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

[Stubborn]

And, Stubborn,  I want to express just how miffed I am at being put in the position of having to agree with someone like Dr. Bombay.   

JayneK, all I can say to you is I pray that hopefully, one day, you and every other Catholic will spend a few minutes comparing the NOM to that which it replaced. Once you do that, it should become immediately obvious that aside from a few window dressings, the two are completely different.

Once you abandon any indifferentism you harbor and admit they are completely different as fact, there should be little doubt that one is certainly Catholic, one is certainly not.

Seems that unless one (me included) compares the NOM to that which it replaced, they simply do not see it for what it is. Once they do see it, it hits them like a ton of bricks.

Of course, I have compared them.  I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject.  I came to a different conclusion that you did. 

The fact is that the NO is a Catholic Mass.

Please prove it as compared to that which it replaced.

Start with the prayers at the foot of the altar.

[Norbert]

And get a load of this from the consecration:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

Gasp!!!!  What's that I spy with my little eye?  An additional phrase in the NO consecration not present in the TLM???  "WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU"  Golly, doesn't get much more propitiatory than that, no? 

When will It be Given up?

According to De Defectibus, adding words which change the meaning render the consecration invalid - but you knew that.

It doesn't change the meaning.  And as I've said many times, I have compared the NO to the TLM, and especially post third roman missal, I just don't see that one is "not catholic".  Sorry.

"For This is My Body". . . . . . .once those words are said, Transubstantiation occurs. Our Lord is physically present "right now" under the appearance of the Host. The priest genuflects to Our Lord right after he says those words because Our Lord is present, now.

The NO, by adding. . . . "which will be given up for you" changes the meaning. Compared to the TLM, the meaning changes from an event which is now occurring, to an event which will occur at some future time - or -  it could be as an event being told as a story, or narrative via the "Institution Narrative".

Perhaps one needs to repeat it a few times to understand that the meaning changes from an event happening presently in the here and now to either: a) a future event or b) a story being told as a memorial of the event.

Which is why De Defectibus warned that to add, delete or change anything in the formula of Consecration risks rendering the Consecration either invalid or sinful.

Technically the "form" that fulfills the "form" of the consecration is "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Not altering those means valid form.  At best what you're looking for is a mild  illicitness.  Which it isn't, because the Church by virtue of the ability to bind and loose, can "add" to the canon of the mass, and because "which will be given up for you" is a direct recitation of the Last Supper.

One should remember that in a certain sense, the sacrifice of Christ is eternal and therefore outside time, at least post-crucifixion.

You are making your own assumptions which, according to the stats of over 1/2 NOers rejecting the Real Presence, your assumption is wrong.

IF you go strictly by that which it replaced - which is the only thing to compare it too, you will have no other choice than to admit the meaning changed.

I, unlike trads who believe the NO to be de facto invalid on principle, don't take it for granted that liturgical alteration is the sole, or even primary, reason for the change in belief among NOers.  The lack of a decent homily anywhere, molesting "priests", queers in collars, the utter collapse of the catholic school system into depravity, the mouth mush espoused by modern popes on the church's teachings, THESE are what are causing people to lose faith....the sheep don't have it because the shepherds don't.  Not detached altars and facing the congregation.  (BTW, every parish I've been in, the detached altar means the priest is facing the Lord at all times.  In fact, in some cases, the priest is facing the altar during the homily.

[HuskerTom]

"For This is My Body". . . . . . .once those words are said, Transubstantiation occurs. Our Lord is physically present "right now" under the appearance of the Host. The priest genuflects to Our Lord right after he says those words because Our Lord is present, now.

The NO, by adding. . . . "which will be given up for you" changes the meaning. Compared to the TLM, the meaning changes from an event which is now occurring, to an event which will occur at some future time - or -  it could be as an event being told as a story, or narrative via the "Institution Narrative".

Is that what St. Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24?

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me." - Douay Rheims

It doesn't sound to me like he's changing the meaning or telling it as a narrative.

[JayneK]

And, Stubborn,  I want to express just how miffed I am at being put in the position of having to agree with someone like Dr. Bombay.   

JayneK, all I can say to you is I pray that hopefully, one day, you and every other Catholic will spend a few minutes comparing the NOM to that which it replaced. Once you do that, it should become immediately obvious that aside from a few window dressings, the two are completely different.

