The Fundamentalist Catholic Flowchart -- a Good Laugh LOL!
An FE version of Survivor... LOL


He's the guy that ends up with out the flower...or whatever they use.
Reply
(12-16-2009, 02:37 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: An FE version of Survivor... LOL


He's the guy that ends up with out the flower...or whatever they use.

I never saw that show, except in an Mad TV parody.

In this case, he can be the only one who ends up with the stinky fish.

While some people come here with strong contrary posts, he does so in a way which is very disrespectful. If our questions are beneath him, then he shouldn't be here.

He should be sent to the bit bucket in the sky.
Reply
Carnivore,
I think you've been asked this already, and you likely won't answer, but why are you here? Few here believe that the Novus Ordo is a good thing. Nor do most of us believe that it reflects the true liturgy of the Church, as the TLM does. The Novus Ordo Mass is inferior, but some are done more reverently done than others, of course.

Also, no one here can force you to attend a TLM. You are quite free to attend a Novus Ordo Mass, just as we are free to attend the TLM. We have a choice. The Holy Father himself issued the Moto Proprio, so that the TLM can be celebrated by any diocesan priest (well, technically, anyway).

So, are you here because you are worried that your beloved Novus Ordo will be changed, and gradually become more Latin-based? The recent changes in the No Mass certainly does reflect a gradual shift toward the TLM (though personally, I wouldn't care to go to a hybrid Mass).
We traditional Catholics are relatively small in number when compared to Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo. So why are you so worried about what we believe?
Reply
(12-16-2009, 02:02 PM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 12:04 PM)Zakhur Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 11:09 AM)Carnivore Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 07:18 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 02:09 AM)Benno Wrote:
(12-15-2009, 11:42 AM)Louis_Martin Wrote: To assist, Princeton's wordnet provides this:

Fabrication:
# a deliberately false or improbable account
# writing in a fictional form
# the act of making something (a product) from raw materials; "the synthesis and fabrication of single crystals"; "an improvement in the manufacture of explosives"; "manufacturing is vital to Great Britain"
# the act of constructing something (as a piece of machinery)
# lying: the deliberate act of deviating from the truth

Bold sections being pertinent, methinks.

I've given up on carnivore, but I'd like Quis' answer to this - isn't ANY liturgy/ rite a "fabrication", by the bolded parts of the definition above? A constructed producct of raw materials? Not meaning to be annoying, just wondering what your answer would be. I'd say the TLM liturgy is a better fabrication than the NOM, and a far more solid and lasting one, but I'd still call the actual liturgical part of it a "fabrication", in the literal sense.

No, a fabrication is pieced together like a patchwork from the beginning.  You get parts, put them together, and the sum of the parts is the product.  Something that occurs organically changes (usually) subtly over time in response to things.

The NO was designed by a committee that took parts of the liturgy that came from different eras, were surpressed at times, etc., added some new stuff and glued them together.  They also had political and (false) ecumenical motives.

The TLM evolved over a very long period of time in response to cultures, disciplines, prudence, etc.

One can legitimately ask the question: what difference does it make?  And I can give a legitimate answer, but it would be a long one and rooted in philosophy, etc.  Really, though, the Pope has already answered it as Cdl. Ratzinger when he reminds us that the liturgy comes from God and can't be a construction of man.  It also needs to be firmly rooted in liturgical tradition.

The liturgy needs to be come to fruition organically in a similar manner as to how dogmas are defined because that is how God works when it comes to theology.  The liturgy is, in a real sense, a dogma.  It goes beyond reason into the realm of Faith, therefore it cannot be a product of reason alone, but it must be reason informed by faith.

Left to reason alone it becomes a banal fabrication.  Really, it becomes a rationalization of the supernatural which leads to a dead spirituality.

The extraordinary had to begin some place -- probably a lot like the Pauline Mass.  It probably took some elements from the AVM.

You are absolutely incorrect here.  The Modern Rite was, as Ratzinger has said, an artificially manufactured product, not an organic development from what was already extant and alive.  In fact, to realize the truth of this, you need only read a description of what was done in the formalization of the Roman Missal under Pope Pius V.  Then read Antoine Dumas's essay, in which, among other odd statements, he claims the Consilium adhered to its originally adopted criteria for the revision of the Roman Missal under Bugnini's predecessor, which WOULD have enabled an organic reform.  This claim is untruthful to say the least, because the criteria under which Coetus 18bis (Dumas's group) wreckovized the propers was never approved by the Consilium, but was, apparently, given tacit approval by Bugnini after his predecessor died.

The Gregorian/Tridentine/Traditional/Ancient/Usus Antiqior/EF Missal did begin somewhere alright:  apostolic times.  Most good liturgical scholars have known for over century that many of the prayers in that Missal are VERY ancient.

