My experience at the NO
#31
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

I completely agree.
Reply
#32
(01-25-2012, 09:37 PM)Revixit Wrote: [b]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."
I wholeheartedly concur. Too many sedes. Ban the sedes who just spit on our Holy Father. They question his being there. They refer to him as Raztinger or Montini or heretic JP2.

Just on this basis alone (using mithrandylans famous words) "in and of itself" are grounds for banishment.
This will help a lot with this wonderful forum!


And you Catholics, at least type Pope before his name. Have a little decency.
I am talking about the Catholics, not the sedevacantistas.

Viva Cristo Rey.



 
Reply
#33
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.
Reply
#34
(01-25-2012, 09:49 PM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:37 PM)Revixit Wrote: [b]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."
I wholeheartedly concur. Too many sedes. Ban the sedes who just spit on our Holy Father. They question his being there. They refer to him as Raztinger or Montini or heretic JP2.

Just on this basis alone (using mithrandylans famous words) "in and of itself" are grounds for banishment.
This will help a lot with this wonderful forum!


And you Catholics, at least type Pope before his name. Have a little decency.
I am talking about the Catholics, not the sedevacantistas.

Viva Cristo Rey.



 

Restricting rather than banning is probably an idea, but yes I see the problems inherent with them.
Reply
#35
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
Reply
#36
(01-25-2012, 09:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
True
Reply
#37
(01-25-2012, 09:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
Yes, a frankenstein liturgy to move closer to Calvin's supper?
Reply
#38
(01-25-2012, 09:56 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
Yes, a frankenstein liturgy to move closer to Calvin's supper?

To sixteenth century Germans, the TLM seemed "frankensteinian".  Communion under both species in eastern and central Europe had been a commonplace variance from parish to parish, for example.  The TLM did not appear "organic" at all to most outside of Spain and Italy.  Besides, if you've read the rubrics of the NO as submitted before the Ottaviani Intervention, (that is before the hijacking of the original rubrics, latin, communion on the tongue, ad orientum, etc), you can hardly call it from scratch.  If you see it that way, I just straight up disagree.
Reply
#39
(01-25-2012, 10:29 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:56 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
Yes, a frankenstein liturgy to move closer to Calvin's supper?

To sixteenth century Germans, the TLM seemed "frankensteinian".  Communion under both species in eastern and central Europe had been a commonplace variance from parish to parish, for example.  The TLM did not appear "organic" at all to most outside of Spain and Italy.  Besides, if you've read the rubrics of the NO as submitted before the Ottaviani Intervention, (that is before the hijacking of the original rubrics, latin, communion on the tongue, ad orientum, etc), you can hardly call it from scratch.  If you see it that way, I just straight up disagree.

16th century germans can call it frankenstenian and you can 'straight up disagree' all you want, we are dealing with facts here not perspectives or opinions. It does not matter what something 'appears' it matters what something is and the TLM is a codification of earlier rites, in that sense it is organic. The NO is on the other hand a cobbling together of calvinism, luther and cranmers mass, some eastern catholics liturgies, made up canons and random parts from who knows where.
Reply
#40
(01-25-2012, 11:32 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 10:29 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:56 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:50 PM)Norbert Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 09:15 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(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  :deadhorse:

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.

This is nonsense.  The Tridentine rite did not exist in 30 ad.  For that matter it didn't exist in 200 ad.  If you read any reputable text, secular or religious, on reformation history, look at the Central European reactions to the "forced" introduction of the TLM by the Jesuits and other agents of the Counter reformation in traditional parishes.  Liturgical diversity was widespread, and in many cases heretical, but that didn't make it any easier for German communities to welcome a strict and uniform rite that had been unfamiliar for generations.

The mass of St Pius V was a codification of earlier rites, those 'different rites' that existed developed organically over time, a pope didn't suddenly get up one day and develop one from scratch, that much is historical fact whether NO catholics like it or not.
Yes, a frankenstein liturgy to move closer to Calvin's supper?

To sixteenth century Germans, the TLM seemed "frankensteinian".  Communion under both species in eastern and central Europe had been a commonplace variance from parish to parish, for example.  The TLM did not appear "organic" at all to most outside of Spain and Italy.  Besides, if you've read the rubrics of the NO as submitted before the Ottaviani Intervention, (that is before the hijacking of the original rubrics, latin, communion on the tongue, ad orientum, etc), you can hardly call it from scratch.  If you see it that way, I just straight up disagree.

16th century germans can call it frankenstenian and you can 'straight up disagree' all you want, we are dealing with facts here not perspectives or opinions. It does not matter what something 'appears' it matters what something is and the TLM is a codification of earlier rites, in that sense it is organic. The NO is on the other hand a cobbling together of calvinism, luther and cranmers mass, some eastern catholics liturgies, made up canons and random parts from who knows where.

I see nothing more rational here than "nuh-uh".  What makes the opinion of people who view the NO as intrinsically evil better than the irritation and refusal of the TLM manifested in 16th century Germany.  More importantly, why does the opinion (reflected nowhere outside of Sede communities and perhaps portions of the SSPX) that the NO is intrinsically evil/spiritually harmful hold such sway here when it can be demonstrably proven that there are trads like PtR and myself who receive spiritual benefit/consolation from it?  No one is denying the superiority of the TLM here. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)