I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae
#41
(08-18-2013, 12:40 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 12:32 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 08:49 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 08:33 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 07:26 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I will read this more closely, but I was going to go and modify my other post.  I have serious doubts about the validity of the NO.  And, I have learned that if one has doubts about the validity of a sacrament one must not go.  I believe this is something Innocent XI said.
Trust me, I don't like it but I am having a very hard time believing that NO is the work of God's hands lately. 

You are treading down a very dangerous path and in doing so, you are putting your soul in danger.  I am frustrated by many aspects of the NO also, but to doubt its validity is something I will not do.  Prudence?  Yep.  The manner in which it is often celebrated?  Most definitely.  Validity?  No. 

I told you before that you wouldn't have to read between the lines to tell whether or not I thought you were doing too far with something.  Well, you are. 

Many of you have the TLM every week.  I do not. It's easy to tell someone who doesn't have access to the TLM that I should go to the NO no matter. 


Actually, I would be willing to bet that most of us do not have the TLM every week.  Speaking for myself, I don't have an TLM within 2 hours of me, in any direction.

The bottom line is that you either accept that the NO Mass, while imperfect, is still valid; or, you come to the conclusion that we have been lied to by the past three popes, or that they are not popes at all. 
Pope Paul VI  did not seem to invoke infallibility or custom when he issued the new missal.
"But, let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass. Some perhaps will have gotten the idea that by the introduction of such and such a ceremony, or such and such a rubric being added, that such things constitute or hid alterations or minimizations of defined truths or ideas sanctioned by the Catholic Faith...
But there is nothing to this idea, absolutely. First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not in themselves a matter of dogmatic definition.

One does not have to make a claim of infallibility to tell a lie.  Either she believes that the NO Mass is invalid or she believes it is valid.  If the former, then there are only two explanations: 1) the past three popes were not really popes; 2) they were really popes, but they were liars and charlatans celebrating a fake Mass everywhere they went. 
Reply
#42
(08-18-2013, 05:22 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 12:40 PM)JMartyr Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 12:32 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 08:49 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 08:33 AM)Sant Anselmo Wrote:
(08-18-2013, 07:26 AM)2Vermont Wrote: I will read this more closely, but I was going to go and modify my other post.  I have serious doubts about the validity of the NO.  And, I have learned that if one has doubts about the validity of a sacrament one must not go.  I believe this is something Innocent XI said.
Trust me, I don't like it but I am having a very hard time believing that NO is the work of God's hands lately. 

You are treading down a very dangerous path and in doing so, you are putting your soul in danger.  I am frustrated by many aspects of the NO also, but to doubt its validity is something I will not do.  Prudence?  Yep.  The manner in which it is often celebrated?  Most definitely.  Validity?  No. 

I told you before that you wouldn't have to read between the lines to tell whether or not I thought you were doing too far with something.  Well, you are. 

Many of you have the TLM every week.  I do not. It's easy to tell someone who doesn't have access to the TLM that I should go to the NO no matter. 


Actually, I would be willing to bet that most of us do not have the TLM every week.  Speaking for myself, I don't have an TLM within 2 hours of me, in any direction.

The bottom line is that you either accept that the NO Mass, while imperfect, is still valid; or, you come to the conclusion that we have been lied to by the past three popes, or that they are not popes at all. 
Pope Paul VI  did not seem to invoke infallibility or custom when he issued the new missal.
"But, let everyone understand well that nothing has been changed in the essence of our traditional Mass. Some perhaps will have gotten the idea that by the introduction of such and such a ceremony, or such and such a rubric being added, that such things constitute or hid alterations or minimizations of defined truths or ideas sanctioned by the Catholic Faith...
But there is nothing to this idea, absolutely. First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not in themselves a matter of dogmatic definition.

One does not have to make a claim of infallibility to tell a lie.  Either she believes that the NO Mass is invalid or she believes it is valid.  If the former, then there are only two explanations: 1) the past three popes were not really popes; 2) they were really popes, but they were liars and charlatans celebrating a fake Mass everywhere they went. 

