SSPX or Orthodox
#91
Save your breath louis martin. Nsper very well knows where and from whom the NO came. Manyu opf us here have spent quit allot of time speakong with him about it. I'm startimg to get the impression he is just saying trash like "ill offer no and tlm" just to get a rise oit of most here. Nsper has beenhere long enough to very well know he's not a trad and what he says regarding the know is prettu scandolous.
But he keeps saying it even after we tried to show him. I don't think he's a troll but he's certanly not the sharpest lnife in the drawer.
Reply
#92
I have read the stuff on the questionable founding of the NO, but the NO, according to the Church, is the Ordinary Form of the Mass. As one who attends an NO Mass, I don't see what the problem is with the Mass itself. I feel it conveys both the transubstantial nature of the Mass, but also the communal banquet (Last Supper) quality of the Mass. Perhaps the sacrificial nature of the Mass not harped on as much, but as I said in another thread, people should be learning their theology from more than just the Mass. The problems I see with the NO are too many cases of liturgical abuse and heterodox homilies, both of which can be resolved, not by scrapping the NO, but by enforcing stricter standards of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. After all, if a Priest is not better (re)formed, then even if the NO was scrapped and the TLM deemed the new Ordinary Form, said Priests would still probably preach heterodox homilies and find a way to botch up the liturgy.

Also, in arguing that NO Mass is defective because their may have been Protestant involvement in its development, does not necessarily hold. Remember, the ad hominem argument (in this case that the Ordinary Form is defective because of who MAY have had a hand in its development) is a logical fallacy. The question is what is conveyed by the Mass? There is certainly reference to the fact that the bread and wine, after the Act of Consecration, ARE the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ. There is also reference to the communal nature of the Mass as well. In terms of the sacrificial nature, I'll admit it can come through a little weak, but that is why good formation and education is so important.

And the fact that elements of the NO are acceptable to certain Protestants does not necessarily render the NO defective either. One has to look at which Protestant groups are claiming this. Remember that the Anglican liturgy was a near-direct translation of the Pre-Tridentine Sarum Rite back in the 1600s and has developed organically since then (the newest translation, at least in the US, is the 1979 Book of Common Prayer). Anglicans, because of their via media character, have a gamut of Eucharistic beliefs, but the XXXIX Articles advodcate a belief in the Real Presence, but not transubstantiation. Martin Luther, who also believed in the Real Presence through consubstantiation. Presbyterians believe in a pneumatic Real Presence and the Methodists, like the Anglicans whom they stem from, have some form of a belief in the Real Presence as well. All these groups are liturgical in nature and based their liturgies off of the Catholic rites (and this would have been Pre-Vatican 2, possibly Pre-Vatican 1 as well and, for groups like the Lutherans and Anglicans, Pre-Trent).

Especially for High Church Anglicans and Methodists, as well as Lutherans, they would have little problem with the current Ordinary Form because they too believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Again, this does not speak ill of the NO Mass, but more shows that not all Protestants are as foolish and off-base as the Baptist and non-denominational funda-gelical types who view Communion as merely a memorial.
Reply
#93
The fact is a committee of Catholics and protestants developed the New Mass.  It is inorganic, not developed by the whole Body of Christ through natural movement of piety by the faithful.  The intention of the New Mass, whether it is valid or not, was to create a Mass acceptable to protestants.  If protestants find our doctrine repulsive, the best way to make a Mass acceptable to them is to remove or hide the doctrine.  You may think that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is obvious in the New Mass, but the numbers show otherwise.  Most Catholics are confused on this point.  You are lucky you found a way to learn this.

The Anglicans do not have the real presence, they do not have the priesthood.

Simply being valid does not make a Mass holy or necessarily fruitful.  Simply being promuglated by the Church does not either.  Tomorrow Pope Benedict could wake up, and say that the Mass is simply taking communion hosts on a paper plate, wine in a dixie cup and saying "This is my body", "this is my blood." and then distributing.  This would be entirely valid (with right intention).  Would it be right?  No.  Would it be good? No.  Would it be holy? No.
If Pope Benedict did this tomorrow, hypothetically, and made it ordinary, would you go to Mass on Sunday in this new ordinary form?  Would you find this acceptable?

We can't settle for less.  We must go for what is greatest.

The place for discussion of this is elsewhere, as the NO has nothing to do with a question of SSPX or Orthodox.
Reply
#94
Nsper,

I have seldom read a better thought out anti-Traditional rant defending the Novus Ordo bastardisation of the Holy Mass. Once again I have to ask why you're here. By now you have to realise that you are in no way a Traditionalist in any sense. You are definitely not a troll, because trolls don't take the time to make posts like this one.  Are you just slow, or do you enjoy having your anti-Traditionalist  views exposed for the blatant unTraditional idiocy they are?

