Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FNDRB58
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
marywarfield said:
No so called
clown masses, no irreverence, nothing. No failure
in consecrating the Host properly, etc.
Yet on the traditionalist forums I am told:
the NO is little more than a black mass, lacks reverence,
etc
Click to expand...
So why are you reading them? Anyone can find abuses and untruths with search engines these days.
 
As for so-called clown Masses, alas, they have indeed taken place, including in fairly recent times.
 
ProVobis said:
So why are you reading them? Anyone can find abuses and untruths with search engines these days.
Click to expand...
These are Catholic sites catholic forums with people
in “good standing”. I’m not searching. I hear it here at
CAF as well.
I don’t understand how ANY Catholic can be in
“good standing” when they are claiming an approved
Mass of the RC is the product of the devil???
How does that happen? Isn’t it- - blasphemy?
 
AlexV said:
As for so-called clown Masses, alas, they have indeed taken place, including in fairly recent times.
Click to expand...
Well in fifty years I’ve never seen one. Maybe I have
and didn’t recognize it or something?
 
It’s a serious flaw in logic in say that because someone hasn’t seen something it doesnt exist.
 
marywarfield said:
I hear it here at
CAF as well.
I don’t understand how ANY Catholic can be in
“good standing” when they are claiming an approved
Mass of the RC is the product of the devil???
How does that happen? Isn’t it- - blasphemy?
Click to expand...
If there is such a post, you can always ask the moderator to remove it on CAF. Has there been a “devil” posting recently?
 
ProVobis said:
If there is such a post, you can always ask the moderator to remove it on CAF. Has there been a “devil” posting recently?
Click to expand...
Oh several- both liberal and conservative 🙂

Anyway can anyone answer my question?
Is it blasphemy to claim a Mass rite approved
by the Church is Satanic in nature?
 
Aramis said:
It was a complex task, and it would be much easier done today than it was then, due to the use of computers… but I still think it would be a multi-year project to get done. I’m honestly surprised they got it done as quickly as they did (and speaks to their knowledge of scripture - the Roman OF lectionary is VERY well done).
Click to expand...
I think you can make it as complicated as you want and use as many translations and languages as you want. But at some point the education process requires some element of spaced repetition for it to be effective, regardless of comprehension level. (It’s what’s retained is what matters.) The old calendar does it annually; the new every three years, presuming it’s done only on Sundays.
 
marywarfield said:
I personally have no problem with Novus Ordo. I have
been attending Novus Ordo Masses all over the country
for fifty years. I have yet to see even ONE abuse so
popular among the traditionalists to claim. No so called
clown masses, no irreverence, nothing. No failure
in consecrating the Host properly, etc.
Click to expand...
My issue with your post was that you seem to be under the false impression that the documents of Vatican II somehow mandated Communion in the hand, the elimination of Latin from the Liturgy, encouraging more ‘modern’ forms of musical instruments etc, when it did nothing of the sort.

Vatican II was not some liberalising council that swept away the old and brought in the new. It was not some sort of ‘brand new dawn’ for the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium did not mandate much of what we see today as regards the Liturgy, quite the reverse. It was actually concerned with preserving things like Latin, the pipe organ, and Gregorian chant in the Mass. It’s main thrust of reform was to open up the scripture read at Mass. It also allowed some use of the vernacular in the Liturgy (it didn’t remove Latin per se, or intend for the vernacular to replace most of the Latin used in the Mass).

It does irritate me when Vatican II is pulled out as some sort of justification for a radical ‘modernisation’ of the Liturgy, it was nothing of the sort. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the true Spirit of Vatican II is in the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II. Nowhere in any of the documents of Vatican II is there any mention, or even an indication, of some sort of ‘moving forward, modernising, vision, thingy’. But that doesn’t stop some people claiming Vatican II as a justification for things not mandated by any of the documents of Vatican II.
 
Brendan_64 said:
My issue with your post was that you seem to be under the false impression that the documents of Vatican II somehow mandated Communion in the hand, the elimination of Latin from the Liturgy, encouraging more ‘modern’ forms of musical instruments etc, when it did nothing of the sort.

Vatican II was not some liberalising council that swept away the old and brought in the new. It was not some sort of ‘brand new dawn’ for the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium did not mandate much of what we see today as regards the Liturgy, quite the reverse. It was actually concerned with preserving things like Latin, the pipe organ, and Gregorian chant in the Mass. It’s main thrust of reform was to open up the scripture read at Mass. It also allowed some use of the vernacular in the Liturgy (it didn’t remove Latin per se, or intend for the vernacular to replace most of the Latin used in the Mass).

It does irritate me when Vatican II is pulled out as some sort of justification for a radical ‘modernisation’ of the Liturgy, it was nothing of the sort. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the true Spirit of Vatican II is in the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II. Nowhere in any of the documents of Vatican II is there any mention, or even an indication, of some sort of ‘moving forward, modernising, vision, thingy’. But that doesn’t stop some people claiming Vatican II as a justification for things not mandated by any of the documents of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
No. What I am discussing is the Novus Ordo Mass.
I’m not sure why you keep on bringing in Vatican II.
The Novus Ordo was affected by Vatican II no doubt.
I’ve been attending Mass before Vatican II and after
and have witnessed the changes first hand.
My concern is NOT Vatican II.
 
Brendan_64 said:
My issue with your post was that you seem to be under the false impression that the documents of Vatican II somehow mandated Communion in the hand, the elimination of Latin from the Liturgy, encouraging more ‘modern’ forms of musical instruments etc, when it did nothing of the sort.

