L
latinmasslover
Guest
I searched the posts and found nothing regarding the Faith to be incorrect. Enlighten us as to what he said that was wrong.
- Status
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
What really are you talking about JamesTKirk? I think only you ,yourself, you again, and maybe some of your little cronies know what it is you write.
Your are guilty of contextomy, so you are one to talk, bub.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
Not some are are quite good at misleading the innocent and evading questions. Remember some will try to convince you that ‘many’ = ‘all’, no matter how you prove otherwise. This may be due to Wernike’s or Transcortical Aphasia where neologisms, paraphasias , agrammatism, circumlocution, and dysprosody can occur. But of course I am not attributing this to anyone in particular.
M
marchoi
Guest
You know what I think? I think we’re straying from the topic here and engaging in personal attacks. Let’s not do that, please. It makes me want to leave CAF altogether. And that’s not cool. 
Now, a quick and simple question, I guess directed mainly at ThereCanBeOnly1 and latinmasslover.
Is the Novus Ordo a Mass? On at least the same level (in terms of validity and efficaciousness, I supposed…) as the Tridentine Mass?
Think about this one before you answer! I mean, you really shouldn’t have to, but do think about it. And then think about some of the posts you have made. And then think about the answer again.
Now, a quick and simple question, I guess directed mainly at ThereCanBeOnly1 and latinmasslover.
Is the Novus Ordo a Mass? On at least the same level (in terms of validity and efficaciousness, I supposed…) as the Tridentine Mass?
Think about this one before you answer! I mean, you really shouldn’t have to, but do think about it. And then think about some of the posts you have made. And then think about the answer again.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
I stand by the truth of the situation: The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass (of course, so is the Black Mass) but the New Rite is not worthy of the Sacrifice. The priest offering the Sacrifice with his back to God is a bigger deal than people like to think. There are many other abuses, legal abuses, which make the **Rite **unattractive and ordinary (ironic how that’s the word used by Rome for the NO). I don’t know how much ThereCanBeOnly1 agrees, but that’s the way I, among many others, see it.You know what I think? I think we’re straying from the topic here and engaging in personal attacks. Let’s not do that, please. It makes me want to leave CAF altogether. And that’s not cool.
Now, a quick and simple question, I guess directed mainly at ThereCanBeOnly1 and latinmasslover.
Is the Novus Ordo a Mass? On at least the same level (in terms of validity and efficaciousness, I supposed…) as the Tridentine Mass?
Think about this one before you answer! I mean, you really shouldn’t have to, but do think about it. And then think about some of the posts you have made. And then think about the answer again.
As to it’s effectiveness, that depends on the person. I attend the NO for two reasons, the Eucharist and obedience; I would never encourage a nonCatholic to attend it. When I attend I follow the Mass using the Tridentine Missal and usually have my ears plugged with something to avoid distractions. As peaceful as I am when doing that, I am nothing but encouraged to persevere with the Tridentine and to pray for the abolition of the New Rite.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
If you can read Bob (or There Can Only Be 1’s) posts and not see the errors, then that only confirms YOUR mindset, which is at odds with the Church, as does your ability to mention the OF in the same sentence as the Black Mass, though I suspect like some people your age, you’re justing saying that for the attention it will get you). Bear in mind, your opinion of the OF is not that of the Church, in particular, not Pope Benedict’s. You mention TRUTH, but in fact, you’ve confused a very narrow and ill-informed opinion for the truth. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is of various facts, the facts remain facts. You can bemoan or even deny that the sun will rise, it doesn’t alter the truth of the matter. Your opinion is not expressive of the mind of the Church or the Pope.
You want examples? Bob insists that the Mass cannot be changed or altered by the lawful authority per Trent. Untrue, as even pre-conciliar popes have demonstrated. He’s insisted that to even suggest that the Mass could be in the vernacular is to incurr anathema per Trent or that Mass can only be in Latin. Also demonstarbly untrue. There Can Only Be 1 has insisted that the similarity of the OF and other liturgies is because the Mass has been deliberately and maliciously Protestantized and he has mocked and abused a very orthodox poster who very calmly and dispassionately attempted to point out the reasons for those similarities (here):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=190738
These are just a few examples. If you don’t see it after you’ve read their posts, then I suggest you contact your local community college and see if there are remedial reading courses on offer. One of the basic skills of reading is determining an author’s purpose in writing. Generally they write to entertain, or to persuade, or to inform. They can, however, deliberately mislead (Mein Kamph would be one example). Perhaps you should brush up on that particular skill.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Yeah, you’re a picture of Christian charity.
