Stop attending the Novus Ordo?
#91
(04-16-2018, 05:51 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:05 PM)gracemary5 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:02 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Profound religious experiences happen across cultures and religions and can even somewhat be induced by drugs. Other than faith that ones religion happens to be truer than someone else's experience is just experience. I suppose that's why following feelings and experiences are frowned  upon in the traditional Christian spiritual life. Even the devil can come as an angel of light.

i had those aforementioned "experiences" for lack of a better word for ONE reason and one only

I was with JESUS

who shows us the true condition of our souls... who knows us, whereas others don't have a clue..

etc...etc

Protestants would claim their religious experiences came from an intimate personal union with Jesus, as well.

Again, I am not saying your experiences were false, but they are your experiences, and do not a logical argument make, precisely because others do have false experience. That is why anecdotes cannot form the basis for any serious argument.

I like beer, especially the Belgian sort. I have had some profoundly "spiritual" experiences with some rather tasty beer (and cheese), proof, in my book that God exists and wants men to be happy. Still, my own experience is not going to pass the logic test of an atheist when it comes to proving God exists, or the immortality of the soul, etc.

Edited to add : A perfect example is Medjugorje. It is clear that these apparitions are false, yet they appear to come from Mary and seers who claimed to see Our Lady. They did not, but I am sure some are convinced they did.
Peace.....my understanding is that with spiritual experiences of the Lord and His Blessed Mother, come profound conviction of faith and in some cases, a profound conversion where the individual's life is completely changed and focused on God and the things of God.  (the deepening of the faith experience does not diminish).  These experiences can be for the individual but also for the world - a warning, a consolation, a miracle/sign.  A person of good discernment from the hierarchy of the Church would have to show proof of the apparitions being true, just as they would also have to show proof they are false.  Has that been done for Medjugorie?  God bless, angeltime Heart
Reply
#92
(04-16-2018, 05:51 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I like beer, especially the Belgian sort. 
Not to derail the thread, but have you ever had Delirium Tremens, from the Huyghe Brewery in Melle, East Flanders? Talk about a profound spiritual experience!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • formerbuddhist, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#93
(04-16-2018, 11:13 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:51 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I like beer, especially the Belgian sort. 
Not to derail the thread, but have you ever had Delirium Tremens, from the Huyghe Brewery in Melle, East Flanders? Talk about a profound spiritual experience!

Yes!

Some nice homemade fennel-infused Swedish Meatballs plus bacon-lime-cilantro charred Brussel sprouts (to make it a great pun as well) were the paring ... and a heavenly paring, that.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#94
(04-07-2018, 03:21 PM)For Petes Sake Wrote: My question isn't about whether I should attend a NO mass with abuses but is it intrinsically evil as the SSPX argues it is.

First, a brief note that I am not trying to cause a fight here, as the forum description states very clearly that this site generally holds to the "Ecclesia Dei" traditional position. Many of my views do not necessarily hold to this position, and I am neither attacking anyone, nor looking to be attacked. Charity! 

As an SSPX supporter myself, I can say that our position is that the Novus Ordo mass is not licit for a variety of reasons. First, Paul VI's Missale Romanum was never actually promulgated, as he did not intend to impose it on the Church; rather, French and Italian translators manipulated his words through translation to make it seem the document had acquired the force of law. Second, the creation of the Novus Ordo contradicts the spirit of the liturgy and its organic development. Yes, the traditional Latin mass in the 1962 Missal does not look exactly the same as it did during the time of the Apostles, but it is the same mass as handed down through the ages, developing organically along the way. While the idea to "return to the roots" and restore ancient practices is certainly an understandable, and in some respects commendable, idea, the innovators have gone too far. Pope Pius XII even warned against the dangers of wanting to restore everything to antiquity. 

Although some traditional Catholics may reject this proposition entirely, this is merely the "legal" standpoint of the issue, whether certain laws were actually promulgated. On a purely theological level, however, it is undeniable that the Novus Ordo mass does not properly represent the fullness of the Catholic teaching on the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is unfortunate, especially if we keep in mind the principle of "lex orandi, lex credendi". And ironically, what we see in most parishes today even contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. To begin, the lack of Latin and Gregorian chant is astonishing, as even Sacrosanctum concilium states that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and that Gregorian chant must be held in high esteem. There are many commentaries out there which describe compromises in the Novus Ordo in great detail, but it suffices to say here that the "externals" or "aesthetics" of the Sacred Liturgy actually do matter, and more so than those who have internalized the faith may expect.
"Error and truth are not compatible. We must see if we have charity towards others, as the Gospel says: he who has charity is one who serves others. But those who have charity should give Our Lord, they should give the riches they possess to others and not just converse with them and enter into dialogue on an equal footing. Truth and error are not on the same footing. That would be putting God and the Devil on the same footing, for the Devil is the father of lies, the father of error. We must therefore be missionaries."
— Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
[-] The following 1 user Likes credidimus-caritati's post:
  • angeltime
Reply
#95
First, as a new-comer, I would suggest that you keep the typical forum etiquette and not bump posts. This thread exhausted it's supply of interest over nearly three weeks ago.