One point, however. You say, 'And the fact that elements of the NO are acceptable to certain Protestants does not necessarily render the NO defective either'. So, the fact that the violently anti-Catholic, Real Presence denying Reformed Church of France is on record that in their opinion the NO, celebrated using the Second Eucharistic Prayer, is a 'memorial meal' and in no way a Catholic Mass, doesn't bother you?

No, I guess it wouldn't bother a liberal modernist masquerading as a neoCath! :)
Reply
#95
(10-05-2009, 01:17 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Nsper,

I have seldom read a better thought out anti-Traditional rant defending the Novus Ordo bastardisation of the Holy Mass. Once again I have to ask why you're here. By now you have to realise that you are in no way a Traditionalist in any sense. You are definitely not a troll, because trolls don't take the time to make posts like this one.  Are you just slow, or do you enjoy having your anti-Traditionalist  views exposed for the blatant unTraditional idiocy they are?

One point, however. You say, 'And the fact that elements of the NO are acceptable to certain Protestants does not necessarily render the NO defective either'. So, the fact that the violently anti-Catholic, Real Presence denying Reformed Church of France is on record that in their opinion the NO, celebrated using the Second Eucharistic Prayer, is a 'memorial meal' and in no way a Catholic Mass, doesn't bother you?

No, I guess it wouldn't bother a liberal modernist masquerading as a neoCath! :)

does he know there are SSPX Catholics on this site? Its obvious which one to chose. For a Catholic anyway.
Reply
#96
(10-05-2009, 01:24 PM)fantasy_forever Wrote: does he know there are SSPX Catholics on this site? Its obvious which one to chose. For a Catholic anyway.

He knows, but he doesn't care. He's solidly mired in the slimey muck of the neoCath, NO mindset and neither logic nor common sense seems to bother him.
Reply
#97
(10-05-2009, 01:17 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Nsper,

I have seldom read a better thought out anti-Traditional rant defending the Novus Ordo bastardisation of the Holy Mass. Once again I have to ask why you're here. By now you have to realise that you are in no way a Traditionalist in any sense. You are definitely not a troll, because trolls don't take the time to make posts like this one.  Are you just slow, or do you enjoy having your anti-Traditionalist  views exposed for the blatant unTraditional idiocy they are?

One point, however. You say, 'And the fact that elements of the NO are acceptable to certain Protestants does not necessarily render the NO defective either'. So, the fact that the violently anti-Catholic, Real Presence denying Reformed Church of France is on record that in their opinion the NO, celebrated using the Second Eucharistic Prayer, is a 'memorial meal' and in no way a Catholic Mass, doesn't bother you?

No, I guess it wouldn't bother a liberal modernist masquerading as a neoCath! :)

I enjoy these discussions and find them rather interesting. And whether the Reformed Church of France believes the NO under the Second Eucharistic Prayer is a 'memorial' or a true Mass does not really bother me. As I said, I attend an NO Mass and it seems to come through in the liturgy that the bread and wine, after Consecration, is the Body and Blood. And again, it is interesting, the people who know me IRL would never accuse me of being too liberal. And if I were slow, would I be able to write out such well thought out posts? ;)

Quote:The place for discussion of this is elsewhere, as the NO has nothing to do with a question of SSPX or Orthodox.

Sorry. Then someone please start a new thread. I have started enough of them.
Reply
#98
One other thing, remember that there is a memorial aspect to the Mass. Remember, the Catholic Mass is fairly sublime when you get right down to it. It is not a meal in the normal sense of the word, but it is communal. We are participating in the eternal nature of the Sacrifice of Christ and are receiving His transubstantiated Body and Blood under the elements (accidents) of the bread and wine. We are remembering His death and resurrection and His commands.
Reply
#99
(10-05-2009, 01:41 PM)nsper7 Wrote: One other thing, remember that there is a memorial aspect to the Mass. Remember, the Catholic Mass is fairly sublime when you get right down to it. It is not a meal in the normal sense of the word, but it is communal. We are participating in the eternal nature of the Sacrifice of Christ and are receiving His transubstantiated Body and Blood under the elements (accidents) of the bread and wine. We are remembering His death and resurrection and His commands.

Very true, but the Reformed Church of France sees deeper than you do. Their opinion is that the NO with the 2nd EP, is not a Mass at all (I do not agree with them, BTW), is not a Sacrifice, but only a 'memorial'.
Reply
wasn't the NO devised by Thomas Cranmer during the English reformation?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)