Vatican II was not some liberalising council that swept away the old and brought in the new. It was not some sort of ‘brand new dawn’ for the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium did not mandate much of what we see today as regards the Liturgy, quite the reverse. It was actually concerned with preserving things like Latin, the pipe organ, and Gregorian chant in the Mass. It’s main thrust of reform was to open up the scripture read at Mass. It also allowed some use of the vernacular in the Liturgy (it didn’t remove Latin per se, or intend for the vernacular to replace most of the Latin used in the Mass).

It does irritate me when Vatican II is pulled out as some sort of justification for a radical ‘modernisation’ of the Liturgy, it was nothing of the sort. As Pope Benedict XVI said, the true Spirit of Vatican II is in the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II. Nowhere in any of the documents of Vatican II is there any mention, or even an indication, of some sort of ‘moving forward, modernising, vision, thingy’. But that doesn’t stop some people claiming Vatican II as a justification for things not mandated by any of the documents of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
No. What I am discussing is the Novus Ordo Mass.
I’m not sure why you keep on bringing in Vatican II.
The Novus Ordo was affected by Vatican II no doubt.
I’ve been attending Mass before Vatican II and after
and have witnessed the changes first hand.
My concern is NOT Vatican II. It’s the low regard
for the Novus Ordo that offends me.
 
marywarfield said:
No. What I am discussing is the Novus Ordo Mass.
I’m not sure why you keep on bringing in Vatican II.
Click to expand...
You were the one to bring up Vatican II, making erroneous claims about what it supported.
marywarfield said:
Yes. Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth.
**So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice
and you have a PROBLEM with this? **Lol
You think Ambrose and Acquinas and the Apostles
were some how inferior in their devotion because they
took Communuon in the hand do you?

And Latin- yes very old school and exclusionary especially
for those who don’t speak it.

Worries about music or drums or whatever?..

The reality is the Church was ahead of its time with
Vatican II. It prepared in advance for a global community
civil rights, the cold war ending and the rise of third
world nations in which the European Tridentine
Mass has as much relevancy as a Packard at a
the Induanapolis Speedway.
Click to expand...
If you don’t want to be tackled about what you claim Vatican II was responsible for, then don’t make such claims in the first place.
 
marywarfield said:
Is it blasphemy to claim a Mass rite approved
by the Church is Satanic in nature?
Click to expand...
Depends on how it’s used, I would think.

One President thought putting “In God We Trust” on the currency was blasphemic, not because of the wording but where it was put. But that’s another discussion.
 
Brendan_64 said:
You were the one to bring up Vatican II, making erroneous claims about what it supported.

If you don’t want to be tackled about what you claim Vatican II was responsible for, then don’t make such claims in the first place.
Click to expand...
No I stand by statements. All of them. Why you are
arguing is beyond me. I didn’t bring in Vatican II. I simply
responded to posts on Vatican II.

But now we are there, if you propose that Vatican II did
NOT occur to address the future of the Church, what is
your reasoning for its occurrence?
 
marywarfield said:
No I stand by statements. All of them.
Click to expand...
So you still stand by your statement that Vatican II was responsible for bringing back Communion in the hand?

“Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth. So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice and you have a PROBLEM with this?”

Whereabouts in Sacrosanctum Concilium did you read this?
 
Brendan_64 said:
So you still stand by your statement that Vatican II was responsible for bringing back Communion in the hand?

“Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth. So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice and you have a PROBLEM with this?”

Whereabouts in Sacrosanctum Concilium did you read this?
Click to expand...
What part of “Vatican II caused a change in direction
returning the Church to ancient and more modernized practices”
do you not understand Brendan? Hmmm?

No where did I state Vatican II “mandated” anything.
No where. about anything. That is all in your head
and Alex’s head.
What I stated stands. More simply put Vatican II
is the cause of many changes. The fact of mandating,
assuming, misapplied, etc is not what I’m discussing.
Vatican II whether it meant to or not
opened the door to all kinds of stuff good and bad.

Now that’s the last I intend to respond to either you
or Alex on the issue which is off topic anyway
as you are apparently interested in argument for
arguments sake and I don’t have time.
And seeing you don’t have the courtesy to respond to
what I actually said and asked on the NO speaks
volumes.
 
FNDRB58 said:
She would respond that the OF and EF are not rites but forms of the same rite.

I have not asked her if she believed that Vatican II was an authentic council as I have not asked her if the recent popes were/are valid. She claims not to be a Sedavacantist nor an SSPXer so I am still trying to figure her out.
Click to expand...
Honestly I can’t understand why people ever hold that different valid masses can offer different amount of graces. The mass ** is** Christ’s sacrifice on calvary made present. Christ’s sacrifice on calvary is the source of all grace. So, if a mass is valid the source of all grace is present. How can one occasion of “the source of all graces” provide more grace than another occasion of “the source of all graces”. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Edit to add: it isn’t even right to say we are comparing " source of all graces" to another, rather it is the very same source being made present at every valid mass. The idea that one mass gives more graces than another is preposterous.
 
ProVobis said:
Depends on how it’s used, I would think.

One President thought putting “In God We Trust” on the currency was blasphemic, not because of the wording but where it was put. But that’s another discussion.
Click to expand...
Big difference between a dollar bill and the Eucharist
wouldn’t you agree?

This is why I avoid questions in this forum.
I find it shocking and blasphemous the lengths
Catholics will go attacking the Novus Ordo while
considering themselves “traditional Catholics.”

There is nothing traditional about considering approved
rites of the Catholic Church evil.
If we were discussing an apparition or private
devotion that might fly. But not the Holy Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top