novus ordo marriage...

  • Thread starter Thread starter LZ7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Contrary to opinion of a few on this board i was not trying to start arguements. I came to this message board to hear people’s opinions of a serious matter to me. For those of you who berated me right away, God bless you anyway. To those that gave me a legitimate response- thank you. As I mentioned I was raised traditional catholic and taught to believe that Pope John Paul II and his succesor are the legitimate heir to Peter’s throne. I never doubted that. However I was taught that since the changes of vatican II the changes to the mass (which im sure you’ve all heard before) and the sacraments leave them questionable to their validity. Im sure im not the only traditionalist who was taught the same.
 
Stylites said:
Well, you and husdon have very good points, and it goes to show how factions and dissensions work against unity, and remove peace, as there are people out there who do not have the plan and desires of Christ in their hearts, and who oppose Him and revel with relish whenever a Catholic, in the zeal of their agenda, shouts about a liturgical faux pas or calumniates about a local priest.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. And in addition, without taking a position as to the genuineness of the OP’s question, I feel like sticking pins in my eyes whenever I see a posting referring to “novus ordo parishes,” “novus ordo priests,” “novus ordo sacraments,” “novus ordo Catholics,” “novus ordo churches,” etc. Last I checked, we were one Church with two approved forms of the Sacred Liturgy. The incessant need of some on these boards to use the labels of “NO” or “novus ordo” strikes me as borderline schismatic and I wish such usage would incur moderator warnings, or bannings for repeated usages when used these ways.
 
LZ7 said:
Contrary to opinion of a few on this board i was not trying to start arguements. I came to this message board to hear people’s opinions of a serious matter to me. For those of you who berated me right away, God bless you anyway. To those that gave me a legitimate response- thank you. As I mentioned I was raised traditional catholic and taught to believe that Pope John Paul II and his succesor are the legitimate heir to Peter’s throne. I never doubted that. However I was taught that since the changes of vatican II the changes to the mass (which im sure you’ve all heard before) and the sacraments leave them questionable to their validity. Im sure im not the only traditionalist who was taught the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying so. Unfortunately, there are occasional issues with people attempting to start trouble by discussing changes in the liturgy after Vatican II. This explains the knee-jerk reaction some respondents give.

I hope you found a suitable answer.
 
LZ7 said:
Contrary to opinion of a few on this board i was not trying to start arguements. I came to this message board to hear people’s opinions of a serious matter to me. For those of you who berated me right away, God bless you anyway. To those that gave me a legitimate response- thank you. As I mentioned I was raised traditional catholic and taught to believe that Pope John Paul II and his succesor are the legitimate heir to Peter’s throne. I never doubted that. However I was taught that since the changes of vatican II the changes to the mass (which im sure you’ve all heard before) and the sacraments leave them questionable to their validity. Im sure im not the only traditionalist who was taught the same.
Click to expand...
Your catechism was very flawed for you to have been taught that the Roman Catholic Mass was invalid. In spite of what you said about JPII, it sounds like you were raised in a sedevacantist household, which would be very sad for you; certainly it is odd that you would even say such a thing about the Blessed JP unless you weren’t already well-versed in sedevacantist nonsense.

I would say you might be sinning by taking Holy Communion at a Catholic Church IF you had previously confessed mortal sins at a breakaway church whose clergy did not have the proper faculties for administering the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You would have to make a good cenfession before an actual Catholic priest who DOES have the faculties in order to be forgiven, and THEN you could receive the licit Sacrament of Holy Communion.
 
LZ7 said:
Contrary to opinion of a few on this board i was not trying to start arguements. I came to this message board to hear people’s opinions of a serious matter to me. For those of you who berated me right away, God bless you anyway. To those that gave me a legitimate response- thank you. As I mentioned I was raised traditional catholic and taught to believe that Pope John Paul II and his succesor are the legitimate heir to Peter’s throne. I never doubted that. However I was taught that since the changes of vatican II the changes to the mass (which im sure you’ve all heard before) and the sacraments leave them questionable to their validity
Click to expand...
Then you were not taught Catholic teaching. The Church’s Sacraments are not of questionable validity. Marriage in particular is older than that Church and draws its validity from the Sacrament that exists between the two people. The authority of within a diocese lies with the bishop. Therefore, what you are calling a :“ovus ordo marriage”, is really a Catholic marriage, not a novus ordo marriage. Yes, Catholic marriage is valid for Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top