For those who think it is a sin to attend a Novus Ordo mass...
#21
(04-30-2010, 08:13 PM)Melkite Wrote: If the only two options are a Novus Ordo mass and an Eastern Orthodox liturgy, which do you choose?

Neither. 

One upholds (supposedly) Sacred Tradition and yet trashes the Papacy.  The other trashes Sacred Tradition and creates an idol of the Papacy.  Both sound pretty scary to me.

Reply
#22
(05-01-2010, 11:57 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yes, the Novus Ordo Missae is indeed valid as promulgated. Not always as offered, but as promulgated, yes. Though there are other problems, I don't dispute its validity of consecration.

If the consecration is valid, than Jesus Christ is present bodily. So if the priest celebrating the mass subdues himself to the Magisterium, then despiteanything else (guitars, applause, praising the human success, altar girl, female lectors or Eucharistic ministers) Catholic should attend that mass, if there is no better one.

If the priest celebrating the Mass does not subdues himself to the Magisterium, (as it is clearly the case for the Eastern Orthodox priests) then Catholic man better shall not attend that Mass unless there is no alternative for long time.

The Catholic Church is perfect community and we belong to there, (where the pope and the hierarchy is) and we have the obligation to express this loyalty.
Reply
#23
(05-03-2010, 02:06 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-01-2010, 11:57 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yes, the Novus Ordo Missae is indeed valid as promulgated. Not always as offered, but as promulgated, yes. Though there are other problems, I don't dispute its validity of consecration.

If the consecration is valid, than Jesus Christ is present bodily. So if the priest celebrating the mass subdues himself to the Magisterium, then despiteanything else (guitars, applause, praising the human success, altar girl, female lectors or Eucharistic ministers) Catholic should attend that mass, if there is no better one.

If the priest celebrating the Mass does not subdues himself to the Magisterium, (as it is clearly the case for the Eastern Orthodox priests) then Catholic man better shall not attend that Mass unless there is no alternative for long time.

The Catholic Church is perfect community and we belong to there, (where the pope and the hierarchy is) and we have the obligation to express this loyalty.

glgas, you have been on this forum for quite a long time. You know there are serious problems despite aesthetics. These problems are serious enough to me that I cannot, in good conscience, attend.

As one who always gives the advice to follow your conscience in all things, I hope you will respect that one day.
Reply
#24
(04-30-2010, 08:13 PM)Melkite Wrote: If the only two options are a Novus Ordo mass and an Eastern Orthodox liturgy, which do you choose?

I would go to the NO Mass.  In fact right now I attend both EF and NO.  The NO I have to go early in the morning if I want to catch a reverent one, and it is reverent.
Reply
#25
(05-03-2010, 11:36 AM)amasimp Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 07:53 AM)Nic Wrote: To answer the question -- I would attend neither (for one is sacriligious and the other schismatic).

I would find a true Mass, the TLM, and attend it no matter how far you have to drive.  You can find an SSPX or SSPV chapel within at least 4 hours of almost anywhere in the U.S. and Europe.  I live in the middle of the Missouri boonies and I have an SSPX chapel 2.25 hrs away in two directions (southwest in Springfield and northeast in St. Louis).  If it is really far and you have financial difficulties (as I do), just go once a month and make a spiritual communion on the other Sunday's of the month.  I believe that anything more than 1hr travel time in one direction (2hrs round trip) is under the distance hardship, which absolves you of your Sunday Obligation.  The SSPX advices that those who fall under this hardship should at least try to make it to Mass once a month, for we need the Sacraments.  This is far better than submitting to a sacriligious Mass.

The SSPX cannot dispense you from your Sunday obligation to attend Mass.

