The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL!
(12-14-2009, 09:30 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:25 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:19 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 05:21 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The term Novus Ordo Missae was used for the longest time by even the liberals.  I have pages and pages of booklets originally used to instruct priests at the time to say the New Mass, and it is clearly referred to as Novus Ordo.  It seems it was a very correct name.
Perhaps you need the stamp.

Bullshit.  It's not only inaccurate, it's demeaning -- the very reason some people still employ its use.  Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass.  All far more accurate and not demeaning -- NOT that you are going to change your ways.  People like you ENJOY being offensive on this matter so it's expected.  Just remember the ink stamp...

Carnivore, I just read your post, but I am little confused as to why you think it is offensive. Isn't it just saying "new Order" Mass? Maybe you're seeing something I'm not, but I'm not sure how that is offensive. Let me know what you think...

Thanks.

You honestly don't see the negativity is typing "NO Mass?"  Really?  If "Mass of Pope Paul VI" or "Pauline Mass" is too cumbersome why not just use "Ordinary Form" or "OF Mass" like the Pope does?

Please do not speak to me as if I am hopelessly stupid.

But no, I do not. Please explain the negativity of this. I am not trying to sarcastic or contraversial. I really want to understand the logic supporting the assertion that the acronymn "NO Mass" (also seen as  "NOM" - Novus Ordo Missae) is somehow more negative than "TLM" (Traditional Latin Mass).
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:30 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:25 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:19 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 05:21 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The term Novus Ordo Missae was used for the longest time by even the liberals.  I have pages and pages of booklets originally used to instruct priests at the time to say the New Mass, and it is clearly referred to as Novus Ordo.  It seems it was a very correct name.
Perhaps you need the stamp.

Bullshit.  It's not only inaccurate, it's demeaning -- the very reason some people still employ its use.  Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass.  All far more accurate and not demeaning -- NOT that you are going to change your ways.  People like you ENJOY being offensive on this matter so it's expected.  Just remember the ink stamp...

Carnivore, I just read your post, but I am little confused as to why you think it is offensive. Isn't it just saying "new Order" Mass? Maybe you're seeing something I'm not, but I'm not sure how that is offensive. Let me know what you think...

Thanks.

You honestly don't see the negativity is typing "NO Mass?"  Really?  If "Mass of Pope Paul VI" or "Pauline Mass" is too cumbersome why not just use "Ordinary Form" or "OF Mass" like the Pope does?

Please do not speak to me as if I am hopelessly stupid.

But no, I do not. Please explain the negativity of this. I am not trying to sarcastic or contraversial. I really want to understand the logic supporting the assertion that the acronymn "NO Mass" (also seen as  "NOM" - Novus Ordo Missae) is somehow more negative than "TLM" (Traditional Latin Mass).

"NO" is intrinsically and axiomatically negative...  If you don't see that I don't know what else to say...

IF "TLM" is considered negative, please let me know and I will make certain never to use it.
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:32 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:29 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: ...It has been demonstrated on this thread ways in which the Extraordinary is objectively superior to the Ordinary Form of the Mass  and that even B16 holds this to be true...

No it has not (QuisUtDeus agrees that it has not) and no he does not.  You want me to accept a defective premise as if it's a proven fact and I simply will not.

The discourse runs off the rails at the very beginning and you want to continue on as if nothing is wrong.  That's impossible.  We must go back to the start and fix what's keeping the discourse from progressing (no pun.)


Quis did not agree to what you say he has left it conspicuously off the table for now.

He has not addressed my arguments  -- all of the other posters are leaving that stone unturned until you answer Rosarium's question

The thing that is preventing discourse is you and your pride...you present no evidence and no logic...or is that NO logic...I have done both...and those arguments may be insurmountable....but just saying...hokus pokus...Ludakris, redikulus does not do it.


My  logic proof, while a little sloppy was post 78 of this thread...it is adequate for what I set out to do despite being up for long hours

On post 111 this goofy nay saying of yours had gone on so long that I felt I had to give and example where to regularly attend the ND is possibly not a sin even with the afore mentioned abuses if you think the Mass being delivered is still valid.

that too was adequately delivered...although possibly wrong in light of the Japanese who went without a Mass for 200 odd years without losing the Faith....so that one may be up in the air unless you appeal to personal conscience as an argument..and I believe there may be some merit found there.