Once you abandon any indifferentism you harbor and admit they are completely different as fact, there should be little doubt that one is certainly Catholic, one is certainly not.

Seems that unless one (me included) compares the NOM to that which it replaced, they simply do not see it for what it is. Once they do see it, it hits them like a ton of bricks.

Of course, I have compared them.  I have put a lot of time and thought into this subject.  I came to a different conclusion that you did. 

The fact is that the NO is a Catholic Mass.

Please prove it as compared to that which it replaced.

Start with the prayers at the foot of the altar.

We have been through this before.  There is nothing that would "prove" this to you.  I am not wasting my time.

[Stubborn]

I, unlike trads who believe the NO to be de facto invalid on principle, don't take it for granted that liturgical alteration is the sole, or even primary, reason for the change in belief among NOers.  The lack of a decent homily anywhere, molesting "priests", queers in collars, the utter collapse of the catholic school system into depravity, the mouth mush espoused by modern popes on the church's teachings, THESE are what are causing people to lose faith....the sheep don't have it because the shepherds don't.  Not detached altars and facing the congregation.  (BTW, every parish I've been in, the detached altar means the priest is facing the Lord at all times.  In fact, in some cases, the priest is facing the altar during the homily.

The priest faces the people because *that* is where the Lord is, according to NOspeak, "....where two or three are gathered in my name....."

While I agree with what you said, the thing most folks reject is the "idea" that the way we pray has little to do with what we believe. Bad catechis is necessarily a part of the new mass.

[Stubborn]

"For This is My Body". . . . . . .once those words are said, Transubstantiation occurs. Our Lord is physically present "right now" under the appearance of the Host. The priest genuflects to Our Lord right after he says those words because Our Lord is present, now.

The NO, by adding. . . . "which will be given up for you" changes the meaning. Compared to the TLM, the meaning changes from an event which is now occurring, to an event which will occur at some future time - or -  it could be as an event being told as a story, or narrative via the "Institution Narrative".

Is that what St. Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 11:23-24?

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread.
 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me." - Douay Rheims

It doesn't sound to me like he's changing the meaning or telling it as a narrative.

Again, compare it to that which it replaced, not to what you interpret Scripture to be saying in regards to what has already been defined as being wholly and absolutely necessary for Transubstantiation to happen.

[Stubborn]

We have been through this before.  There is nothing that would "prove" this to you.  I am not wasting my time.

Well, I can't disagree with you there - but if you compared the two and still cannot see the differences that makes one certainly Catholic and the other not, then all I can say is *that* was apparently a waste of your time.

[JayneK]

We have been through this before.  There is nothing that would "prove" this to you.  I am not wasting my time.

Well, I can't disagree with you there - but if you compared the two and still cannot see the differences that makes one certainly Catholic and the other not, then all I can say is *that* was apparently a waste of your time.

Perhaps a more useful comparison to make would be to compare several of the different Catholic rites that have existed throughout  the history of the Church.  This would help one to understand that being different from the Tridentine Mass does not necessarily make a Mass non-Catholic.

[Whitey]

Start with the prayers at the foot of the altar.

Are they part of the liturgy ?

[Whitey]

Let's try this. Answer the question in the thread title.
"Can Anyone Show Me One Or More Parts of The Ordinary Of The Novus Ordo Missal That Is Contrary To Catholicism ?"

Assuming you are seeking something complex and that only theological masters would be privy too, I don't think you believe that the modernists are complete rookies.

But may as well begin with the most obvious hey?

Let's start with the Catholic Mass ALWAYS had the priest praying facing Our Lord - THAT is Catholic. As a rule, Protestants ALWAYS had their preacher facing the congregation. That is protestant.

So there. While I'm pretty sure that's not an answer you wanted, it certainly answers you question - can it get any simpler?

The errors of the NOM lies more in what has been omitted and adulterated.

How about talking about  the NO's "Prayers at the foot of the Altar" . . . . . . . wait, those are gone - no need to have prayers at the foot of the altar when there's no altar. Why no altar? because an altar is for sacrifice...........

 

So all altars from 33 AD onward were "high altars" without exception ? Also, where in the Novus Ordo Missae does it instruct priests to face the people ?

As far as your sede'y arrogance and tone, be assured you wouldn't take it sitting across a table from me. But this is the net, so carry on and enjoy the liberty if you must.