This will make you sick
#21
(11-28-2009, 11:25 AM)NonSumDignus Wrote: To do a real comparison between the NO and the Tridentine, one has to compare both at their "best". Which would mean a Novus Ordo in Latin with a full choir, ad orientem, Communion kneeling, etc. And a Tridentine Solemn High Mass, which is pretty standard.

It would be hard to call the NO a "prod Mass" after that. Especially because the only substantive difference between the two is the Offertory- which was not even in the TLM until the late in the Middle Ages (before then the Secrets were the only art of the Offertory). Not that it's unimportant, of course.

A real comparison would be to how it is often celebrated. The NO has so many options and indults that it is hard to believe it was truly intended to be celebrated at its "best." Otherwise, how come there haven't been active direction from the top on the celebration of the NO? Why are there so many Masses in the vernacular, with EMHC, with altar girls, etc etc?
Reply
#22
I think Forest Gump said it best..."The NO Mass is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get."

Reply
#23
LOL
Reply
#24
The following statement is a perfect example of sloppy traditionalist talking points. Serious academic arguments, people. Please.

Petertherock Wrote:The NO Mass was created by protestants and freemasons to destroy the Catholic faith. It's done a pretty good job too.

No. Some Protestants were available to the Concilium for consultation, but they had zero voting rights. As for the Freemason connection, by which I assume to mean Annibale Bugnini, those claims are based on heresay and rumors. While an area for legitimate exploration, until it is prooven, the Bugnini-Masonic connection is nothing more than gossip which no Christian has business spreading.

Reply
#25
(11-28-2009, 05:24 PM)Credo Wrote: The following statement is a perfect example of sloppy traditionalist talking points. Serious academic arguments, people. Please.

Petertherock Wrote:The NO Mass was created by protestants and freemasons to destroy the Catholic faith. It's done a pretty good job too.

No. Some Protestants were available to the Concilium for consultation, but they had zero voting rights. As for the Freemason connection, by which I assume to mean Annibale Bugnini, those claims are based on heresay and rumors. While an area for legitimate exploration, until it is prooven, the Bugnini-Masonic connection is nothing more than gossip which no Christian has business spreading.

The following is from a NOite who is only pretending to be a traditionalist.

Reply
#26
Petertherock Wrote:The following is from a NOite who is only pretending to be a traditionalist.

You might want to reformat that. There is nothing following the above statement.

As for me not being a traditionalists, you may or may not be correct. To one man I might be a "smells and bells traditionalists." To another I might be a fanatic. To another a liberal. To another a conservative. I know a man who's convinced I'm in Opus Dei, and twice I've been called a Muslim by members of this very forum. I am at a loss to classify myself. "Christian" will do.
Reply
#27
U mean NOtard.
And there is evedence credo more then heresay. Also the prods didn't have voting power but that says nothing considering what the NO is
The only sloppy stuff here credo is your posts
Sip
Reply
#28
devotedknuckles Wrote:And there is evedence credo more then heresay.

What might that be? Some trad site said it so it's true?
Reply
#29
No credom no one called u a moham u were called out for being a moham sympathizer big difference. And I was joking re the notard remark though its preety clear the mohams sympathies of yours
Sip
Reply
#30
Well crddo since the point of being a mason and in a secret society is to not advertise your membership what would be convincing evedince for u next to a full confessipona nd vid of bugnini taking masonoc vows.
Don't bother answering I know what ull say
Anyhoo if the shit stinks
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)