Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[TNT]

BTW Mama **bear06:
Do realize that at least your last 50 posts have been in the Traditional Forum…and you ain’t a Traditionalist…veeeery suspicious…veeeery.

**

 

[boppysbud]

Unfortunately there are not enough Tridentine Masses around to keep all traditionalists happy and this is a real problem, whether you accept the Novus Ordo as valid or not.

But as long as you’re on the Latin Novus Ordo, the words of consecration are actually different than they are in English or many other languages. I myself have no problem accepting the validity of the Latin Novus Ordo (or even the Polish) Novus Ordo but I admit I do have a serious problem with the English Novus Ordo. Pray for me all you want but Christ did NOT use the words “for all” when He consecrated the bread and wine.

So am I to assume that you are a Calvinist, who beleives that Our Lord only died for “some” men, but not for all?

I truly don’t get this at all, persoanlly I am a refugee in The Catholic church from Protestant Calvinism. I thought I rejected Calvinism when I was confirmed into the CC years ago, did I?

 

[TNT]

So am I to assume that you are a Calvinist, who beleives that Our Lord only died for “some” men, but not for all?

I truly don’t get this at all, persoanlly I am a refugee in The Catholic church from Protestant Calvinism. I thought I rejected Calvinism when I was confirmed into the CC years ago, did I?

Yes, u did.
The “many” refers to the Fruitfulness of the Passion, which only the many will embrace.
But He did die for ALL.
There’s a section in the Catechism of Trent that explains this. If you can’t find it, let us know.
God Bless, and so happy for you.

 

[bear06]

BTW Mama bear06:
Do realize that at least your last 50 posts have been in the Tradtional Forum…and you ain’t a Tradtitionalist…veeeery suspicious…veeeery.

Come on T. You actually pulled up my posts and counted. I guess I should be flattered I have many Traditionalist and some SSPX friends so this topic interests me. How is this suspicious? Most of the thread I participate in are not directed to Traditionalists but questions about the SSPX. Heck, there’s even a thread directed at those of us who attend the Novus Ordo.

 

[TNT]

Come on T. You actually pulled up my posts and counted. I guess I should be flattered I have many Traditionalist and some SSPX friends so this topic interests me. How is this suspicious? Most of the thread I participate in are not directed to Traditionalists but questions about the SSPX. Heck, there’s even a thread directed at those of us who attend the Novus Ordo.

Regardless:
**veeeery suspicious…veeeery.
I ain’t changin my mind (set).
And…proslytizin the SSPX’rs…the shame of it!
But go ahead and out those SSPX’r friends you have. Whoooo are they?

**

 

[AJV]

I think it it difficult to argue that the Roman Rite can possibly not follow the exact formula for the Roman Rite and be valid. You really should read De Defectibus, which was found in the front of all altar missals up until the Vatican II “reforms”.

Yes, but there are many theology manuals and writings (St. Alphonsus Liguori comes to mind immediately) written after De Defectibus that support the “short formula” solely of ". Even the Catholic Encyclopedia contains words to that effect and I think I saw something like that in the Catholic Dictionary as well…

 

[MTD]

De Defectibus was in every legitimate altar missal up to Vatican II. It was contained in the missal of Pius X.

The fact that it appeared in the missals revised by St. Pius X can be taken as the decision of St. Pius X that the De Defectibus of St. Pius V applied to his revision. But Popes Paul VI and John Paul II decided otherwise for the NO. And since the De Defectibus does not define absolutely for every rite in every language in every time the exact formula of the consecration, I should think succeeding popes have the authority to decide if that document applies to various revisions/new rites. As an interesting aside, someone earlier on the thread said St. Pius X said transubstantiation occurs at the words, “This is My Body/This is My Blood,” so it appears even he did not interpret St. Pius V’s words the way you are.

How can the Novus Ordo be a completely new (not a development) of the roman rite? Have there been any other new rites created since Pius V?

I actually didn’t say it was a completely new Roman Rite. I used a very important adjective before the word development: organic. Looking back at my post, however, I realize that I emphasized the word development by italicizing it. Although I used the italics merely to indicate the tone of voice I would have used in real life, I now see that the italics may have given the wrong impression by unduly emphasizing the word. My apologies.

I also realise I could be completely missing your point here.

Yeah, I’m not doing a very good job explaining myself. I haven’t much time tonight, but I’ll see if I can come up with a better explanation tomorrow.

Maria

 

[ctos]

BTW Mama bear06:
Do realize that at least your last 50 posts have been in the Traditional Forum…and you ain’t a Traditionalist…veeeery suspicious…veeeery.

