Bishops in most countries.
Reply
#22
(06-14-2009, 06:25 PM)lumine Wrote: The use of the vernacular in the Mass is not a default, it is an adaptation allowed by the Holy See that has been granted to the United States.  I am quite sure that this adaptation has also been granted to most Bishops in most countries.

For now, yes.

However, it isn't part of the NO, and the language of the Church is still Latin. Language is very powerful; it should not be forgotten.
Reply
#23
(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.

Scipio, don't give Rosarium such a bad rap. Because he's right and you're wrong. What you're saying does by necessity lead one over to Sedevacantism.


Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#24
It seems that this site isn't only a Traditional Catholic Forum, it is actually a forum for people who either have a strong dislike for the Mass in the vernacular and a forum for people who mostly attend Masses celebrated by the Society of Saint Pius X.  I say this because interestingly my fish factor has increased by negative integers since my posts today.  It is my contention that one is traditional while liking the Novus Ordo.  Let's see how far beyond negative thirty I go now.

I should start a topic on people who have the most negative points!
Reply
#25
Quote from Rosarium:
Language is very powerful; it should not be forgotten.

I agree with that statement!
Reply
#26
(06-14-2009, 07:28 PM)lumine Wrote: It seems that this site isn't only a Traditional Catholic Forum, it is actually a forum for people who either have a strong dislike for the Mass in the vernacular and a forum for people who mostly attend Masses celebrated by the Society of Saint Pius X.  I say this because interestingly my fish factor has increased by negative integers since my posts today.  It is my contention that one is traditional while liking the Novus Ordo.  Let's see how far beyond negative thirty I go now.

I should start a topic on people who have the most negative points!

Stick to the topic ;)

If you note, this thread was split (this is the split) when I defended the validity of the NO. There is no "strong dislike".  I was pointing out some of the reasons listed were faulty reasons. The SSPX is not the topic of this thread. Fishfactors are erratic. Mine was -26 a day or so ago, and was up to +30 a few weeks ago.

I think a user whose name begins with "Orville" has the lowest the last time I looked (but I think that was his intent, I'm not sure).

If you are interested, this thread was split from my thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...686.0.html

Your assertations are false about this forum and my intent in my responses to your post.
Reply
#27
(06-14-2009, 07:36 PM)lumine Wrote: I agree with that statement!
You can quote an individual post by clicking the: [Image: quote.gif] at the top right of the posts (or the link next to it). This will wrap quote in quote tags (which can be typed manually as well) and prepare the response.

Having such unstructured quoting schemes is confusing, as it mixes your statements and the others.
Reply
#28
(06-14-2009, 07:28 PM)lumine Wrote: It seems that this site isn't only a Traditional Catholic Forum, it is actually a forum for people who either have a strong dislike for the Mass in the vernacular and a forum for people who mostly attend Masses celebrated by the Society of Saint Pius X.  I say this because interestingly my fish factor has increased by negative integers since my posts today.  It is my contention that one is traditional while liking the Novus Ordo.  Let's see how far beyond negative thirty I go now.

I should start a topic on people who have the most negative points!

Now, see, when people mention their negative fish factor, it's going to get even worse.  The stank sees all but waits.   :fish:
Reply
#29
"Rosarium" Wrote: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.

The law of prayer is the law of belief.

"Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae" Wrote:Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
Reply
#30
(06-14-2009, 10:48 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"Rosarium" Wrote: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.

The law of prayer is the law of belief.

"Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae" Wrote:Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

That was about Anglican "ordinations", referring to the lack of intent necessary for a valid ordination. The teachings of the Church regarding the priesthood and other sacraments haven't changed (and they can't change).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)