Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m sure you’d feel differently if Vatican II or its spirit had taken away your traditions. Seems like the Eastern Rites got basically unscathed by the council. Sometimes I feel the real war on these fora is between the East and the West, not EF vs OF.

It was not Vatican II that took “away your traditions”.

I would say its that false “Spirit of Vatican II” idea that did.

Have you read the documents?

Its not the council its those who ran with that false “Spirit” thing that is the problem.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And Vatican II, by inviting heretics, Communists, and other wackos, didn’t wrap itself around the secular world?

Just one question, how do you view the inclusion of lay Catholic observers at the council?

 

[CradleCath]

Today, 11:52 am
pnewton
Forum Master Join Date: June 1, 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,328
Religion: Catholic

Re: Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAB
The falacy in your passion is that you attribute all theses things to VII and not the the effect of the secular world upon th mother Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ByzCath
Its just the typical Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Especially the part about child sexual abuse. That was even more bizarre than blaming it on a celebate priesthood, like some anticatholic Protestants do.

Thank you all…PNewton, FAB & ByzCath et al for proving the truth of my post. When one has to rely on falsehood & denial for actual arguments, they damage the Church** almost** beyond repair. While N.O. Catholics cannot intelligently take my message apart & argue it point by point, while I can be assured that there will be no real discussion of the points I raised, I can’t resist saying the following for perhaps the 10th time:

1. The Catholic Church has never followed the “secular world”. Therefore, one who argues that the “secular world” caused our problems is criticizing the Church more than I’ve ever done.
2. Admitting that interior corruption within our hierarchy allowed pederasty to flourish in this countries’ parishes cannot be compared to the views of “anticatholic Protestants” who blame the discipline of celibacy for same is… .what?..idiocy??. No, I know what it is…**it’s the tactic of N.O. Catholics when faced with the truth. **
   I love my Church. Catholic is the biggest part of who I am. Thank God, that it is not in the hands of those who pretend that it is, or ever was/ever will be, beyond reproach. While I firmly believe in the promise of protection that Christ gave us & I know that in the end it will prove true, Hell will NOT prevail…I also know that it is populated by human beings. Human beings who are fallible & imperfect & that our Church will suffer throughout it’s “lifetime”. In the end, it will triumph, but many souls will be lost before that.

Now, if anyone of you want to discuss the actual points that I raised:
the gutted churches,
the blending of the clergy & laity,
the loss of our priests & religious,
the sad state of Catholic education today…
and on & on, let me know by PM. Otherwise, I’ll just figure that within three or four messages this argument will turn into, “My Mass is better than your Mass”.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you all…PNewton, FAB & ByzCath et al for proving the truth of my post. When one has to rely on falsehood & denial for actual arguments, they damage the Church** almost** beyond repair. While N.O. Catholics cannot intelligently take my message apart & argue it point by point, while I can be assured that there will be no real discussion of the points I raised, I can’t resist saying the following for perhaps the 10th time:

1. The Catholic Church has never followed the “secular world”. Therefore, one who argues that the “secular world” caused our problems is criticizing the Church more than I’ve ever done.
2. Admitting that interior corruption within our hierarchy allowed pederasty to flourish in this countries’ parishes cannot be compared to the views of “anticatholic Protestants” who blame the discipline of celibacy for same is… .what?..idiocy??. No, I know what it is…**it’s the tactic of N.O. Catholics when faced with the truth. **
   I love my Church. Catholic is the biggest part of who I am. Thank God, that it is not in the hands of those who pretend that it is, or ever was/ever will be, beyond reproach.

Now, if anyone of you want to discuss the actual points that I raised:
the gutted churches,
the blending of the clergy & laity,
the loss of our priests & religious,
the sad state of Catholic education today…
and on & on, let me know by PM. Otherwise, I’ll just figure that within three or four messages this argument will turn into, “My Mass is better than your Mass”.

Who is in denial? Thanks for your “(name removed by moderator)ut” but there are better things to do than feed the anti-Vatican II hysteria that seems to be prevalent here lately.

I especially like the N.O. Catholic touch. There is no such thing, either you are Catholic or you are not.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Easier said than done. I am no light weight. I am subject to falls and the only way to get up is to have support or someone to help me up. I am a big man at 6’2" and 270 lbs. I’ve tried the “hand on the knee” technique and I could manage it years ago. Sadly, my body fails me. I just need one support or one hand to secure me as I pull myself up.

Pro Vobis, my friend, we are on the same wavelength. I would move heaven and earth rather than receive Our Lord unworthily. The scenario you describe is one I in which I can relate. I don’t receive unless I am properly disposed and that includes tiffs with DW on the way to Mass.

Would that all of us maintained that discipline!

Brother Hrolf:

Same here (5’ 11" - 330 lbs) - The altar rail trembles when I kneel and when I get up (& St. Mary’s has a substantial & well-anchored altar rail), and I need at least 2 to help me when I fall. So, I’ve learned the Eastern Orthodox “Profound Bow” for almost all other occasions.

