Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FNDRB58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlexV said:
The SSPX does not reject the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Okay, I may have misspoke. That said, I believe they do question very seriously the various changes that are in the new liturgy, such as the lack of propitiatory sacrifice, lack of genuflection, facing the congregation, music, etc.
 
AlexV said:
The SSPX does not reject the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Click to expand...
Really? Speaking to one on fisheaters the other day
the guy had the nerve to tell me my attending NO
was tantamount to attending a black mass and oh boy
did people swoop in to agree. Guy belongs either in
confession or getting his mouth washed out with
soap.
 
marywarfield said:
Really? Speaking to one on fisheaters the other day
the guy had the nerve to tell me my attending NO
was tantamount to attending a black mass and oh boy
did people swoop in to agree. Guy belongs either in
confession or getting his mouth washed out with
soap.
Click to expand...
Did he identify himself as SSPX? There’re other traditionalist groups out there, other than the Society, who may hold a more radical view of the NO.
 
AllSeasons said:
Did he identify himself as SSPX? There’re other traditionalist groups out there, other than the Society, who may hold a more radical view of the NO.
Click to expand...
He was SSPX. I don’t know why people believe SSPX
feels kindly toward the NO. Most that I have met view
it as intrinsically evil which is far off the mark it’s shocking.

Reality is the Magesterium cannot institute an intrinsically
evil anything.

Reality is as many SSPXers find their way back to
Rome is all tradition leads to Rome and without
obedience to the Holy See there is NO tradition.

But so many attack the NO it isn’t funny. Yet I have
never in fifty years attended a NO Mass that had ANY
abuses so frequently claimed except perhaps an
overuse of EMHC.
 
marywarfield said:
He was SSPX. I don’t know why people believe SSPX
feels kindly toward the NO. Most that I have met view
it as intrinsically evil which is far off the mark it’s shocking.
Click to expand...
From the sspx website; “The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.”
 
Timothysis said:
Your words were “whether or not it’s true.” A well know picture of the protestant observers does not mean that they had a hand in drafting the text. The Holy See has said as much. You should be honest enough to either say that you don’t believe the leadership of the Church and that the protestant observers DID have a hand in the texts or that you are mistaken and to disregard your post.
Click to expand...
Yes, I said that to make a point about the insignificance of any influence or presence. Why are you upset? I believe what Vatican II said on the topic of ecumenism. I attended one memorial Lutheran service for my niece and found it very close to the Catholic Mass. Is making such an observation a problem?
Timothysis said:
From the sspx website; “The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.”
Click to expand...
Then I see a more serious problem with the non-acceptance of Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism. But that’s me.
 
Timothysis said:
From the sspx website; “The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have.”
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Although I believe other statements exist
calling it valid but evil which of course is not particularly
rational. 🙂

At the same time that’s not the topic I don’t think
so let me not derail us.

No Novus Ordo is not infallible as it is not doctrine.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, I said that to make a point about the insignificance of any influence or presence. Why are you upset? I believe what Vatican II said on the topic of ecumenism. I attended one memorial Lutheran service for my niece and found it very close to the Catholic Mass. Is making such an observation a problem?

Then I see a more serious problem with the non-acceptance of Vatican II’s teachings on ecumenism. But that’s me.
Click to expand...
We have a kazillion conspiracy theories going on
about Novus Ordo. I think it was yesterday
that Fr. Gruner released a video of himself claiming
Novus Ordo was the brainchild of Varican officials
who are card carrying Freemasons and in fact he claims
the whole ecumenical movement is worked to establish
free masonry around the world.
 
marywarfield said:
We have a kazillion conspiracy theories going on
about Novus Ordo. I think it was yesterday
that Fr. Gruner released a video of himself claiming
Novus Ordo was the brainchild of Varican officials
who are card carrying Freemasons and in fact he claims
the whole ecumenical movement is worked to establish
free masonry around the world.
Click to expand...
Isn’t discussing of such against forum rules? Why bring them up?
 
ProVobis said:
Isn’t discussing of such against forum rules? Why bring them up?
Click to expand...
I am just glad it wasn’t linked! 😉

Marywarfield, not all in the SSPX are the same. The person the OP is dealing with may be anywhere in a wide spectrum when it comes to liturgy. I do not think you need worry too much about fringe conspiracy theorists here. If you know how to deal with them, then more power to you and I would hope you might have good advice for the OP. I am empty on this as I have never met anyone personally like this.
 
AlexV said:
Again, read Bugnini’s book, where he discusses these issues in great detail. The simple fact is that the Consilium that was responsible for the “banal, on the spot fabrication” (to quote no less than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) did indeed consult extensively with Protestant observers, and to say they had a hand in the drafting of texts is more than fair, by Bugnini’s own admission in his book.
Click to expand...
It should be a source of no small amount of amusement that Monsignor Bugnini, who receives such round and fair dismissals as being the source and summit of the betrayl of faith and the destructor of he Mass, an apparent sub rosa Modernist,etc., should suddenly be raised to the level of a far more articulate and accurate observer of issues than the Holy See.

Which, to an independent observer would appear to be using any comments by the Monsignor to bolster one’s own position while at the same time dismissing him as worthless of any possible value in any other aspect, to the absolute.
 
otjm said:
Do you understand the difference between observer and participant?

No?
Click to expand...
I do. I observe when I attend Protestant liturgies as I’ve stated before. I participate in Catholic Masses. How’s that? 😛

Again, keep in mind the ecumenical spirit under which it’s done.
 
AlexV said:
It’s not the fault of so-called traditionalists if certain things are historical facts.
Click to expand...
Then I take it that it is not the fault of so-called traditionalists if truth is so twisted, and facts so picked over and misquoted, or quoted out of context, that upon researching the matter, one begins to suspect that the so-called traditionalists couldn’t tell the truth if the words were put in their mouth? When research as to quoted statements and partial statements are read in context, too many times the context ends up making the exact opposite point. And elsewhere, the statements are nowhere near as conclusive as they would have them to be.

When one has an opinion, it is not all that difficult to cherry pick to find statements and comments which simply bolster the opinion. Never mind what else was said in the comment or statement.

Research and concern for liturgy started before Pius XII was made Pope. It continued on; Paul VI gave us the OF, and four Popes since him have supported it, sour grapes and carping not withstanding. The comments are really seriously old.

Brendan is right; those who prefer one form or the other are perfectly with the mind of the Church seeking that form out and worshiping in it. Those who insist on denigrating one form or the other are not perfectly with the mind of the Church, and according to his writings, not in agreement with the brightest theologian currently alive.
 
AlexV said:
That quote doesn’t say a thing about rewriting the vast majority of the orations of the Missal.
Click to expand...
So what? The Council was giving a “big picture” of changes, not dictating those changes. I have yet to understand this appeal back to the Council documents, as if they were somehow binding with a narrow script of what changes, if any, which could be made. Nothing in the documents, and nothing in Church history, indicates that that a Council’s directions are the sum total of anything which is to be done.

To which I would add, too often those who want to quote the council documents as somehow setting limits beyond which no one could go, are the same people who in the next breath will give such faint praise to the Council, and to the documents, as to lead to an almost inevitable conclusion that it was the work of Modernists, if not the Masons themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top