One of the virtues we should look for here is a meeting of minds. Not groupthink, or other forms however innocuous of mutual agreement clubbing.

 

[ctos]

You really should read De Defectibus

"The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to omit, or to change

On this site, the phrasing for the bold section is “If the priest were to shorten or change the form”. Of course, the reformed rite of Mass doesn’t involve the priest making any changes.

On this CMRI site article we find “Thus if anyone should shorten anything, or should change anything”. Is that the correct translation for the Latin? This site has “If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration”. The variety of translations is remarkable. The Latin on this latter site is “Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma”, which I guess means roughly ‘if anyone makes any changes’. Intratext has something too, but I don’t know offhand if it is the ‘official’ source: “Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma” which is the same as the site just quoted. According to Intratext, the document begins with “Sacerdos celebraturus omnem adhibeat diligentiam”, which seems to be discussing the priest who celebrates Mass. So, “anyone” would perhaps be focused on that subject and not so much on ‘absolutely anyone at any time in the future’. In addition it appears to be the consensus of theologians that the eight words comprise the form of the sacrament.

 

[TNT]

On this site, the phrasing for the bold section is “If the priest were to shorten or change the form”. Of course, the reformed rite of Mass doesn’t involve the priest making any changes.

On this CMRI site article we find “Thus if anyone should shorten anything, or should change anything”. Is that the correct translation for the Latin? This site…

Nice research. We appreciate it.
Here’s the GUT question. WHY was it so important or compelling to CHANGE IT in the first place?
Or as they say in Canada. Why’d you doddle with a settled formula?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Nice research. We appreciate it.
Here’s the GUT question. WHY was it so important or compelling to CHANGE IT in the first place?
Or as they say in Canada. Why’d you doddle with a settled formula?

Actually, it would be more like, “Why fix something that ain’t broke?”

 

[TNT]

Primacy of conscience was HUGE in VAT II
Here:
** Declaration on Religious Liberty**
Dignitatis Humane (7 December, 1965)
3.
…

** Gaudium et Spes (7 December, 1965)
** There’s more… I’m outa space.

Wait. I might have to eat Crow here.
It’s true that the VATII documents teach primacy of conscience but there is a problem with it and the Catholic Church of our Fathers:
**Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:
**

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED

.”
So, if yur a VATII Catholic, **Primacy of conscience **is prescribed and demanded.
If yur a Traditional Catholic, Primacy of conscience is Proscribed and condemned.
There, I think I got down.http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Creatures_and_Cartoons/Cartoons_Simpsons/Happy_Bart.gif
So, Bear06 has to Prescribe, and I have to Proscribe because it is (was) “most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls.”

 

[pnewton]

Regardless:
veeeery suspicious…veeeery.
I ain’t changin my mind (set).
And…proslytizin the SSPX’rs…the shame of it!

Like we don’t have SSPX here trying to win the converted. Someone needs to respond to claims that are made that run contrary to Church teaching. I read the rules and this forum is for the discussion of Traditional Catholicism, not a Traditional clubhouse. It is no different than a Catholic posting in the non-Catholic religions forum. Like others here, I do not like to see SSPX recruitment go unchecked, at least until the schism is healed and they acknowledge the validity of the Mass

 

[TNT]

Like we don’t have SSPX here trying to win the converted. Someone needs to respond to claims that are made that run contrary to Church teaching. I read the rules and this forum is for the discussion of Traditional Catholicism, not a Traditional clubhouse. It is no different than a Catholic posting in the non-Catholic religions forum. Like others here, I do not like to see SSPX recruitment go unchecked, at least until the schism is healed and they acknowledge the validity of the Mass

Everyone cool down. The post should have been a PM. Bear06 and I go way back, and I am poking fun at her.
If anyone here starts taking me seriously, they need to get a new sense a humor.
It’s the Conciliar church that preaches against proslytisin, (replaced by evangelizing, ecumenism, dialoguing) not the SSPX.
So, the SSPX would be expected to proselytize. Just like St F De Sales, etc.

 

[MTD]

I do not know WHY I’m getting involved in this when I have enough to do with the De Defectibus debate, but here goes…

As VATII says, you may NOT violate the primacy of your conscience…even if it’s ill formed…OR be externally compelled by ANYONE to do so.

That’s not just a Vatican II thing. It’s standard teaching on matters of conscience to only follow a certain conscience, whether erroneous or correct. However, that does not give one the license to do whatever he wants since he is also bound to form a correct conscience. That’s where invincible ignorance comes in. And if you’re going to challenge me on this, I happen to have access to a good number of pre-Vatican II religion and ethics texts to prove my point.