Some reasons I like the Anglican Missal form of the Double Confiteor: 1) I have to listen to the priest confess that he is a sinner & needs my prayers, and then I have to pray for him; 2) I have to admit that my sins are my own fault and ask everyone to pray for me. It’s humbling, and, in general, if I’m not already disposed, I am after that.

The Double Confiteor had a real purpose - I wish it hadn’t been dropped from the Novus Ordo. I think it would help you deal with the issue of the tiff with DW and allow even you to receive…

We can discuss other necessary preparations in another thread…

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[CradleCath]

Wow! What an incredible post. I know that post must not have been easy for you. It is filled with much emotion and must have been difficult to put together. You did a lovely job expressing your feelings and what you have been through. Thank you so much for sharing this.

You’re welcome NeelyAnn & yes, it’s hard to “bare one’s soul” when one knows that the lions will devour each word & spit it back as something that I did not say. However, sometimes one has to do the hard thing.

BTW. Thank** YOU **for all of the quotes that you shared with us on this thread. I read every word or everyone of them & I can just imagine the work that went into that.

 

[CradleCath]

No, it clearly is caused by by Vatican II and Pope Paul’s measures taken after the Council, which were continued by his successors rather than corrected.

It could not be more clearly cause and effect. It takes denial, explicit, denial to try to say otherwise. Any fair minded evaluation can see it instantly.

The exact reasons for the rebellion, exodus, etc. were the various disciplinary measures and pronouncements of the Pope and the Council, and this testified to by the people who left often enough. If you can’t see that, when a train hits a wall, you’ll deny it was the train’s fault there was a hole in the wall and talk about sedimentary decay.

What is a real shame is the denial, the sheer denial to take responsibility for what happened, and the reasons why. But people make that leap because of a sense of false loyalty.

It’s a cover up and denial of responsibility even more gigantic than the sexual abuse crisis. A great facade of a ‘Springtime’ that never was.

Shin, You are a ray of sunshine that spreads it’s glow over these terrible cloaks that are thrown over the truth. Keep it up, they surely can’t keep a blanket over the happenings of these last 40-50 years forever.

 

[pnewton]

No, it clearly is caused by by Vatican II and Pope Paul’s measures taken after the Council, which were continued by his successors rather than corrected.

It could not be more clearly cause and effect. It takes denial, explicit, denial to try to say otherwise. Any fair minded evaluation can see it instantly.

The exact reasons for the rebellion, exodus, etc. were the various disciplinary measures and pronouncements of the Pope and the Council, and this testified to by the people who left often enough. If you can’t see that, when a train hits a wall, you’ll deny it was the train’s fault there was a hole in the wall and talk about sedimentary decay.

What is a real shame is the denial, the sheer denial to take responsibility for what happened, and the reasons why. But people make that leap because of a sense of false loyalty.

It’s a cover up and denial of responsibility even more gigantic than the sexual abuse crisis. A great facade of a ‘Springtime’ that never was.

You know, Shin, you really give no facts or arguments here. All you do is is say that those that do not agree with you are in denial, irresponsible and not fair-minded.

I think there are two pieces of data, you know, the stuff that makes good arguments, are the fact that the Church in Africa, which is not as impacted by secularization as the United States is, is growing.

The second piece of data is that every other Church except the Southern Baptist Church, is likewise experiencing the same declines in attendance and faith that have marked Catholics. In fact, since the Catholic Church is number two behind the SBC in holding the line on declines, I find it hard to blame all the ills of the Church on the boogeyman of Vatican II.

This is not ignorance. I am not denying responsibility. I am trying to be fair-minded. Yet, looking at all the data, not just the stuff that fits my view, I do not see a cause and effect relationship with Vatican II and every problem in the Church being substantiated.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you all…PNewton, FAB & ByzCath et al for proving the truth of my post. When one has to rely on** falsehood** & denial for actual arguments, they damage the Church** almost** beyond repair. While N.O. Catholics cannot intelligently take my message apart & argue it point by point, while I can be assured that there will be no real discussion of the points I raised, I can’t resist saying the following for perhaps the 10th time:.

Inferring dishonesty and stupidity in those that disagree with you is scarcely conducive to dialogue.

Rather than defend my intelligence to you, I will ask you what falsehood I have relied upon or promulgated. I would also like to ask for any Church document that defines what a “N. O. Catholic” is, other than “no Catholic”.

 

[pnewton]

Now, if anyone of you want to discuss the actual points that I raised:
the gutted churches, I have not seen any gutted Churches, except in the case of fire.

the blending of the clergy & laity

 

[whatischarity]

You posted:

It could not be more clearly cause and effect.

I know reading posts will not change your mind. I am sure you have thought out your position thouroughly. One thing I would hope you would sometime realize is that although you believe something to be easily recognized by anyone with half a brain, it is not. It is even more insulting when people, not you, but people I know say something like it would be clear to me if I had deeper love of Jesus or if I wasn’t a weed in God’s garden or if I had a properly formed conscience.

