My experience at the NO
#21
The differing Rites of the Church in no way effect the mark of the Church being one.  The Eastern Liturgies for example.

And whether you like it or not men have authority over the liturgy.  It properly belongs to the Church and those with authority.  You realise that the Religious, for example, long before Vatican II, had a pretty much unlimited influence over their liturgy?  How do you think different monastic uses of the Divine Office and the Rites of the Mass came into existence?

Where do you think that Pope Saint Pius V got the authority to standardise the Roman Rite?  Do you honestly believe Pooe Saint Pius X was celebrating the same liturgy as Saint Peter 2000 years ago?

Yes, yes, organic growth, etc.  The point is that the liturgy is under the Church's authority.  How that authority is exercised is to be judged with prudence, prayer, etc.  And sometimes they'll do a poor job of it.  That doesn't remove their authority to do it.

And one last thing.  The liturgy as contained in the Roman Missal currently for use in the Ordinary Form, is not inherently evil or invalid.  The Church could not give us such.  You are then tredding the muddy roads of sedevacantism, schism, etc.
Reply
#22
(01-25-2012, 06:13 PM)City Smurf Wrote: And one last thing.  The liturgy as contained in the Roman Missal currently for use in the Ordinary Form, is not inherently evil or invalid.  The Church could not give us such.  You are then tredding the muddy roads of sedevacantism, schism, etc.

This claim is  Beating a dead horse

I hear it over and over and over again, but I have not found one single person who can cite me an authoritative source to back this principle up, until they do I'm afraid its an excuse made up by those who have a false understanding of the Church's indefectibility.

Regarding the NO as Archbisbhop Lefebvre said 'Contra factum non fit argumentum. Against the facts there is no argument. The facts are there before our eyes. So, we have to conclude that when our Lord spoke of help until the end of time, he did not exclude periods of darkness and a time of Passion for his mystical Spouse' (Though he said it regarding popes and not the liturgy, it could as much be said about the liturgy as the Popes)

The fruits of the NO are evident, loss of faith, irreverence to our lord, a blurring of the line between the priesthood and the laity, a loss of what it means to be priest, sacrilege and the 'auto-demolition of the church'. The fact it was designed to convey the message of Vatican II and to remove 'anything too catholic' is reason enough to be wary of it, let alone the in depth studies done on it as shown by 'The Ottaviani Intervention' to name but one.

Against these facts it is no good claiming 'such and such isnt possible', one must also demonstrate this with authority and preferably facts.
Reply
#23
(01-25-2012, 05:59 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:43 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:17 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote: I'm sorry but the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo.  In my experience, you get more graces for avoiding it altogether than for going every day--or at all, even if the TLM isn't available.  I went for over a year, and little by little it ripped away my faith.  When I came back to Tradition again, I swore it off once and for all. 

If a Mass rips you away from your faith then obviously you have no Faith. Now granted, there are some NO Masses that have downright heretical priests and I would avoid these Churches myself. But as long as you have an orthodox Holy Priest, even the NO Mass will give you graces. Obviously, if I had the choice I would go to the TLM over the NO...but since there is no Daily TLM around here, I am stuck. I am fortunate to have the TLM on Sunday's and Holy Days...but one of the biggest things is I want to complete the First Friday devotion.

Attacking someone else's faith seems a little aggressive. I feel like adding a clarification - like all the bishops that studied the Mass and that Ottoviani referenced in his "Intervention", the NO in its most rigorously faithful inception was/is an abomination. Since in the decades since its inception it has further fallen (much further) to such depths as to not even resemble a mass anymore, I would not grace it with that title. I can see how it can rip at one's faith in its most basic form - so much more when you compound exponentially with the common abuses of our day.

And you seem to stress that having a NO priest who is conservative is a plus? How does it change an "abomination"? Beside that you seem to imply that the majority of NO priests are scandalous in their behavior at Church - else why would you make a point of finding a "mostly traditional" priest? The Catholic Church is supposed to be ONE, and the liturgy and sacraments are to be as Christ directed them to be, certainly not at the whim of individual men. If you cannot see this, then it seems your faith has been ripped at as well in attending the subjective rites of men.