Wait. I might have to eat Crow here.
It’s true that the VATII documents teach primacy of conscience but there is a problem with it and the Catholic Church of our Fathers:
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:
This is the second document you’ve pulled up rather out of context. The last was De Defectibus (and we’re still not finished with it) and now you’re bringing up another.

I think CCC 2108 puts everything in perspective on the primacy of conscience issue: “The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.”

It would be very considerate of anyone who wants to challenge my statements in this post to first read Archbishop Lefebvre and the Declaration on Religious Liberty.

Maria

 

[TNT]

I object yur honor…I never even referred to *De Defectibus…go check.
*The CCC has been reissued due to blunders/change of heart about 3 times already. Whereas VATII documents which I quote IN CONTEXT…you cannot prove otherwise… has never been altered & is superior to any CCC staff writer as it is guided specifically by the HS.

So, my post stands unaffected.
Besides, I never mentioned “license” or “do what one wants to do” in any place… I spoke only by the Church infallible documents on the Primacy of Conscience. Period…in context. I even gave the reference document link to examine …at no xtra charge.
If you think “out of context”, show us the “in context” document of VATII.

 

[Kelly]

Thanks but I would rather error on the side of caution. God knows that I am doing the right thing in my Heart. I do not let my kids attend our Eucharistic congress… They have dancing girls during the Mass jumping around 1/2 naked… Its scandalous… Very Dangerous to the faith.

Devotus,
I lived in Atlanta for quite a few years, and moved away a year and a half ago. There are some excellent NO parishes around the city and some of the most orthodox young priests I have ever met live in Atlanta.

As to the Eucharistic Congress, perhaps it has changed over the last year and a half. I attended several of them when we lived in Atlanta. The mass was very reverent and beautiful with no dancing girls anywhere to be found, and the Eucharistic procession was just wonderful.

 

[MTD]

I object yur honor…I never even referred to *De Defectibus…*go check.

Okay, I checked. Now it’s your turn. Go look at post #31.

The CCC has been reissued due to blunders/change of heart about 3 times already. Whereas VATII documents which I quote IN CONTEXT…you cannot prove otherwise… has never been altered & is superior to any CCC staff writer as it is guided specifically by the HS.
I didn’t quote the CCC as being more authoritative than Vatican II documents; I did it because I thought it expressed very well what I already wanted to say but didn’t trust myself to word as well.

TNT:
Besides, I never mentioned “license” or “do what one wants to do” in any place… I spoke only by the Church infallible documents on the Primacy of Conscience. Period…in context. I even gave the reference document link to examine …at no xtra charge.
If you think “out of context”, show us the “in context” document of VATII.
The document that I was claiming you quoted out of context was not the Vatican II documents but the “Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra.” You did not provide a link for that one.

Maria

 

[MTD]

The fact that it appeared in the missals revised by St. Pius X can be taken as the decision of St. Pius X that the De Defectibus of St. Pius V applied to his revision. But Popes Paul VI and John Paul II decided otherwise for the NO. And since the De Defectibus does not define absolutely for every rite in every language in every time the exact formula of the consecration, I should think succeeding popes have the authority to decide if that document applies to various revisions/new rites. As an interesting aside, someone earlier on the thread said St. Pius X said transubstantiation occurs at the words, “This is My Body/This is My Blood,” so it appears even he did not interpret St. Pius V’s words the way you are.

I now see that I greatly weakened my argument by mentioning Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as I just found out from another thread that you are a sedevacantist. Hopefully, you will ignore that mention and pay more attention to the last sentence about a pope you do recognize, St. Pius X.

Yeah, I’m not doing a very good job explaining myself. I haven’t much time tonight, but I’ll see if I can come up with a better explanation tomorrow.

Actually, now that I know your views on sedevacantism, I think I may have been doing a better job that I thought. So I haven’t anything to add to my explanation until you reply with more to discuss, which I hope you will.

Maria

 

[TNT]

Okay, I checked. Now it’s your turn. Go look at post #31.

I didn’t quote the CCC as being more authoritative than Vatican II documents; I did it because I thought it expressed very well what I already wanted to say but didn’t trust myself to word as well.

The document that I was claiming you quoted out of context was not the Vatican II documents but the “Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra.” You did not provide a link for that one.

Maria

Have at it.
In Post 31:
Originally Posted by MTD forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

Maria*
**OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!
**St. Pius V’s De Defectibus: “Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”​

Yur right. I forget when chasing so many disproven posts, In that I was proving otherwise another erroneous accusation of yours which stated:

I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

Anyway, I’m glad u gave me another occasion to post the evidence of error.