Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?

[confiteor1]

Here's the crux of the matter for me.  If I really believed that the NOM is not Catholic, I would become a sedevacantist.  Believe me, I've been tempted to go sede.  Put differently, if I really believed that the Chair of Peter has been empty since 1958, I would have no doubt that the NOM is not Catholic.  Hard to say which is the direction from which I've traveled, yet the point of arrival is the same.  As much as the NOM stinks, it's still Catholic.  That's all that I've been trying to argue here, nothing more, nothing less.

[confiteor1]

Some Protestant sects actually use the Novus Ordo rite for their worship, which should tell us all we need to know about the faith expressed therein.    

All that proves is the deficiency of the NOM, which I've acknowledged ad nauseaum.

It says nothing to refute the basic argument that I've been advancing here, which you can re-read for yourself ... or read for the first time.

[Catholicmilkman]

Milkman, try reading and understanding what I've written.

I did not say that 'it would be acceptable to participate in a non-Catholic rite of one of the Sacraments'. I said, if you would have bothered to read and understand, that a rite of Mass deemed valid by the Catholic Church (e.g., Orthodox and some Lutheran rites) offers the Holy Sacrifice and is acceptable to God.

The Church never said that the Masses of heretics and schismatics are pleasing or acceptable to God and St. Jerome, church doctor and father, said this of them: "God hates the sacrifices of these [i.e., heretics] and pushes them away from Himself, and whenever they come together in the name of the Lord, He abhors their stench, and holds His nose.
Hence on the human side they are not acceptable though they are nonetheless valid. Just because the Church proclaims a form valid does not mean that She proclaims it pleasing or acceptable in other respects.
 

I very clearly stated that it would be a sin for a Catholic to participate in a valid Mass celebrated by formal heretics and schismatics.

How about a valid but heretical rite by valid priests? Would this not make the priests suspect of heresy? How about those valid Masses celebrated by material heretics or schismatics? I don't for the life of me know why anyone would want to justify any heretical rite.

[confiteor1]

Milkman, try reading and understanding what I've written.

I did not  say that 'it would be acceptable to participate in a non-Catholic rite  of one of the Sacraments'. I said, if you would have bothered to read  and understand, that a rite of Mass deemed valid by the Catholic Church  (e.g., Orthodox and some Lutheran rites) offers the Holy  Sacrifice and is acceptable to God.

The Church never said that  the Masses of heretics and schismatics are pleasing or acceptable to  God and St. Jerome, church doctor and father, said this of them: "God hates the sacrifices of these [i.e., heretics] and  pushes them away from Himself, and whenever they come together in the  name of the Lord, He abhors their stench, and holds His nose.
Hence  on the human side they are not acceptable though they are nonetheless  valid. Just because the Church proclaims a form valid does not mean  that She proclaims it pleasing or acceptable in other respects.

I very clearly stated that it would be a sin  for a Catholic to participate in a valid Mass celebrated by formal  heretics and schismatics.

How about a valid but heretical rite  by valid priests? Would this not make the priests suspect of heresy?  How about those valid Masses celebrated by material heretics or  schismatics? I don't for the life of me know why anyone would want to  justify any heretical rite.

 
 Now that you've  actually responded to what I've written, we have something to talk  about. The quote from Jerome is food for thought. Let's set aside the  Masses of Orthodox and Lutherans and focus again on the NOM. Do you  deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and Victim in the  offering of the Sacrifice within the rubrics of the NOM? If you do not  deny it, then surely you will not say that God the Father holds his  nose when that Sacrifice is offered, correct?

[NorthernTrad]

The Church never said that the Masses of heretics and schismatics are pleasing or acceptable to God and St. Jerome, church doctor and father, said this of them: "God hates the sacrifices of these [i.e., heretics] and pushes them away from Himself, and whenever they come together in the name of the Lord, He abhors their stench, and holds His nose.
Hence on the human side they are not acceptable though they are nonetheless valid. Just because the Church proclaims a form valid does not mean that She proclaims it pleasing or acceptable in other respects.

Ah, but Catholicmilkman, you forget that Ratzinger says this of these heretical and schismatic masses:

Indeed, ‘through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature’, for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present

 

How about a valid but heretical rite by valid priests? Would this not make the priests suspect of heresy? How about those valid Masses celebrated by material heretics or schismatics? I don't for the life of me know why anyone would want to justify any heretical rite.

Me either, but Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to disagree with you and St. Jerome.

[PeterII]

Some Protestant sects actually use the Novus Ordo rite for their worship, which should tell us all we need to know about the faith expressed therein.    

All that proves is the deficiency of the NOM, which I've acknowledged ad nauseaum.

It says nothing to refute the basic argument that I've been advancing here, which you can re-read for yourself ... or read for the first time.

I understand that you find the NOM deficient, but that is the exact equivalent of calling it evil: lacking an essential quality or element.  So you will either have to redefine your terms or agree with the intrinsically evil argument. 