Thank you.  And you basically made the point better than I did--it's an abomination.  The Mass of all time is not to be conflated with subjective rites of men.  Much less should they be substituted for it. 

Amen!
Reply
#24
(01-25-2012, 07:56 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 05:59 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:43 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:17 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote: I'm sorry but the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo.  In my experience, you get more graces for avoiding it altogether than for going every day--or at all, even if the TLM isn't available.  I went for over a year, and little by little it ripped away my faith.  When I came back to Tradition again, I swore it off once and for all. 

If a Mass rips you away from your faith then obviously you have no Faith. Now granted, there are some NO Masses that have downright heretical priests and I would avoid these Churches myself. But as long as you have an orthodox Holy Priest, even the NO Mass will give you graces. Obviously, if I had the choice I would go to the TLM over the NO...but since there is no Daily TLM around here, I am stuck. I am fortunate to have the TLM on Sunday's and Holy Days...but one of the biggest things is I want to complete the First Friday devotion.

Attacking someone else's faith seems a little aggressive. I feel like adding a clarification - like all the bishops that studied the Mass and that Ottoviani referenced in his "Intervention", the NO in its most rigorously faithful inception was/is an abomination. Since in the decades since its inception it has further fallen (much further) to such depths as to not even resemble a mass anymore, I would not grace it with that title. I can see how it can rip at one's faith in its most basic form - so much more when you compound exponentially with the common abuses of our day.

And you seem to stress that having a NO priest who is conservative is a plus? How does it change an "abomination"? Beside that you seem to imply that the majority of NO priests are scandalous in their behavior at Church - else why would you make a point of finding a "mostly traditional" priest? The Catholic Church is supposed to be ONE, and the liturgy and sacraments are to be as Christ directed them to be, certainly not at the whim of individual men. If you cannot see this, then it seems your faith has been ripped at as well in attending the subjective rites of men.

Thank you.  And you basically made the point better than I did--it's an abomination.  The Mass of all time is not to be conflated with subjective rites of men.  Much less should they be substituted for it. 

Amen!

Well then forget about Latin...you better start asking for the Mass in Aramaic like the Maronites do!

Reply
#25
(01-25-2012, 01:26 PM)JoniCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 10:51 AM)Tim Wrote: Pete, I'm glad for you in these times of trial and tribulation that you've found relief.

tim

So am I. Please say a prayer or two that I might do the same during this upcoming month. My sister-in-law died a week & a half ago & several Masses have been offered for her. I want to go to all of them & they are all Novus Ordo. How I would love to see a real requiem Mass again. It's been many, many years.  My Grandfather's final Mass on earth was the Traditional Requiem Mass. Do they even sprinkle the casket with holy water anymore? Is there incense?

During the last funeral Mass I attended, the priest gave a eulogy?? & talked a lot about the  red mustang that the deceased drove & peanut butter sandwiches that she brought to work. (She was a lay teacher in a Catholic school. She deserved better. )


In my experience, the casket is sprinkled with holy water and incensed at OF funerals.

The priest may say a few things about the deceased before the homily but it's not a eulogy, nothing like a Protestant funeral, with the minister focusing too much attention on the deceased, often talking about how the person suffered -- terrible things to say to the grieving family.  



Reply
#26
(01-25-2012, 07:54 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 06:13 PM)City Smurf Wrote: And one last thing.  The liturgy as contained in the Roman Missal currently for use in the Ordinary Form, is not inherently evil or invalid.  The Church could not give us such.  You are then tredding the muddy roads of sedevacantism, schism, etc.

This claim is  Beating a dead horse

I hear it over and over and over again, but I have not found one single person who can cite me an authoritative source to back this principle up, until they do I'm afraid its an excuse made up by those who have a false understanding of the Church's indefectibility.

