Re:Novus Ordo Masses
(04-13-2010, 05:58 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-13-2010, 05:32 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Hopefully that helps make it a little clearer.

God bless you...

Thanks INPEFESS.  I fixed it but I think most of the lack of clarity came from my choice of words rather than bad formatting.  :)

Go back and rephrase it. Just make sure you include "EDIT:..." so everyone knows you changed it.
Reply
(04-13-2010, 04:52 PM)Nic Wrote:   I would like to give you some links to follow.  God Bless.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode.../index.htm
http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/

Thank you.  These are great links.  I've already read a few of the articles.
Reply
Reiterating what I said about the Papacy being our safeguard is this quote from Pope Pius IX during the First Vatican Council:

"The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of the Faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Therefore logic dictates that for Catholics everything that a pope says and does MUST be compared to what he is guarding by the power of the Holy Ghost, especially in these post-conciliar times (before the council, one could be basically assured that the pope spoke truthfully nearly all the time, but since the arrival of the New Religion within the official confines of the Church, this assurance has changed and we should be on our guard).  If what the Pope says and does is not line with the One Deposit of Faith, then we are duty-bound to resist that saying, action or teaching, for it obviously doesn't bear the charsim of infallibility that was only guaranteed to the Pope to safeguard the Deposit of Faith, to ensure that it is not harmed by the "doctrines of devils" that give sway to every evil.

Understand that this is most definately NOT disobedience.  We are merely following the divine example of Our Lord, Who obedient to the synagogue authorities in everything that was possible, nonetheless did not fear to disagree with them in discussions and deny them obedience in all that opposed true doctrine. This attitude does not imply either placing oneself outside the Church or of standing in judgment of the Pope.

History is full of "defenders of the Faith" who were unwilling to see the Church afflicted in the smallest of ways ("small" at least by today's standards). Just because the gates of hell cannot prevail doesn't mean the attack on souls being carried out in the meantime should be passively ignored in a misguided act of faith. For what is a Catholic to do when heretics like Hans Kung are allowed to publish lies with impunity? When globalists and mass abortionists like Gorbachev are treated as guests of honor at the Vatican? When Schismatic groups, heretical sects and false religions are treated as on a similar level as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? When bishops who deny the necessity of conversion for salvation (Walter Kasper) and advocate the Church's assistance of women procuring abortions (Karl Lehmann) are rewarded with Cardinal birettas? When traditional bishops and priests are subjected to extreme and disproportional persecution while heretics exercise great power and influence? When our previous pope flatters the undeniably evil Chinese government as an institution whose objectives are "not in opposition" to the Catholic Church? Of what sort of "trust" are these activities deserving? What is the proper Catholic response? What would St. Paul have done?

"But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1.8

Indefectibility is not a promise of wonderful times in the course of Christendom. The Arian heresy was certainly no Golden Age for the Church. As St. Jerome wrote, the whole world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian," yet the Church did not defect. The Faith was maintained primarily by the laity and led by a few courageous individuals when it appeared the majority of priests and bishops had fallen into heresy.

Throughout history, there have been numerous corrupt Popes, Cardinals, bishops and priests but the Church has marched on, emerging from each trial stronger than before. While "conservatives" may be content to passively wait around for the next triumph of the Church, some Catholics set their sights a little higher and are concerned about the loss of souls that could be avoided in the meantime.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example: "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2, 14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects."

Therefore, what I stated in a previous post, what was called "heretical" by another poster, is completely in-line with true Catholicism.  History shows us that we are bound to obey our superiors when they uphold the Truth - but when they stray from it and cause the loss of souls, we are also duty-bound to resist, and to even speak out publicly.

The Church Militant now, more than ever, needs strong warriors. We must respond to St. Athanasius' exhortation:

"Our canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through his disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized upon by aliens."  (When I first read this, I thought it was a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre.  One can clearly see how the great Archbishop is called the "Athanasius of our time," and one cal also see the parallels between the Arian Crisis of the 4th century and the Modernist Crisis of the 20th and 21st century)

and heed the words of Pope Pius XI:

"The two opposing camps are now clearly marked; each man should choose his own. Men of good will and men of evil will face one another. The uninterested and the cowards face their fearsome responsibility. They will have their names changed if they do not change their behavior: they will be called traitors."