M
marchoi
Guest
Umm… the Novus Ordo Mass might have the same reverent ambiance as the Tridentine Mass, but you still shouldn’t be praying “for the abolition of the New Rite.” I pray that the Novus Ordo Mass can be celebrated without liturgical abuses, but criticize the Novus Ordo Mass for the abuses (which are NOT an inherent part of the Mass) seems unfair to me. I’d venture to say that the Novus Ordo Mass is of the same status as the Tridentine Mass.
And btw, I am kinda appalled that you would use the Novus Ordo Mass and the Black Mass in the context as you did. It certainly sounds like you’re implying that the Novus Ordo Mass is closer to the Black Mass than it is to the Tridentine Mass. If it’s not what you’re implying, I would suggest that you reword your statement so as to clarify what you meant by the comparison. Thank you.
S
Sure
Guest
Then why do the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius celebrate the Ordinary form of the Mass in addition to the Extraordinary form of the Mass? Are they stupid? Would they celebrate a Mass that is “not worthy of the Sacrifice”? Would the Holy Father celebrate a Mass that is “not worthy of the Sacrifice”?
You can pray for the abolition of the Mass, but when it does not happen, you should realize perhaps Our Lord desires it and conform your will to His.
If tomorrow, the Church abolished the ordinary Mass, I would submit.
If tomorrow, the Church abolished the extraordinary Mass, I would submit.
Would you?
M
marchoi
Guest
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Re-read your own posts dear…Christian charity isn’t exactly your forte. Somebody disagrees with you and you resort to mockery. You remind me of a Baptist my sister dated. His most frequent remark was “you’re wrong…you’re wrong…you’re wrong…” which is what you’ve sputtered for the longest time by refusing to answer a simple little question. Answer that question, heck no. you have to mock while you do it. Stick with the issue and quit resorting to personal attacks and mockery. True, I myself have done that, though I do regret it most of the time and am working to overcome it. Still, that doesn’t excuse you doing it. You’re remarks are no different from the “trads” you accuse.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
I do apologize by the mix up. I did not mean to imply that the NO is closer to the Black Mass than to the Tridentine. I was simply pointing out that just because it’s valid doesn’t mean it’s…holy in appearance and form. Looking at the NO (without abuses) doesn’t appear irreverent unless it’s compared to the Tridentine. I pray for the abolition of the new rite because (among other reasons) why have two Rites? Where’s the unity? Why keep a Rite that is constantly abused? That fact that it was Protestantized sucks, but that’s the way it is. I recommend reading Cranmers’s Godly Order and Liturgical Shipwreck by Michael Davies. Before people jump in to condemn the auther, here’s what Pope Benedict said of him when Cardinal in 2004:
…I found him to be a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially on the sacred liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church and the rock of Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St. Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of Heaven.
Michael Davies has a lot of good books out which should be read by anyone who wants to know how a “trad” could think the way we do. His stuff is very well written.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
If the Church abolished the Tridentine then there’d be no doubt in my mind that the one responsible is a false shepherd that Jesus Christ warned about. Obedience is at the service of the Faith, not the other way around.
And I don’t think that priests who say the NO are bad, or stupid. My favorite priest in the world happens to say both, and my second favorite only says the NO. The one that says both is simply making the best of a bad situation, and the other actually prefers the NO. I don’t hate the Pope, like some here would like to think, I just disagree on some non-infallible matters. There’s no sin in that.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Ah, the arrogance of youth…you are very young, aren’t you?
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Ask the question more politely, then, and you’ll get an answer more to your liking. Act like a beligerent child and you’ll be answered like one.
“True, I myself have done it?” You have a gift for understatement.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Read the link I provided earlier. It answers the absurd canard that the Mass was “protestantized.”
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Further:
"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”
This site might be a helpful read:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html
"On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”
This site might be a helpful read:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html
B
BobP123
Guest
Matt1618 is not a credible source and does not speak for the Church. Please site current Vatican sources to make your point. Please remember that the Pope has been one of the Novus Ordo’s main critics.
S
Sure
Guest
You say that you just disagree on some “non-infallible” matters, yet you would leave the Church if the Pope made a decision you didn’t like on one of these matters???
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Regardless of what you think of Matt1618, he USED credible sources (primary sources, regarded as more reliable than secondary), ie, “on a specific date, the Holy See stated THIS.” The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong, but she doesn’t deny the hsitorical fact that on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court announced that it was legal. Horrible, but an incontovertible fact.
So whether you have a problem with Matt1618 (and your declaration that he does not speak for the Church is absurd, neither do you), you still have to contend with the fact that the Holy See denies that the Protestant observers participated in the composition of the texts of the missal. AND since he has assumed the chair of Peter, the Holy Father doesn’t seem to be ill-disposed to the Pauline. Here’s a link to the cover letter to the bishops regarding the MP:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm
- Status