No, but Church Law can.  The Church states that if there is not an acceptable Mass within (I believe) 1hr travel distance (one way), then the Sunday Obligation is waved.  This ISN"T the SSPX stating this, this is the Church.  Since it can be seen that the N.O Mass is a sacrilege, and cannot be pleasing to God, then I am waved of my Sunday Obligation for there isn't a true Latin Mass within that distance from me, and I cannot morally attend a watered down, Protestant form of the Mass when God demands the very best of me.  I will not become an opportunist, like so many others who claim to be "Trads."  It IS the SSPX who advices that those suffering from this distance hardship try to make it to Mass at least once a month.
Reply
#26
(05-03-2010, 04:31 PM)Άγιος Χριστόφορος Wrote:
(04-30-2010, 08:13 PM)Melkite Wrote: If the only two options are a Novus Ordo mass and an Eastern Orthodox liturgy, which do you choose?

I would go to the NO Mass.  In fact right now I attend both EF and NO.  The NO I have to go early in the morning if I want to catch a reverent one, and it is reverent.

What's "reverent" about stripping away crucial and essential portions of the Holy Mass as known for centuries, and removing what was deemed by the liberals as "offensive" to the Protestants?  What is so "reverent" about that!?  What, just because there are no altar girls or people actually kneel and recieve Communion on the tongue you think the Mass is reverent?  I bet your priest still uses a Protestant supper table instead of a true altar.  He may even throw a bit of Latin here and there and may even actually speak about things like Hell and demons and the superiority of the Catholic Church in his homilies once a year or so.  I guess that passes as "reverent" these days.  If that is what defines "reverent," then there are LOTS of Protestant services that are far more reverent than most N.O. Masses.

...in other words, there is no such thing as a "reverent" N.O. Mass because it was designed to be the opposite.  It was designed to be a watered down, Protestant rite of Mass that over time makes people loose their faith.
Reply
#27
(05-07-2010, 04:33 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 11:36 AM)amasimp Wrote: The SSPX cannot dispense you from your Sunday obligation to attend Mass.

No, but Church Law can.  The Church states that if there is not an acceptable Mass within (I believe) 1hr travel distance (one way), then the Sunday Obligation is waved.  This ISN"T the SSPX stating this, this is the Church.  Since it can be seen that the N.O Mass is a sacrilege, and cannot be pleasing to God, then I am waved of my Sunday Obligation for there isn't a true Latin Mass within that distance from me, and I cannot morally attend a watered down, Protestant form of the Mass when God demands the very best of me.  I will not become an opportunist, like so many others who claim to be "Trads."  It IS the SSPX who advices that those suffering from this distance hardship try to make it to Mass at least once a month.

While I disagree with Nic's belief that the NO Mass is objectively intrinsically sacrilegious, if that is what he sincerely believes, I do not see how he can in good conscience attend an NO Mass.  The Church does teach us that we must follow our consciences even when it means disobeying the rules of the Church.  However, having a conscience that requires one to disobey the Church could be a sign that one's conscience is poorly formed.  A person in that situation should be praying, studying, seeking counsel, and otherwise taking on practices that promote good formation of conscience.
Reply
#28
(05-07-2010, 04:37 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 04:31 PM)Άγιος Χριστόφορος Wrote: I would go to the NO Mass.  In fact right now I attend both EF and NO.  The NO I have to go early in the morning if I want to catch a reverent one, and it is reverent.

What's "reverent" about stripping away crucial and essential portions of the Holy Mass as known for centuries, and removing what was deemed by the liberals as "offensive" to the Protestants?  What is so "reverent" about that!?  What, just because there are no altar girls or people actually kneel and recieve Communion on the tongue you think the Mass is reverent?  I bet your priest still uses a Protestant supper table instead of a true altar.  He may even throw a bit of Latin here and there and may even actually speak about things like Hell and demons and the superiority of the Catholic Church in his homilies once a year or so.  I guess that passes as "reverent" these days.  If that is what defines "reverent," then there are LOTS of Protestant services that are far more reverent than most N.O. Masses.

...in other words, there is no such thing as a "reverent" N.O. Mass because it was designed to be the opposite.  It was designed to be a watered down, Protestant rite of Mass that over time makes people loose their faith.