Regarding the NO as Archbisbhop Lefebvre said 'Contra factum non fit argumentum. Against the facts there is no argument. The facts are there before our eyes. So, we have to conclude that when our Lord spoke of help until the end of time, he did not exclude periods of darkness and a time of Passion for his mystical Spouse' (Though he said it regarding popes and not the liturgy, it could as much be said about the liturgy as the Popes)

The fruits of the NO are evident, loss of faith, irreverence to our lord, a blurring of the line between the priesthood and the laity, a loss of what it means to be priest, sacrilege and the 'auto-demolition of the church'. The fact it was designed to convey the message of Vatican II and to remove 'anything too catholic' is reason enough to be wary of it, let alone the in depth studies done on it as shown by 'The Ottaviani Intervention' to name but one.

Against these facts it is no good claiming 'such and such isnt possible', one must also demonstrate this with authority and preferably facts.
No Pope before Paul VI has dared to create a new rite of Mass. That the Church's indefectibility is affected by the "evilness" of the NO is a strawman.
Reply
#27
(01-25-2012, 06:13 PM)City Smurf Wrote: The differing Rites of the Church in no way effect the mark of the Church being one.  The Eastern Liturgies for example.

And whether you like it or not men have authority over the liturgy.  It properly belongs to the Church and those with authority.  You realise that the Religious, for example, long before Vatican II, had a pretty much unlimited influence over their liturgy?  How do you think different monastic uses of the Divine Office and the Rites of the Mass came into existence?

Where do you think that Pope Saint Pius V got the authority to standardise the Roman Rite?  Do you honestly believe Pooe Saint Pius X was celebrating the same liturgy as Saint Peter 2000 years ago?

Yes, yes, organic growth, etc.  The point is that the liturgy is under the Church's authority.  How that authority is exercised is to be judged with prudence, prayer, etc.  And sometimes they'll do a poor job of it.  That doesn't remove their authority to do it.

And one last thing.  The liturgy as contained in the Roman Missal currently for use in the Ordinary Form, is not inherently evil or invalid.  The Church could not give us such.  You are then tredding the muddy roads of sedevacantism, schism, etc.

Amen.

Two days ago, Vox posted:

"Yeah, for a lot of people around here -- far too many people around here -- giving a Pope the benefit of the doubt and stating the belief that, though the traditional Mass is vastly superior, a Catholic should think long and hard before not going to a Novus Ordo Mass if that's all that's available is all it takes to call someone a "modernist." It's disgusting.

I'm starting to think that, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, I should ban sedevacantists from posting here. It's just not worth the hassle. It seems to almost always come through and get ugly."


Considering that, and the fact that she put up a poll asking whether the forum should be closed,  I'd say she's fed up with the bickering, with the more-Catholic-than-thou attitudes often displayed here.  And not just fed up but fed up to the point of closing it all down.  

She's banned several people for breaking rules and what has happened?  People have shown disrespect for her decisions and started, and participated in, threads to praise some who were banned.  

Reply
#28
(01-25-2012, 03:33 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:17 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Oh yes...they are the priests that took over at St. Joseph's when the Capuchins left. That's the Church where the priest acted like I was committing a grave mortal sin when I asked if I could receive Holy Communion kneeling...his response was, "Oh God please! No not that!" That was the last time I went to that Church.

Something like that happened to me too.

Obviously I started kneeling for Communion when at the NO in order to show reverence, but it has had an interesting side effect.  I always try to ask the priest first and his reaction seems to correspond to the orthodoxy and reverence of the Mass.  It works as a quick test for determining which NOs I will be able to stand.

I kneel regardless.  If it's the mass, it's jesus, and that's way more important than what a priest thinks, frankly.  I don't even attend one of the parishes here, but the one I do, if I was refused communion kneeling I wouldn't take communion there at all.

EDIT: to those claiming that total avoidance of the NO would benefit one spiritually more than going every day: GROW UP.  Really?  You don't speak for everyone.

Without the availability of an admittedly inferior rite of the Mass, I would be a fornicating Deist now.  Seriously.  Get a hobby.
Reply
#29
(01-25-2012, 09:37 PM)Revixit Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 06:13 PM)City Smurf Wrote: The differing Rites of the Church in no way effect the mark of the Church being one.  The Eastern Liturgies for example.