It is completely backwards to fight against the destruction of a cathedral building while ignoring the actual Church in a state of ruin. It is ludicrous to share in the Vatican illusion of a "Springtime of Vatican II" when all eye can see is a devastated vineyard.

Catholics must never give in to compromise or ignore error out of a false sense of loyalty. We must avoid the errors of those who fall into "conservative" relativism out of a fear of "private judgment". Our Sensus Catholicus cannot be abandoned or suppressed at the time when it is needed most!

"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right is right even if no one is doing it." -St. Augustine



Reply
(04-19-2010, 08:27 AM)Nic Wrote: Reiterating what I said about the Papacy being our safeguard is this quote from Pope Pius IX during the First Vatican Council:

"The Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of the Faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Therefore logic dictates that for Catholics everything that a pope says and does MUST be compared to what he is guarding by the power of the Holy Ghost, especially in these post-conciliar times (before the council, one could be basically assured that the pope spoke truthfully nearly all the time, but since the arrival of the New Religion within the official confines of the Church, this assurance has changed and we should be on our guard).  If what the Pope says and does is not line with the One Deposit of Faith, then we are duty-bound to resist that saying, action or teaching, for it obviously doesn't bear the charsim of infallibility that was only guaranteed to the Pope to safeguard the Deposit of Faith, to ensure that it is not harmed by the "doctrines of devils" that give sway to every evil.

Understand that this is most definately NOT disobedience.  We are merely following the divine example of Our Lord, Who obedient to the synagogue authorities in everything that was possible, nonetheless did not fear to disagree with them in discussions and deny them obedience in all that opposed true doctrine. This attitude does not imply either placing oneself outside the Church or of standing in judgment of the Pope.

History is full of "defenders of the Faith" who were unwilling to see the Church afflicted in the smallest of ways ("small" at least by today's standards). Just because the gates of hell cannot prevail doesn't mean the attack on souls being carried out in the meantime should be passively ignored in a misguided act of faith. For what is a Catholic to do when heretics like Hans Kung are allowed to publish lies with impunity? When globalists and mass abortionists like Gorbachev are treated as guests of honor at the Vatican? When Schismatic groups, heretical sects and false religions are treated as on a similar level as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? When bishops who deny the necessity of conversion for salvation (Walter Kasper) and advocate the Church's assistance of women procuring abortions (Karl Lehmann) are rewarded with Cardinal birettas? When traditional bishops and priests are subjected to extreme and disproportional persecution while heretics exercise great power and influence? When our previous pope flatters the undeniably evil Chinese government as an institution whose objectives are "not in opposition" to the Catholic Church? Of what sort of "trust" are these activities deserving? What is the proper Catholic response? What would St. Paul have done?

"But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1.8

Indefectibility is not a promise of wonderful times in the course of Christendom. The Arian heresy was certainly no Golden Age for the Church. As St. Jerome wrote, the whole world "awoke with a groan to find itself Arian," yet the Church did not defect. The Faith was maintained primarily by the laity and led by a few courageous individuals when it appeared the majority of priests and bishops had fallen into heresy.

Throughout history, there have been numerous corrupt Popes, Cardinals, bishops and priests but the Church has marched on, emerging from each trial stronger than before. While "conservatives" may be content to passively wait around for the next triumph of the Church, some Catholics set their sights a little higher and are concerned about the loss of souls that could be avoided in the meantime.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in many passages of his works, upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example: "There being an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glosa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2, 14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects."

Therefore, what I stated in a previous post, what was called "heretical" by another poster, is completely in-line with true Catholicism.  History shows us that we are bound to obey our superiors when they uphold the Truth - but when they stray from it and cause the loss of souls, we are also duty-bound to resist, and to even speak out publicly.

