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

[Catholicmilkman]

Catholic = Universal.  The church is not hindered from being "one flock" with "one shepherd" because Christ's flock is the Catholic Church alone.

Yes, of course. But the Catholic Church is not universally among men yet, or do you deny this? Is every man in the world a Catholic? The Catholic Church is to be accepted by all men but has yet to be in history. You're confusing the Church's universality with Her oneness. The Holy Father said it hinders Her universality not Her oneness or unity.

EDITED

[PeteC]

The Novus Ordo Missal purposely struck out, line by line, Catholic truths such as purgatory, hell, damnation, and even the prayer to the Trinity.  Even if not instrinsicaclly evil, anyone who would go through a Catholic missal and strike out line by line Catholic truths gives all the outwards signs of a heretic.  Aside from this, let us look at the definition of the Mass in the new missal:

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. ³ For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: ‘Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst.

What do we have here?  Let's look.  The Mass is the "assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together."  Aside from being redundant, this denies the benefit of a mass without a congregation.  An assembly is not need for the true Mass.  We also see that the priest is merely the presider over the congregation.  No mention of the real presence or transubstantion, propitiation for sin, or the role of Christ as priest.  Not a good start.

But at the same time, NorthernTrad, these are mentioned elsewhere in the document. The efficacy of the Mass without the priest is upheld (and the celebration actually made easier than under Traditional canons), the real presence and transubstantiation is referenced and so on.

[PeteC]

Yes but which is infallible then, a universal universal law or particular universal law? I think the definition is quite redundant myself. Either a law is universal or it is not. In any event I don't even think the NOM can take the definition of a particular law as it is now KNOWN to be only an option in the Roman Church.

Perhaps your confusion would be cleared up with a pre-conciliar commentary? I would suggest something like old issues of the Jurist (try volumes between 1-10) or Bouscaren's Canon Law:Text and Commentary ? If you somewhat understand Latin or have someone who can help you, the resources are much more extensive and more detailed.

[Catholicmilkman]

Yes but which is infallible then, a universal universal law or particular universal law? I think the definition is quite redundant myself. Either a law is universal or it is not. In any event I don't even think the NOM can take the definition of a particular law as it is now KNOWN to be only an option in the Roman Church.

Perhaps your confusion would be cleared up with a pre-conciliar commentary? I would suggest something like old issues of the Jurist (try volumes between 1-10) or Bouscaren's Canon Law:Text and Commentary ? If you somewhat understand Latin or have someone who can help you, the resources are much more extensive and more detailed.

What confusion do you think I have that would be cleared up? I'm just wondering. Someone can always find some pre-conciliar commentary that will support their opinion but so much of these things are not infallible. What makes a universal law and/or protected? History gives overwhelming evidence that the NO is not and that's what I'm going by.

[PeteC]

Yes but which is infallible then, a universal universal law or particular universal law? I think the definition is quite redundant myself. Either a law is universal or it is not. In any event I don't even think the NOM can take the definition of a particular law as it is now KNOWN to be only an option in the Roman Church.

Perhaps your confusion would be cleared up with a pre-conciliar commentary? I would suggest something like old issues of the Jurist (try volumes between 1-10) or Bouscaren's Canon Law:Text and Commentary ? If you somewhat understand Latin or have someone who can help you, the resources are much more extensive and more detailed.

What confusion do you think I have that would be cleared up? I'm just wondering. Someone can always find some pre-conciliar commentary that will support their opinion but so much of these things are not infallible. What makes a universal law and/or protected? History gives overwhelming evidence that the NO is not and that's what I'm going by.

Regarding the definition of universal law. Yes, it is not infallible, but it seems to me (with the limited reading I've done) that all seem to agree. Moreover, many of these authors, who were trained canonists, would not give an incorrect definition.
IMHO, with the confusion of Vat.II has also come about confusion regarding terms and phrases. For example, phrases in Papal bulls, and again, here, universal law. It seems that many of these are taken are face value "But that's what it says in plain English (or Latin)" I would only ask you to come up with  pre-conciliar canonist who gives your definition of universal. Otherwise (not meaning to be rude), how can you assume that your interpretation is correct?

[Catholicmilkman]

[Regarding the definition of universal law. Yes, it is not infallible, but it seems to me (with the limited reading I've done) that all seem to agree. Moreover, many of these authors, who were trained canonists, would not give an incorrect definition.
IMHO, with the confusion of Vat.II has also come about confusion regarding terms and phrases. For example, phrases in Papal bulls, and again, here, universal law. It seems that many of these are taken a[t] face value "But that's what it says in plain English (or Latin)" I would only ask you to come up with  pre-conciliar canonist who gives your definition of universal. Otherwise (not meaning to be rude), how can you assume that your interpretation is correct?

What interpretation is it that you think I have? I only base my understanding of this problem on my reason (which may certainly be flawed). The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Paul VI by his own words only promulgated an optional alternative missal and this fact our current Holy Father has confirmed. What more is there to say? It is clearly not even an universal law for the Roman rite, or at least I can't see how universal could be used to describe something that is only optional. It's more like an universal option but then it wouldn't even be a law? I don't need canonists to tell me what anyone can see and understand with their ow

[winoblue1]

The novus ordo is a problem because, as others mentioned, it deleted many important parts that were in the TLM, but also because it allows too many options and it displays a whole attitude of laxity and irreverence.
Not to mention the NO culture that goes along with it, women altar servers, lay ministers, communion in the hand, etc.
Also one key criticism is that it does not help to disseminate the faith, both in what is going on during the mass but also regarding devotion to the Eucharist.

Actually today, I made my first visit to the NO in 4 years and I was scandalized. The event seemed so spiritually confused, it was a mess. Lay people all over the place, a certain amount of reverence, mixed with sacrilege... truly a confusing event that I will never return to again,,, if I can help it.

[Whitey]

Ah, those were the days    (this thread is old)

So,  3 1/2 years and a revised missal later, what say the fishes ?

[clarkaim]

<P>Whitey, you are correct. It is not intrinsically evil. Christ wouldn't allow His Church to feed itself poison in an officially promulgated Rite. One can argue it is far inferior to the Old Rite, but it is not intrinsicallly evil on paper.</P>

An intrinsic evil is something that is lacking a due(owed) good.    an analogy for your consideration?  We owe GOD one million dollars.  We were paying him 100 dollars at every TLM, along comes V2 and the new mass we are paying 2.50 at ever N.O.  Conciliarist say, " we can never pay back a million, it's something isn't it? (its valid)  the Trad gives a 100 because it's everything he can give. 

Albeit weak but you see my point,  besides Prots think 2.50 is enough and jesus writes an IOU for the rest right?  What about the widow and the 2 pennies?  yep, the N.O. tries to pay 2.50 while giving the rest up for every humanist cause it can find.   NOT Catholic,

[Phillipus Iacobus]

This is an old thread.