 

[cothrige]

Let’s just stay focused on the efficacy of the Novus Ordo. I am saying that I do not believe it is possible that the Novus Ordo promulgates evil. The original post on this thread ends with:

The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith. And the whole situation flowered from this: broken families, empty seminaries, vanishing religious houses, dearth of scholarship, moral confusion, small Mass attendance and countless scandals of the clergy. And our Pastors praise such results.

I found this above somewhat interesting. Here you say that if something effects the changing of bread and wine into the Sacrament it cannot be evil. So, if a priest changes the words of the EP in such a way as to promote or condone ideas such as abortion and divorce, but retains the consecration so as to confect the Sacrament, that would not be evil? Now, of course the Mass does not do this, and I am not suggesting it does, but am only pointing out that your beginning position is flawed in being too narrow.

The argument I have understood as coming from traditionalists is that the Mass no longer teaches as it once did. It no longer promotes, at least well or as effectively, certain foundational beliefs of our faith. If that is the case, then the fruits of the change from one Mass to the other can themselves be evil, even if one cannot necessarily call the Mass itself “evil.”

Consider an analogy. I am a parent of three sons. If I decided early on to teach my children everything I think is important, including reading, science, arithmetic, and the fundamentals of the Catholic faith I would be doing a good thing. And if I actually do this with my oldest that is also very good. Now, if I decide that with the next I will only teach reading, arithmetic and science, and leave matters of faith for him to work out how would you define my actions? Would I be evil in teaching my child these subjects? I don’t think so, but I would say that the change would be a bad one, and if my children did not have a strong faith it could also be said that it bore evil fruits. I don’t think it would be wise to understand any criticism of my decision as an accusation that I am evil, or that my teaching my children these subjects is evil. But, the decision is open to criticism and is surely a bad one, and the fruits it will bear will almost certainly be bad too. And that is what I hear in the above quote and most of the criticism coming from traditionalists.

 

[ProVobis]

I especially like the N.O. Catholic touch. There is no such thing, either you are Catholic or you are not.

The “N.O. Catholic” people call themselves Catholic? Why do you call yourself a “Byzantine Catholic”? What’s that? Like “Anglican Catholics” who weren’t really Catholic? Are YOU a Catholic or not? Or are you just better than a Catholic? I’m confused.

 

[surritter]

I suppose Br. David has a better reply, but I would say that Byzantine, etc. are recognized RITES of the Catholic Church. The “N.O.” as you call it is not a specific rite; it is the official norm of the Latin rite. (The TLM is fine, of course, but it is currently ranked as “extraordinary.”)

 

[surritter]

I guess some of us are offended by “N.O. Catholics” mainly because there is no such thing, but also because the adjective form smacks of other things like “cafeteria Catholics” or “cultural Catholics.” I’m not saying that’s what the TLM people on this thread mean, but at least it is now out in the air.
Perhaps use the terms “Catholics who prefer the OF” or “NO-only Catholics.” On the other side, I would say TLM-only Catholics rather than trads.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The “N.O. Catholic” people call themselves Catholic? Why do you call yourself a “Byzantine Catholic”? What’s that? Like “Anglican Catholics” who weren’t really Catholic? Are YOU a Catholic or not? Or are you just better than a Catholic? I’m confused.

Byzantine Catholic means that I am a member of the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Church.

There is no N.O. Church. There is just the Latin (or Roman) Catholic Church.

Not that I must defend myself to you but I am fully a Catholic, I am a vowed brother in the Order of Carmelites, if you must know.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no N.O. Church.

You yourself called it the “N.O. Church,” I didn’t.

Not that I must defend myself to you but I am fully a Catholic, I am a vowed brother in the Order of Carmelites, if you must know.

Can you humbly just say “Catholic” then? Why do you have to qualify and make it sound as if you’re so much better than everyone else?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You yourself called it the “N.O. Church,” I didn’t.

I never called it the N.O. Church.

Can you humbly just say “Catholic” then? Why do you have to qualify and make it sound as if you’re so much better than everyone else?

I am sorry that you do not understand that the Catholic Church is made up of 22 separate sui juris Churches in communion with each other.

I am being specific when I identify myself as a Byzantine Catholic has traditions that are different than a Latin Catholic.

I am sorry that you think this is some form of “superiority”, maybe there are other issues involved that should be looked at.

This thread is not about me. I will go no further with you on this. If you insist then I will be forced to add you to the ignore list so that I do not have to read it. If you wish to make a thread about me then feel free to do so though I doubt I will participate in it.

 

[ProVobis]

I never called it the N.O. Church.

See post 163.

Your credibility has been shot, whether you wish to ignore me or not. I hope people who wish to attend Byzantine Rite Masses aren’t offended by your pompous attitude.

 

[Patrick_Eastin]

Warning. Read the following from that which apparently does not get read.

This is the Traditional Catholicism forum. It is intended for the discussion of traditional Catholicism not the practices of the Church today. It is intended for traditional Catholics.

Non-traditional Catholics, Catholics of other rites, and non-Catholics are welcome to participate in the TC forum, however, they will not be allowed to dominate conversations or to push agendas which are not in keeping with the purpose of this forum.