The Church Militant now, more than ever, needs strong warriors. We must respond to St. Athanasius' exhortation:

"Our canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had our faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through his disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the Churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us required at our hands; rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized upon by aliens."  (When I first read this, I thought it was a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre.  One can clearly see how the great Archbishop is called the "Athanasius of our time," and one cal also see the parallels between the Arian Crisis of the 4th century and the Modernist Crisis of the 20th and 21st century)

and heed the words of Pope Pius XI:

"The two opposing camps are now clearly marked; each man should choose his own. Men of good will and men of evil will face one another. The uninterested and the cowards face their fearsome responsibility. They will have their names changed if they do not change their behavior: they will be called traitors."

It is completely backwards to fight against the destruction of a cathedral building while ignoring the actual Church in a state of ruin. It is ludicrous to share in the Vatican illusion of a "Springtime of Vatican II" when all eye can see is a devastated vineyard.

Catholics must never give in to compromise or ignore error out of a false sense of loyalty. We must avoid the errors of those who fall into "conservative" relativism out of a fear of "private judgment". Our Sensus Catholicus cannot be abandoned or suppressed at the time when it is needed most!

"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right is right even if no one is doing it." -St. Augustine

Good post, Nic. But just for the sake of clarity, as it concerns the Second Vatican Council, what, specifically, is it that you oppose: its teachings specifically (such as "subsitit in") or its implementation by Modernists (the "springtime" re-presentation, new Mass, etc.)?
Reply
My feelings of Vatican II fall right in-line with that of the SSPX.  The council began with a certain, established set of schemas, as ABL stated, and he stated that they were all perfectly orthodox - THEN, at the last minute, the original schemas were thrown out and replaced with schemas created by the liberal minority and their "theological experts."  This liberal minority was VERY prepared from the onset of the council, for it was their wish to get a Church council to force their ideals into the Modern Church, and thus change the religion by effecting the faith of the people.  Vatican II is jammed packed with ambiguities that have been purposely placed in the text to be interpretted by the liberals so as to incite a revolution.  BUT, also, there is obvious error in some of the texts as well, such as that on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism.  The Church began to change after VII, and no Catholic who has any knowledge of the Church and her history can deny this fact.  Therefore, Vatican II is the ROOT CAUSE of the problems in the Church, for it was this basis that the liberals used to incite their revolution, which has made a shipwreck out of the barque of St. Peter.  So, to answer your question, it is both, but more so the implementation of the council, which was caused by the ambiguities purposely placed in the text - but there can be no denying that error is present in some of the texts, such as Religious Liberty, which even then Cardinal Ratzinger called a "counter-syllabus" of the syllabus of Pope Pius IX.
Reply
(04-19-2010, 08:07 PM)Nic Wrote: My feelings of Vatican II fall right in-line with that of the SSPX.  The council began with a certain, established set of schemas, as ABL stated, and he stated that they were all perfectly orthodox - THEN, at the last minute, the original schemas were thrown out and replaced with schemas created by the liberal minority and their "theological experts."  This liberal minority was VERY prepared from the onset of the council, for it was there wish to get a Church council to force their ideals into the Modern Church, and thus change the religion by effecting the faith of the people.  Vatican II is jammed packed with ambiguities that have been purposely placed in the text to be interpretted by the liberals so as to incite a revolution.  BUT, also, there is obvious error in some of the texts as well, such as that on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism.  The Church began to change after VII, and no Catholic who has any knowledge of the Church and her history can deny this fact.  Therefore, Vatican II is the ROOT CAUSE of the problems in the Church, for it was this basis that the liberals used to incite their revolution, which has made a shipwreck out of the barque of St. Peter.

Nic, what you have written has been so clear, so truthful (every thing you have said can be verified from the historical record) that for anyone to deny this, they should see a medical doctor.  There are two books which every NO (or smells, bells, Latin Trad, but NO for the rest) should read:

1. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber  Father Ralph Wiltgen SVD. ISBN 978-0895551863
2. Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century  Romano Amerio. ISBN 978-0963903211 Translation from Italian Original

Both items are linked to Amazon.com and both are on sale.