Hagios Christophoros needs to figure out for himself what the right thing to do is.  If you have information about objective facts that could help him with his decision, it would be appropriate to tell him without berating him.  Determining how reverent a liturgy is involves many subjective factors and it is possible for good Catholics to come to a different conclusion than you have.
Reply
#29
(05-07-2010, 04:42 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-07-2010, 04:33 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 11:36 AM)amasimp Wrote: The SSPX cannot dispense you from your Sunday obligation to attend Mass.

No, but Church Law can.  The Church states that if there is not an acceptable Mass within (I believe) 1hr travel distance (one way), then the Sunday Obligation is waved.  This ISN"T the SSPX stating this, this is the Church.  Since it can be seen that the N.O Mass is a sacrilege, and cannot be pleasing to God, then I am waved of my Sunday Obligation for there isn't a true Latin Mass within that distance from me, and I cannot morally attend a watered down, Protestant form of the Mass when God demands the very best of me.  I will not become an opportunist, like so many others who claim to be "Trads."  It IS the SSPX who advices that those suffering from this distance hardship try to make it to Mass at least once a month.

While I disagree with Nic's belief that the NO Mass is objectively intrinsically sacrilegious, if that is what he sincerely believes, I do not see how he can in good conscience attend an NO Mass.  The Church does teach us that we must follow our consciences even when it means disobeying the rules of the Church.  However, having a conscience that requires one to disobey the Church could be a sign that one's conscience is poorly formed.  A person in that situation should be praying, studying, seeking counsel, and otherwise taking on practices that promote good formation of conscience.

It is from MUCH study and prayer that my conscience is formed in such a way.  The Novus Ordo Mass is a big part of the "diabolical disorientation" of the modern Church.  We are facing a crisis today that is worst of all-time.  Blind/false obedience is the weapon of Satan that is destroying the modern Church.  Every Catholic should read this article and see which category they fall into:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...diance.htm
Reply
#30
(05-07-2010, 04:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-07-2010, 04:37 PM)Nic Wrote:
(05-03-2010, 04:31 PM)Άγιος Χριστόφορος Wrote: I would go to the NO Mass.  In fact right now I attend both EF and NO.  The NO I have to go early in the morning if I want to catch a reverent one, and it is reverent.

What's "reverent" about stripping away crucial and essential portions of the Holy Mass as known for centuries, and removing what was deemed by the liberals as "offensive" to the Protestants?  What is so "reverent" about that!?  What, just because there are no altar girls or people actually kneel and recieve Communion on the tongue you think the Mass is reverent?  I bet your priest still uses a Protestant supper table instead of a true altar.  He may even throw a bit of Latin here and there and may even actually speak about things like Hell and demons and the superiority of the Catholic Church in his homilies once a year or so.  I guess that passes as "reverent" these days.  If that is what defines "reverent," then there are LOTS of Protestant services that are far more reverent than most N.O. Masses.

...in other words, there is no such thing as a "reverent" N.O. Mass because it was designed to be the opposite.  It was designed to be a watered down, Protestant rite of Mass that over time makes people loose their faith.

Hagios Christophoros needs to figure out for himself what the right thing to do is.  If you have information about objective facts that could help him with his decision, it would be appropriate to tell him without berating him.  Determining how reverent a liturgy is involves many subjective factors and it is possible for good Catholics to come to a different conclusion than you have.

It is nothing but common sense!  How can any person claiming Traditional Catholicism state that the Novus Ordo Mass, which removed MUCH of what made the Mass holy and protected its holiness, is reverent?  This Mass was designed to remove Catholicism so it wouldn't offend the Protestants.  This has been admitted by its architects!  Did we see altar gilrs, women speaking in church, EEMs, veilless women, Holy Communion in the filthy hands, ballons and guitars etc. in the TRUE Latin Mass?  To blame it on the "times" is a cop-out.  The Novus Ordo Mass, by way of Vatican II, allowed for all of this crap to happen.  Vatican II was the revolution the liberals wanted - it is their new set of doctrines for their new religion.  The New Mass is their new worship service for their new religion.  It is really just as simple as that...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)