And whether you like it or not men have authority over the liturgy.  It properly belongs to the Church and those with authority.  You realise that the Religious, for example, long before Vatican II, had a pretty much unlimited influence over their liturgy?  How do you think different monastic uses of the Divine Office and the Rites of the Mass came into existence?

Where do you think that Pope Saint Pius V got the authority to standardise the Roman Rite?  Do you honestly believe Pooe Saint Pius X was celebrating the same liturgy as Saint Peter 2000 years ago?

Yes, yes, organic growth, etc.  The point is that the liturgy is under the Church's authority.  How that authority is exercised is to be judged with prudence, prayer, etc.  And sometimes they'll do a poor job of it.  That doesn't remove their authority to do it.

And one last thing.  The liturgy as contained in the Roman Missal currently for use in the Ordinary Form, is not inherently evil or invalid.  The Church could not give us such.  You are then tredding the muddy roads of sedevacantism, schism, etc.

Amen.

Two days ago, Vox posted:

"Yeah, for a lot of people around here -- far too many people around here -- giving a Pope the benefit of the doubt and stating the belief that, though the traditional Mass is vastly superior, a Catholic should think long and hard before not going to a Novus Ordo Mass if that's all that's available is all it takes to call someone a "modernist." It's disgusting.

I'm starting to think that, with a few exceptions I can think of off the top of my head, I should ban sedevacantists from posting here. It's just not worth the hassle. It seems to almost always come through and get ugly."


Considering that, and the fact that she put up a poll asking whether the forum should be closed,  I'd say she's fed up with the bickering, with the more-Catholic-than-thou attitudes often displayed here.  And not just fed up but fed up to the point of closing it all down.  

She's banned several people for breaking rules and what has happened?  People have shown disrespect for her decisions and started, and participated in, threads to praise some who were banned.  


1) I dont support those threads, and
2)No one here is expressing sedevecantist views

Reply
#30
(01-25-2012, 08:25 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 07:56 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 05:59 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:43 PM)Aenigmata in Tenebris Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:54 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:17 PM)SimplyCatholic Wrote: I'm sorry but the Novus Ordo is the Novus Ordo.  In my experience, you get more graces for avoiding it altogether than for going every day--or at all, even if the TLM isn't available.  I went for over a year, and little by little it ripped away my faith.  When I came back to Tradition again, I swore it off once and for all. 

If a Mass rips you away from your faith then obviously you have no Faith. Now granted, there are some NO Masses that have downright heretical priests and I would avoid these Churches myself. But as long as you have an orthodox Holy Priest, even the NO Mass will give you graces. Obviously, if I had the choice I would go to the TLM over the NO...but since there is no Daily TLM around here, I am stuck. I am fortunate to have the TLM on Sunday's and Holy Days...but one of the biggest things is I want to complete the First Friday devotion.

Attacking someone else's faith seems a little aggressive. I feel like adding a clarification - like all the bishops that studied the Mass and that Ottoviani referenced in his "Intervention", the NO in its most rigorously faithful inception was/is an abomination. Since in the decades since its inception it has further fallen (much further) to such depths as to not even resemble a mass anymore, I would not grace it with that title. I can see how it can rip at one's faith in its most basic form - so much more when you compound exponentially with the common abuses of our day.

And you seem to stress that having a NO priest who is conservative is a plus? How does it change an "abomination"? Beside that you seem to imply that the majority of NO priests are scandalous in their behavior at Church - else why would you make a point of finding a "mostly traditional" priest? The Catholic Church is supposed to be ONE, and the liturgy and sacraments are to be as Christ directed them to be, certainly not at the whim of individual men. If you cannot see this, then it seems your faith has been ripped at as well in attending the subjective rites of men.

Thank you.  And you basically made the point better than I did--it's an abomination.  The Mass of all time is not to be conflated with subjective rites of men.  Much less should they be substituted for it. 

Amen!

Well then forget about Latin...you better start asking for the Mass in Aramaic like the Maronites do!

You are rather missing the point
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)