Even if you think you have something good to contribute, it is best to create a new thread or comment on a more recent one than resurrecting one that has played out and been dormant for a while.

I say this as a fellow SSPX-supporter, so don't think that you're under attack because of your position.

(04-30-2018, 04:17 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: As an SSPX supporter myself, I can say that our position is that the Novus Ordo mass is not licit for a variety of reasons.

The SSPX is much more highly nuanced than taking the position that the NO is not licit. The legal question isn't of real importance as much as the effect.

You will notice, for instance, that the article above does not ever come to the conclusion that the New Mass is illicit, but does describe why it presents an evil (if we understand that term properly, as a lack of a due good). It dances around the issue because, precisely, we don't have the competence to decide it.

The Problem of the Liturgical Reform written by the SSPX and presented to Pope John Paul II in its most extreme statement on the matter says, "Thus [Pope Paul VI's Missale Romanum] does not have the character of a true law, and cannot be obligatory."

That's not very extreme, in fact, since it is just the conclusion for arguing that it presents a harm to the common good. It limits itself to saying the Novus Ordo is not obligatory.

Still, this is different from saying that it is "illicit" which suggests the violation of a law—an "illegal status" of an action which ought to be penalized—and not merely the flawed construction of it and the harm it causes to the common good.

Further while the SSPX usually questions the "legitimacy" of the New Mass, this is because this term is both suggests a legal aspect and also mirrors the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre that the Novus Ordo constitutes a "bastard" rite, being the illegitimate child of a liberal Catholicism that mixes Catholic rites and practices with Protestant and Modernist heresy.

In this sense of "illegitimate" is like saying that the illegitimate child does not deserve the same rights as that of a legitimate child. Again, a fairly measured statement.

(04-30-2018, 04:17 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: First, Paul VI's Missale Romanum was never actually promulgated, as he did not intend to impose it on the Church; rather, French and Italian translators manipulated his words through translation to make it seem the document had acquired the force of law.

That is an extreme position even among the SSPX. Further, it misses the forest for the bacterial nodes on the roots of the tree.

Even if that position were correct, it so stigmatizes the argument toward those who accept the Novus Ordo, that you might as well also as a sidebar argue that the earth is flat.

The merits of the argument aside (we're not exactly canonical scholars here), your argument has to be adapted so that your audience can see your point. Coming into a forum where the default position is the Ecclesia Dei one, and presenting a "Novus Ordo is not properly promulgated" argument is not going to convince anyone here, and probably is going to harden people in their anti-SSPX position.

It's also one of the weakest and most speculative arguments.

(04-30-2018, 04:17 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: Second, the creation of the Novus Ordo contradicts the spirit of the liturgy and its organic development. Yes, the traditional Latin mass in the 1962 Missal does not look exactly the same as it did during the time of the Apostles, but it is the same mass as handed down through the ages, developing organically along the way. While the idea to "return to the roots" and restore ancient practices is certainly an understandable, and in some respects commendable, idea, the innovators have gone too far. Pope Pius XII even warned against the dangers of wanting to restore everything to antiquity.

This is admitted even by Pope Benedict XVI. Still, a lack of organic development does not make something illicit. The very fact of imposing a Missal on the Latin Church as was done by Pope St. Pius V was contrary to "organic development", yet no one complains that this makes Quo Primum illicit.

(04-30-2018, 04:17 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: Although some traditional Catholics may reject this proposition entirely, this is merely the "legal" standpoint of the issue, whether certain laws were actually promulgated.

Which is precisely why it's not of serious concern and really not helpful when trying to critique the Novus Ordo Missæ.

This is the equivalent of focusing on Obama's Executive Orders and whether they are constitutional or not, when the better and easier argument is the whole philosophy and effects of his policy are bad.

Why bother with a highly technical argument that, even if correct, will hardly convince anyone, and one that is a more extreme position even within the SSPX anyway?

(04-30-2018, 04:17 PM)credidimus-caritati Wrote: On a purely theological level, however, it is undeniable that the Novus Ordo mass does not properly represent the fullness of the Catholic teaching on the holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is unfortunate, especially if we keep in mind the principle of "lex orandi, lex credendi". And ironically, what we see in most parishes today even contradicts the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. To begin, the lack of Latin and Gregorian chant is astonishing, as even Sacrosanctum concilium states that Latin is to be preserved in the Latin rites, and that Gregorian chant must be held in high esteem. There are many commentaries out there which describe compromises in the Novus Ordo in great detail, but it suffices to say here that the "externals" or "aesthetics" of the Sacred Liturgy actually do matter, and more so than those who have internalized the faith may expect.

Which, if you read the whole thread above is what was discussed, and exactly why it is not a good idea to just insert your opinion and bump a thread.

You clearly have some good points to contribute here, and are most welcome, but I would suggest that you focus on participating in active threads and making contributions which do not merely repeat what has already been discussed. That requires some critical reading and thinking before you post.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)