So get down to brass tacks and answer Rosarium's question.
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:38 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:30 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:25 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:19 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 05:21 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The term Novus Ordo Missae was used for the longest time by even the liberals.  I have pages and pages of booklets originally used to instruct priests at the time to say the New Mass, and it is clearly referred to as Novus Ordo.  It seems it was a very correct name.
Perhaps you need the stamp.

Bullshit.  It's not only inaccurate, it's demeaning -- the very reason some people still employ its use.  Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass.  All far more accurate and not demeaning -- NOT that you are going to change your ways.  People like you ENJOY being offensive on this matter so it's expected.  Just remember the ink stamp...

Carnivore, I just read your post, but I am little confused as to why you think it is offensive. Isn't it just saying "new Order" Mass? Maybe you're seeing something I'm not, but I'm not sure how that is offensive. Let me know what you think...

Thanks.

You honestly don't see the negativity is typing "NO Mass?"  Really?  If "Mass of Pope Paul VI" or "Pauline Mass" is too cumbersome why not just use "Ordinary Form" or "OF Mass" like the Pope does?

Please do not speak to me as if I am hopelessly stupid.

But no, I do not. Please explain the negativity of this. I am not trying to sarcastic or contraversial. I really want to understand the logic supporting the assertion that the acronymn "NO Mass" (also seen as  "NOM" - Novus Ordo Missae) is somehow more negative than "TLM" (Traditional Latin Mass).

"NO" is axiomatically negative...

IF "TLM" is considered negative, please let me know and I will make certain never to use it.

No, TLM is not considered negative. Objectively, both are acronyms; the negative association you are applying to "NO" is only because you are applying your knowledge of the English language to the acronym. Objectively, it does not equate the English form of negation. The fact that the letters "n" and "o", when placed side-by-side in the English language, denote negation has nothing to do with the meaning of the words the acronym represents. Do you consider "N.O." to be negative? Technically, that is how it could (should) be written. Still, they are but letters, symbols which produce an association to those who are familiar with them. The Traditional Latin Mass should be "T.L.M."

Perhaps you are applying an association that only exists to those familiar with the English language. It isn't objectively disresprectful or negative. They are only lines which mean something to you other than what they are supposed to represent: "Novus Ordo".
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:46 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Objectively, it does not equate the English form of negation. The fact that the letters "n" and "o", when placed side-by-side in the English language, denote negation has nothing to do with the meaning of the words the acronym represents.

Pretty nice coincidence though ;D
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:55 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 09:46 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Objectively, it does not equate the English form of negation. The fact that the letters "n" and "o", when placed side-by-side in the English language, denote negation has nothing to do with the meaning of the words the acronym represents.

Pretty nice coincidence though ;D

:laughing:

Well, it is an amusing coincidence for those who are opposed to it ("say NO to the new Mass!"), but to think that the acronym somehow objectively denotes negation (given the arbitrary nature of language) is a hypersensitive reaction to the acronym. It looks like the word "no", but objectively, that is not what it means, so its true meaning should be considered when discussing it. It is nothing more than a symbolic-linguistic association.
Reply
(12-14-2009, 10:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Well, it is an amusing coincidence for those who are opposed to it ("say NO to the new Mass!"), but to think that the acronym somehow objectively denotes negation (given the arbitrary nature of language) is a hypersensitive reaction to the acronym. It looks like the word "no", but objectively, that is not what it means, so its true meaning should be considered when discussing it. It is nothing more than a symbolic-linguistic association.

I don't think you're telling the truth if you are saying that you don't use the "NO Mass" moniker at least in part to denigrate the OF Mass. 
Reply
(12-14-2009, 10:24 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-14-2009, 10:03 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Well, it is an amusing coincidence for those who are opposed to it ("say NO to the new Mass!"), but to think that the acronym somehow objectively denotes negation (given the arbitrary nature of language) is a hypersensitive reaction to the acronym. It looks like the word "no", but objectively, that is not what it means, so its true meaning should be considered when discussing it. It is nothing more than a symbolic-linguistic association.

I don't think you're telling the truth if you are saying that you don't use the "NO Mass" moniker at least in part to denigrate the OF Mass. 

I must insist that you reserve all judgments of my intentions. I shouldn't have to defend my interior motives, especially to someone who, if they knew me, would know that I never have and most certainly do not "use the 'NO Mass' moniker at least in part to denigrate the OF Mass." My quibble is with the serious theological flaws of the Mass, not with the English acronym formed by two Latin words.

