Has anyone done a study of Paul VI and JPII?
#31
(11-06-2010, 07:58 PM)Baskerville Wrote: In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.

Why do you believe the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, the whole formation of the new Mass is sketchy, but what about it makes it invalid, in your opinion?
Reply
#32
(11-05-2010, 09:13 PM)Gerard Wrote: By all means pay respectful attention to what comes out of the Holy Office but when Ecclesia Dei is a motu proprio by the Pope himself and it's so obviously a load of crap when it comes to the truth, we don't have to take leave of our reason because of some power grab of a rule that oversteps or abuses legitimate authority. Wheat and chaff look virtually identical and we have to sift through it since chaff can be present in the authentic magisterium and only wheat in the ordinary infalllible and extraordinary infallible magisterium. 

Ecclesia Dei and the above document are two different things.  The above is a statement by the Holy Office signed by the prefect of it.  If you want to argue it should be sifted, fair enough, but the first part of your argument would have to be where it contradicts tradition.  I don't see it as doing so.  With regard to Canonization, all it does is formally affirm what many theologians held for a long time.

I don't see any chaff in it.
Reply
#33
(11-06-2010, 09:15 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 07:58 PM)Baskerville Wrote: In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.

Why do you believe the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, the whole formation of the new Mass is sketchy, but what about it makes it invalid, in your opinion?

The fact that it was put together by an Archbishop and 6 Protestants with the sole purpose of watering it down to be more acceptable to Protestants. But my biggest beef with it is that there is no explicit offertory and the words of Christ were changed from for many to for all.
Reply
#34
(11-06-2010, 09:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:15 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 07:58 PM)Baskerville Wrote: In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.

Why do you believe the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, the whole formation of the new Mass is sketchy, but what about it makes it invalid, in your opinion?

The fact that it was put together by an Archbishop and 6 Protestants with the sole purpose of watering it down to be more acceptable to Protestants. But my biggest beef with it is that there is no explicit offertory and the words of Christ were changed from for many to for all.
Yes, that's true...not to mention, Cardinal Bugnini is believed to have been a Freemason.

The 2011 Missal is changing it back to 'many'. Do you believe that it will be valid then?
Reply
#35
Even the SSPX doesn't say that the NO is valid. I think it would be impossible for the Pope to promulgate an invalid mass. And anyways, the mistranslation only concerns the English NO.
Reply
#36
(11-06-2010, 10:36 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Even the SSPX doesn't say that the NO is valid. I think it would be impossible for the Pope to promulgate an invalid mass. And anyways, the mistranslation only concerns the English NO.

Most vernacular NO's are mistranslated, AFAIK. The question of "for all" instead of "for many" is practically universal when it comes to the vernacular translations of the new rite.
Reply
#37
(11-06-2010, 10:06 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:15 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 07:58 PM)Baskerville Wrote: In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.

Why do you believe the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, the whole formation of the new Mass is sketchy, but what about it makes it invalid, in your opinion?

The fact that it was put together by an Archbishop and 6 Protestants with the sole purpose of watering it down to be more acceptable to Protestants. But my biggest beef with it is that there is no explicit offertory and the words of Christ were changed from for many to for all.
Yes, that's true...not to mention, Cardinal Bugnini is believed to have been a Freemason.

The 2011 Missal is changing it back to 'many'. Do you believe that it will be valid then?

It will be a step in the right direction. If they do that and have the traditional offertory and get rid of the 2nd 3rd 4th Eucharistic prayers and require Priests to use the 1st which is the watered down canon I could then accept it. For me it comes down mostly to the absence of an offertory that was the first things the Proti Reformers wanted to get rid of.
Reply
#38
(11-06-2010, 10:39 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 10:36 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Even the SSPX doesn't say that the NO is valid. I think it would be impossible for the Pope to promulgate an invalid mass. And anyways, the mistranslation only concerns the English NO.

Most vernacular NO's are mistranslated, AFAIK. The question of "for all" instead of "for many" is practically universal when it comes to the vernacular translations of the new rite.

Pro multis is translated correctly in the French NO as "pour la mutitude". Is it translated correctly in Portuguese?
Reply
#39
(11-06-2010, 10:52 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 10:06 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:42 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 09:15 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 07:58 PM)Baskerville Wrote: In my opinion and this is just me being an armchair theologian. JPII the terrible was worse. Paul VI brought in the invalid proti Mass and let traditional devotion wither but JPII could have stopped it but prefered to bask in his rock star Pope status.

Why do you believe the Novus Ordo is invalid? I mean, the whole formation of the new Mass is sketchy, but what about it makes it invalid, in your opinion?

The fact that it was put together by an Archbishop and 6 Protestants with the sole purpose of watering it down to be more acceptable to Protestants. But my biggest beef with it is that there is no explicit offertory and the words of Christ were changed from for many to for all.
Yes, that's true...not to mention, Cardinal Bugnini is believed to have been a Freemason.

The 2011 Missal is changing it back to 'many'. Do you believe that it will be valid then?

It will be a step in the right direction. If they do that and have the traditional offertory and get rid of the 2nd 3rd 4th Eucharistic prayers and require Priests to use the 1st which is the watered down canon I could then accept it. For me it comes down mostly to the absence of an offertory that was the first things the Proti Reformers wanted to get rid of.

You do realize that the Offertory was a relatively late addition in the evolution of the Roman Rite, don't you?  Most Church historians place its addition at somewhere around the 12th century.  If the validity of the Mass is dependent upon the Offertory, then any Mass prior to the 12th century would have been invalid.  Of course, all of those Masses had the Canon, which explicitly states the sacrificial nature of the Mass, but then it is possible for NO Masses today to feature the Canon as well.
Reply
#40
(11-07-2010, 01:48 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 10:39 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-06-2010, 10:36 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Even the SSPX doesn't say that the NO is valid. I think it would be impossible for the Pope to promulgate an invalid mass. And anyways, the mistranslation only concerns the English NO.

Most vernacular NO's are mistranslated, AFAIK. The question of "for all" instead of "for many" is practically universal when it comes to the vernacular translations of the new rite.

Pro multis is translated correctly in the French NO as "pour la mutitude". Is it translated correctly in Portuguese?

No, it's translated "por todos", that is, "for all."

But the Portuguese "translation" has other aberrations besides that one.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)