Reply
(04-19-2010, 08:40 PM)Ex_NO Wrote:
(04-19-2010, 08:07 PM)Nic Wrote: My feelings of Vatican II fall right in-line with that of the SSPX.  The council began with a certain, established set of schemas, as ABL stated, and he stated that they were all perfectly orthodox - THEN, at the last minute, the original schemas were thrown out and replaced with schemas created by the liberal minority and their "theological experts."  This liberal minority was VERY prepared from the onset of the council, for it was there wish to get a Church council to force their ideals into the Modern Church, and thus change the religion by effecting the faith of the people.  Vatican II is jammed packed with ambiguities that have been purposely placed in the text to be interpretted by the liberals so as to incite a revolution.  BUT, also, there is obvious error in some of the texts as well, such as that on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism.  The Church began to change after VII, and no Catholic who has any knowledge of the Church and her history can deny this fact.  Therefore, Vatican II is the ROOT CAUSE of the problems in the Church, for it was this basis that the liberals used to incite their revolution, which has made a shipwreck out of the barque of St. Peter.

Nic, what you have written has been so clear, so truthful (every thing you have said can be verified from the historical record) that for anyone to deny this, they should see a medical doctor.   There are two books which every NO (or smells, bells, Latin Trad, but NO for the rest) should read:

1. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber  Father Ralph Wiltgen SVD. ISBN 978-0895551863
2. Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century  Romano Amerio. ISBN 978-0963903211 Translation from Italian Original

Both items are linked to Amazon.com and both are on sale.

Thanks for the kind words.

I have Iota Unum upon my bookshelf, and I will agree that this book is most compelling, albeit a bit on the scholarly side.  I have not read "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber," only breif excerpts, but from what I gathered, it is also quite compelling.  For the casual layman, I would recommend books like "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" by Archbishop Lefebvre, "The Great Facade" by Ferrara and Thomas, and Michael Davies' "Liturgical Revolution" trilogy.  God Bless.
Reply
(04-13-2010, 05:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: Since I am convinced that my reasons for attending the NO are acceptable to God, then it is quite possible that I would not be culpable, even if your views were correct at an objective level. 

this is wrong for at least one group of people here, because both groups think they are right...if they are being sincere and that will go some way with Our Lord but all the way...we are all given the Grace we need to get through this time, you choose to NO...but if the TLM only crowd is right, you have been given the Grace to avoid (which is know simply by the fact that you are living in this era) it so you are rejecting the Grace given you in this time...for whatever reason...I could care less what it/they are.

Or the TLM only crowd is wrong to avoid the NO...and advise against it.


Unfortunately the fruits of the NO are known, and known to be bad at an astonomical level....so the TLM only crowd is on the right road...the thing about most NO goers...not all, is that when they start talking heresy...they don't even know it, because their current view....whatever that is is sponsored by their priest...some NOers don't talk heresy but that number gets fewer and fewer by the year, or at least it was so until recently...I see no reason to suspect there will be a change in that.
Reply
(04-20-2010, 05:50 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: the thing about most NO goers...not all, is that when they start talking heresy...they don't even know it

I've found that the best solution for not talking heresy... is to simply not talk about theology. It works really well!
Reply
(04-20-2010, 05:50 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(04-13-2010, 05:26 PM)JayneK Wrote: Since I am convinced that my reasons for attending the NO are acceptable to God, then it is quite possible that I would not be culpable, even if your views were correct at an objective level. 

this is wrong for at least one group of people here, because both groups think they are right...if they are being sincere and that will go some way with Our Lord but all the way...we are all given the Grace we need to get through this time, you choose to NO...but if the TLM only crowd is right, you have been given the Grace to avoid (which is know simply by the fact that you are living in this era) it so you are rejecting the Grace given you in this time...for whatever reason...I could care less what it/they are.

Culpability refers to subjective guilt.    When two people take opposed positions, only one is objectively right.  It is however possible that neither bears subjective guilt.  The distinction between objective and subjective is very important in Catholic thought.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)