You need to read BOOKS Carnivore.

No way does the EF Mass date to Apostolic times any more than the OF Mass does.  That's laughable.

I did not say that the entire Gregorian missal dates back to Apostolic times.  You can put words in my mouth if you like, though.  It just reduces your credibility even further in the negative numbers.

There are parts of the 1962 Missal that do indeed date back to Apostolic times.  But if you want to argue with the likes of Adrian Fortescue, go ahead.

Quote:  While the OF Mass is certainly influenced by the EF Mass, I like to think of the OF as the resumption of the pure development of the Mass of the early church.

This is what Pope Paul VI believed about it too.  Both of you are wrong (not that you're in the same league with a pope, mind you).  Pope Paul VI, along with just about everybody else, bought into archeologism after the Council, an error condemned by Pope Pius XII.

You are saying that the "pure development" of the liturgy was interrupted.  By what?  The "terrible middle-ages"?  So until 1969, therewas no "pure development" in the Mass, which leaves what:  impure development I suppose.  This is exactly one of the modern beliefs that Ratzinger attacks in Spirit of Liturgy.  And Pius XII condemned it, among other modern ideas about the Mass, under the word "archeologism."

Quote:That's why I prefer to refer to the EF Mass as the Ancient Vernacular Mass (AVS.)

First time I've heard that one.  One of yours?  I don't even see how it follows from the sentence before it.

Quote:You need to red some BOOKS too.  A wide breadth of books that will help you to understand the actually truth and not some brewed-up conspiracy theory...

I do read books.  I told you that you need to because you obviously don't know what a lot of people on FE know.  For your information, I did not derive any of my opinions about the Novus Ordo from sources that YOU would find objectionable.  You'd just rather believe that your opinions are the ones with the most accurate information behind them.  They're not.

Who said anything about a conspiracy?  Again, you put words in my mouth.  I'm referring to FACTS my friend.  Look them up.  The clerics who made the Novus Ordo were perfectly capable of being utterly out to lunch with or without a conspiracy.  What matters, in the end, is the result of their work.  Disaster.
Reply
(12-16-2009, 03:19 PM)Meg Wrote: Carnivore,
I think you've been asked this already, and you likely won't answer, but why are you here? Few here believe that the Novus Ordo is a good thing. Nor do most of us believe that it reflects the true liturgy of the Church, as the TLM does. The Novus Ordo Mass is inferior, but some are done more reverently done than others, of course.

Also, no one here can force you to attend a TLM. You are quite free to attend a Novus Ordo Mass, just as we are free to attend the TLM. We have a choice. The Holy Father himself issued the Moto Proprio, so that the TLM can be celebrated by any diocesan priest (well, technically, anyway).

So, are you here because you are worried that your beloved Novus Ordo will be changed, and gradually become more Latin-based? The recent changes in the No Mass certainly does reflect a gradual shift toward the TLM (though personally, I wouldn't care to go to a hybrid Mass).
We traditional Catholics are relatively small in number when compared to Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo. So why are you so worried about what we believe?

Preferring the EF to the OF is one thing, no problem there.  But to suggest it's sinful to attend the OF is ludicrous.

No one needs to "force" me to attend the EF.  I do most Sundays.  It's the most convenient Mass for me to attend and now that it's a Missa Cantata and not a dreadful low Mass, I really don't mind it at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Latin based?"  I believe the OF was promulgated in Latin, no?
Reply
(12-16-2009, 09:32 PM)Carnivore Wrote: Preferring the EF to the OF is one thing, no problem there.  But to suggest it's sinful to attend the OF is ludicrous.

Well, we can't get anywhere in this discussion until it is established if attending a valid, but disrespectful mass, is sinful at all.

Reply
(12-16-2009, 09:32 PM)Carnivore Wrote: Preferring the EF to the OF is one thing, no problem there.  But to suggest it's sinful to attend the OF is ludicrous.

Prove it
Reply
(12-16-2009, 11:23 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(12-16-2009, 09:32 PM)Carnivore Wrote: Preferring the EF to the OF is one thing, no problem there.  But to suggest it's sinful to attend the OF is ludicrous.

Prove it

Even QuisUtDeus noted that you cannot "prove" what you claimed to have proven.  You're not exactly the sharpest tool in the toolbox are you?  :pazzo:

You make moronic comments followed by bits of emotion sprinkled with crude attacks.  Just who/what are you?  I hope you're aware you're not fooling anyone here...  You are, right?
Reply
Carnivore your a Troll and a NO Mass ass why dont you play with the other children on Catholic Answers?
Reply
Carnivore, why ruin a harmless laugh by being so gut-wrenchingly serious? You should have just floated that "flow chart" out there and gone your merry way.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)