If there is nothing essential missing from the NO, there is no compelling reason to prefer it over the Tridentine mass.  Your choice is merely a personal, nostalgic preference, like JP II believed.  Just get rid of the abuses, and everybody is happy and holy....   

[clarkaim]

The Church uses the woefully deficient NOM to offer the one Sacrifice  of our Lord Jesus Christ. The deficiency of the rite does not change  the fact that the Sacrifice is acceptable to God.  The debt is paid in full.
[/QUOTE]
 
  Not sure I can buy this one.  It's de fide that very valid, yet  schismatic Orthodox masses do NOT supply santifying grace and are NOT  pleasing to God due to schism.  Ultimately, no one wants to go  here, neither do I unless I have to,  your really talking about  whether entire elements of the so-called "concilliar Church" have  become materially schismatic, or at least they obviously have the  tendency.   I'm sure we all are aware that just about  everyone out there in the NO at some level, has at least materially  defected from the faith, and I'm not just talking about the teenage  girls in mini-skirts at the saturday night special who think NFP is ok  to just do, I'm also including just about every bishop I hear of that  defects on some point, even on one so apparently low on the hierarchy  as giving communion to public sinners such as american politicians or  say some high profile laymen likc Bill Oreilly for example that refer  to "the Deity", how Catholicism works for "him" but maybe not others,  etc while still calling himself a Catholic?  In my experience, and  agreed it's as myopic and subjective as everyone elses, almost  all  Catholics I know off outside of Tradition (they aren't immune  either, just fewer) have defected fromt he faith in so significant a  way so as to really NOT be Catholics in the true sense of the  word.  Keep in mind that I mean objectively, I am no way going to  assign culpability to anyone.  In the words of Barack Obama, it's  outside my pay grade.  That being said, one cannot honestly say  that an almost complete apostasy from authentic Catholicism has  occurred, to deny this, man, pull your head out of the sand.  Why  is that?  It's because of things like the watered down mass.   If it causes people, and by causes it merely  needs to be  contributory, to lose their faith, how can that be pleasing to  God?  Is God a mere legalist that requires minimum validity and  lip service to Catholicism?  Bro, if your not part of the  solution, your the problem here.  No the debt isn't paid, sure it  was maybe a weak analogy, but like our Lord says, look at the  fruits.  I would also remind that a black mass can be valid and  are you going to argue that this pleases God?  If you argue that  the wholesale abandonment of the faith was never the intent of the  council fathers, i'll grant that.  Consider though that if the  evidence is staring them in the face for the last 40 years is not  responded to in a corrective manner, what possible motivation could the  hierarchy have in preserving the status quo if not human respect and a  wholesale inability to admit they might have been wrong?  Wow  pride runs deep.
 
  All this being said, can one say that many newer priests have good  intentions and are doing the best they can w/ what they have to work  with?  Sure, evidenced by how many now want to say the Traditional  Mass.    All the griping about the SSPX?  waste of  time, they aren't the problem, though they seem to be on the cutting  edge of the solution aren't they?  Don't kid your self, there  would be NO traditinal mass, no indult, no FSSP, no Motu Proprio w/out  them.  God bless 'em and keep them on the straight and  narrow. 
 

[PeterII]

Be careful with your terminology, calling others "papolators". This way of speaking is unfit for Catholics to use between each other.  The quote from His Excellency Fessler is not in any way disputed here.  No one says that anything that is of discipline can be de fide.  The infallible character of Church discipline does not pertain to what is "from the faith", but instead it infallibly cannot come to be directly harmful to the faithful. Thus I reiterate the words of Pope Pius XII:

Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, paragraph 66, "Certainly the loving Mother [Holy Roman Catholic Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed upon all,"

"[H]er sacred laws imposed upon all" must be interpreted in light of Tradition and other doctrines.  Popes have stated that innovative customs need not be followed, and who will deny that Communion in the hand has led to a diminishment of the faith of our Lord in the Eucharist?  Yet this is officially permitted by the Church in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.  It directly violates the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a break with organically developed Tradition.  Is this official law not harmful to the faithful?

If misinterpreted, this fact could easily lead one to sedevacantism or some sort of ridiculous conservative syncretism that would defy reason. But it need not lead to either.  The understanding of Church disciplines is a grey area as some are directly rooted in tradition and doctrine while others are not.  One need not draw a conclusion that will throw you into the sedevacantist or conservative camp. 

[confiteor1]

Your choice is merely a personal, nostalgic preference, like JP II believed.  Just get rid of the abuses, and everybody is happy and holy....    

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or try to read my mind.  You are way off base here, PeterII.

[confiteor1]

Clarkaim, I'll ask you the same question that I asked Catholicmilkman:

Do you deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and Victim in the offering of the Sacrifice within the rubrics of the NOM? If you do not deny it, then surely you will not say that God the Father holds his nose when that Sacrifice is offered, correct?