I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae
(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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: I'm first finding this: Letter on Novus Ordo Missae - by 2Vermont - 08-18-2013, 05:36 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)