Still, even if someone did "use the 'NO Mass' moniker at least in part to denigrate the OF Mass," it wouldn't in any way alter the acronyms objective meaning and arbitrary formation. There are many acronyms which do not reflect the meaning of the first letters of the words from which it is composed.
Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:28 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 07:58 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 04:15 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 01:11 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Well, we can talk about sports, but I'd rather talk about something meaningful.  :shrug:

  I follow Jesus Christ though his Church and you follow your interpretation of articles from The Remnant (or is it The Wanderer?) or wherever.  We're not likely to find common ground.

I've been quoting the Pope, not the Remnant nor the Wanderer.  Neither of which I read.  You've been quoting... oh yeah, your own version of Catholicism as the "true one" with no recognition for the valid charism and attachment to the immemorial forms of liturgy and Sacraments that traditional Catholics have.  And I say valid because two Popes have called them valid attachments.

What do you read?  National Catholic Reporter?  That sounds about right...

Quote:Do you guys even consider yourselves Catholics or just pagan waiting in the wings to reclaim the Church?  I'm curious about that one...

That is very offensive.  I thought you were interested in "critical thinking" and honest discussion.  It appears you are just a troll as everyone thought you were, and not a very good one at that.  Clearly you don't consider us Catholics even though the Pope does.  But, you know, his opinion is what counts even though you seem to dismiss his opinion on liturgy as "non-authoritative".  I'm wondering if you consider the Pope to be Catholic...

Last chance:  if you want critical thinking and honest discussion, that's fine.  If you want to troll here and offend trads, take off or I will ban you.

You have been offering your interpretation of the Pope's words taken completely out of context.  C'mon -- did you really believe they were going to sell?  Seriously?.

I offered links to the original contexts.  You keep claiming I am taking them out of context, but I offer the entire context.  You are offering your opinion on what it means and nothing else.  True, it is my opinion, but to say I'm taking it out of context when links to the full contexts are there, and you offer nothing to show the counter, well, it's just rhetoric on your part, not a discussion.

Reply
(12-14-2009, 09:19 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-11-2009, 05:21 PM)Louis_Martin Wrote: The term Novus Ordo Missae was used for the longest time by even the liberals.  I have pages and pages of booklets originally used to instruct priests at the time to say the New Mass, and it is clearly referred to as Novus Ordo.  It seems it was a very correct name.
Perhaps you need the stamp.

Bullshit.  It's not only inaccurate, it's demeaning -- the very reason some people still employ its use.  Mass of Pope Paul VI, Pauline Mass, Ordinary Form of the Mass or OF Mass.  All far more accurate and not demeaning -- NOT that you are going to change your ways.  People like you ENJOY being offensive on this matter so it's expected.  Just remember the ink stamp...

Bullshit?

Pope Paul VI refers to it as the Novus Ordo Missae.  Did he mean it in a demeaning way?


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_v...ro_lt.html

Quote:Usus novi Ordinis Missae minime quidem sacerdotum vel christifidelium arbitrio permittitur. Instructione autem edita die quarto decimo mensis Iunii anno millesimo nongentesimo septuagesimo primo provisum est, ut Missae celebratio antiquo ritu sineretur, facultate data ab Ordinario, tantummodo sacerdotibus aetate provectis vel infirmis, qui Divinum Sacrificium sine populo offerrent. Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur post maturam deliberationem, atque ad exsequendas normas quae a Concilio Vaticano II impertitae sunt. Haud dissimili ratione, Decessor Noster S. Pius V post Concilium Tridentinum Missale auctoritate sua recognitum adhiberi iusserat.

Perhaps you find him non-authoritative in the same way you find Cdl. Ratzinger so?

What about Cardinal Ottaviani?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm

Quote:Rome, September 25th, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounder duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any; heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

Etc.

Oh, that's right, he's non-authoritative as well because he "only" was a prefect of the CDF like Ratzinger.

The only authoritative source to Carnivore is, well, Carnivore.  When is your conclave going to elect you Pope, Carnivore, seeing that you have all the answers and these Popes and Cardinals use terms and have opinions that you don't like?


While Missals have official names based on promulgation, they also have "nicknames" - such as the Tridentine Missal.  There is no Novus Ordo Missal and there is no Tridentine Missal -- officially.  Unofficially, those are well-known names.  I can't understand why someone would take offense at Novus Ordo unless they have a chip on their shoulder...

Call the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V the "Tridentine Mass" all you want.  It doesn't bug me.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)