You know, I'm not sure these are the only possibilities.  I haven't considered it long enough.  But I will say that I find it hard to believe that after seeing 50 years of the fruits of this mass that anyone can believe that it is of God.  It just doesn't make sense to me AT ALL.  And I'm long past giving the blame to those who interpreted/implemented Vatican II incorrectly.  I know no one likes to think that way because well, it's uncomfortable (trust me, I KNOW), but I do think we need to start to look very closely at what has happened to our Church, let alone the Mass.
Reply
#43
(08-18-2013, 04:31 PM)JoniCath Wrote: I would like some documentation of your post. Where did you hear this. Please give us a link.

On Lefebrve's involvement:
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_sho...part-1.htm

The wiki article links to the other sources. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention

Here is what is commonly cited in this regard:

“I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success.” (Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors. . . .The purity and unity of faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme magisterium of the Pope through the liturgical laws.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

It is well known in trad circles and not disputed that he said such things, which is why various articles have been written trying to explain it away as him being tricked into saying it (or at that the letter was forged)  by a certain Msgr. Agustoni.  In his introduction to the translation of the intervention published by TAN in 1992, Fr. Cekada summarizes the controversy.
Reply
#44
The Intervention letter does not make or break the issue. The issue is that the NO is "less Catholic" than what it replaced. That im of itself raises serious questions. In addition, the "competent authories" purposely rwmoved scores ancient Propers from the Mass because they were "too Catholic". Some of these prayers were over 1500 years old. It was a deliberate attempt make the Church's liturgy more Protestant.

Sorry fpr.typos, I'm on boat on the open ocean.
Reply
#45
Cardinal Bacci never retracted and Augustoni never denied the public accusation by Jean Madiran. The signature was also different from others signed by Ottaviani. OnlyGod knows.
Reply
#46
(08-18-2013, 06:15 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: The Intervention letter does not make or break the issue. The issue is that the NO is "less Catholic" than what it replaced. That im of itself raises serious questions. In addition, the "competent authories" purposely rwmoved scores ancient Propers from the Mass because they were "too Catholic". Some of these prayers were over 1500 years old. It was a deliberate attempt make the Church's liturgy more Protestant.

Sorry fpr.typos, I'm on boat on the open ocean.

Yes, it does raise serious questions.  Vatican II, with it's Protestant-like liturgy and its document on ecumenism (which goes against pre-Vatican II teaching) seems more interested in making the Catholic religion more palatable to other religions than anything else. Since when does the Catholic Church care to do such things, let alone actually DO them? 
Reply
#47

Yes, it does raise serious questions.  Vatican II, with it's Protestant-like liturgy and its document on ecumenism (which goes against pre-Vatican II teaching) seems more interested in making the Catholic religion more palatable to other religions than anything else. Since when does the Catholic Church care to do such things, let alone actually DO them? 
[/quote]

Validity has nothing to do with my reason for boycotting the NO. IMO. This Mass has done great harm to my Church & I cannot go on any longer,  enabling it. I don't believe that it is the work of God. I am a great fan of Thomas Aquinas. I do believe with him that, above all things one must follow that still little voice inside us, our conscience. It must be well informed & one must pray & agonize over such a thing as refusing to go to a Mass that is approved (not infallibly as the Council was simply pastoral & no dogma was involved. Pope John XXIII made that clear in his beginning statement.)

I could never join another faith though. I'll be Catholic through & through all of my life.
Reply
#48
Aquinas also had a thing for order and h hierarchy. Your still little voice is below the big loud voice of the Catholic Church which says that you must attend any valid Catholic mass in order to fulfil your obligation. This ain't something you can dispense yourself from. If you think you can, you're inverting the hierarchy of order by placing your conscience above church law. St Thomas would not approve.
Reply
#49
(08-18-2013, 05:11 PM)2Vermont Wrote: But here is what happened, as recounted at www.traditio.com

I had to go double check this. Not that I didn't believe you, but just that I was floored that this was on the FE site. With all due respect to Vox, if 'Traditio' says that the sun rises in the east, I'm staying up all night to check. In other words, I wouldn't believe a word they say without independent verification
Reply
#50
(08-18-2013, 07:06 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Cardinal Bacci never retracted and Augustoni never denied the public accusation by Jean Madiran. The signature was also different from others signed by Ottaviani. OnlyGod knows.

So it's still not been proven that a Cardinal that had THAT much concern over this mass actually did a flip flop of major proportions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)