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

[CollegeCatholic]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11269b.htm

A proof that it [the Orate Fratres] is not an integral part of the old Roman Mass is that it is always said, not sung, aloud (as also are the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel etc.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08081a.htm

The recital of the Introit should be considered as the real beginning of Mass, since what has gone before is rather of the nature of the celebrant's preparation. For this reason he makes the sign of the cross at its first words, according to the general rule of beginning all solemn functions (in this case the Mass) with that sign.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.

Also, the fact that there are times when the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar can be skipped shows that it is not an integral part of the Mass, as your link shows, Stubborn.  (The SanctaMissa one)

[Stubborn]

If I had a Labradour Retriever and I replaced it with a poodle and somebody claimed that my poodle was not a dog because it was different from the Lab, I would not be convinced.  No matter how many differences this person showed me between my Lab and my poodle, I would not believe that the poodle is not a dog.

In the case of dogs, we have to have an idea about what is essential to being a dog to determine what is a dog.  We do not compare dog A to dog B.  In the case of the Catholic Mass, we have to understand what is essential to being a Catholic Mass to determine what is a Catholic Mass.  We do not compare Mass A to Mass B.

Do yourself a favor and admit the Bride of Christ was replaced.

Then, do what reasonable people who sincerely seek the truth do - compare the NO to that which it replaced - I do not know why  you find that such an impossible task and I know better than to even ask why you find that such an impossible task - I can only guess you think there is no value in it.

[GottmitunsAlex]

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.

This is true.

Not so.

Look at it this way -  if your pet dog was the best dog in the world, once you replaced it, would you compare your new dog to the neighbors dog or to the one you had which was known to be the best dog in the world?  Whenever you replace anything - from a new shaver to a new house, you will make comparisons to what was replaced.

In the case of replacing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the New Rite of mass, you make your comparisons to that which it replaced to determine it's faults and strengths. That is simple common sense.

If you wish to first seek to understand why the TLM was replaced in the first place, look to that which it was replaced with.

If I had a Labradour Retriever and I replaced it with a poodle and somebody claimed that my poodle was not a dog because it was different from the Lab, I would not be convinced.  No matter how many differences this person showed me between my Lab and my poodle, I would not believe that the poodle is not a dog.

In the case of dogs, we have to have an idea about what is essential to being a dog to determine what is a dog.  We do not compare dog A to dog B.  In the case of the Catholic Mass, we have to understand what is essential to being a Catholic Mass to determine what is a Catholic Mass.  We do not compare Mass A to Mass B.

Probably not the best comparison one can construe when referring about the True Mass.

I'll give out my own experience I have with my children pertaining to Mass.
Two of my sons, 12 and 9 year olds, innocently compare both. Why? Because the go to "Catholic" school.
As I have stated before, my 12 year old is in literal anguish when he is at the NO mass in school.
He feels an accomplice to the irreverence taking place in presence of our Lord.
They both are made fun of in and after mass by their peers.
"Priest wannabe", "Sheriff" (Because my sons tell their peers to kneel until recommencement of Mass after the consecration), "Lepers" (because they don't shake hands, nor do they hold hands at the Our Father).
I've been called in by the priest because my son (eldest) kneels to receive the most Blessed Sacrament.
(I'll find my previous post and link it here later with all the details about this particular incident).

Now, these are not puppies. They are children and they do compare, naturally, the Real Mass to the NO.

I think that is the most innocent and genuine form of comparing. Through the eyes of a Catholic child.

It is our duty to render and offer unto God, the best. not seconds.
Item A= True Mass of time immemorial.
Item B= NO Mass.

I would like one single Catholic here to tell me that item B is superior or equal to A.
Please tell me.

We can all attest to the fact the the TLM is superior to the NO.
(Some find subjective justification for this, others have objective reasoning for this) But all agree to this.
Simple Math folks. 2+2 = 4.








 

[Stubborn]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11269b.htm

A proof that it [the Orate Fratres] is not an integral part of the old Roman Mass is that it is always said, not sung, aloud (as also are the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last Gospel etc.).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08081a.htm

The recital of the Introit should be considered as the real beginning of Mass, since what has gone before is rather of the nature of the celebrant's preparation. For this reason he makes the sign of the cross at its first words, according to the general rule of beginning all solemn functions (in this case the Mass) with that sign.

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.

Also, the fact that there are times when the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar can be skipped shows that it is not an integral part of the Mass, as your link shows, Stubborn.  (The SanctaMissa one)

Catholic Dictionary 1910 http://saints.sqpn.com/mass/

The Mass is the center of Catholic liturgy or worship; as Cabrol says, the mustard seed whence all liturgy has sprung. To appreciate the ritual of the Mass, one must keep in mind that it is a sacrifice by which a sacrament, the Holy Eucharist, is provided for priest and faithful. The nature of the sacrifice is explained under that title. The ritual is a fixed order or framework of prayers and ceremonies into which certain variable prayers and ceremonies are fitted. The fixed order or Ordinary of the Mass, as it is called, precisely because it is part of every Mass, is known as the Common; the variable parts, or special for certain days, as the Proper. The fixed or Ordinary part of the Mass consists of

    Confession at the foot of the altar which is always the same, except at Passiontide and at Requiems, when Psalm 42 is omitted

    the Introit, entrance or opening prayer, at the priest’s right hand corner of the altar, to the Offertory, all of which part is variable except the Gloria and Credo, which are not always said
    the Offertory, which is fixed or Common, except for the Secret prayer and the Preface which is adapted for certain feasts
    the Canon, which varies slightly on Easter and Pentecost Sundays
    the Communion, always Proper, and the rest to the end Common as a rule, except the Postcommunion, the Ite Missa Est when the vestments are purple or black, and the Last Gospel in Lent, on vigils, and Sundays when a special Feast is celebrated.

[Stubborn]

Probably not the best comparison one can construe when referring about the True Mass.

You're right, my attempt at an analogy was miserable.

Yours is way, way better.

[Dellery]

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says:) Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Heresy.

An orthodox interpretation is possible, but it seems a stretch to me.  I think the more obvious interpretation is the heretical one.  I really object to this prayer.

 I think it's probably the most damning element of the NO. Most if not all religions have a part of the truth, some have more truth than others; Buddhism less than Islam, Islam less than Protestantism, Protestantism less than the Schismatics. The NO Good Friday prayer is heresy, and the NO is the "Ordinary Form" of Mass according to Rome. Following the aforementioned comparisons, i don't think it's a stretch to say: Rome has less truth than Catholicism.  
Unless a funeral or marriage, one should not attend the NO, and absolutely never assist.

[Stubborn]

From my St. Joseph Daily Missal.

[DrBombay]

The prayers at the foot of the altar are not a part of the Mass.  They are preparatory prayers.  The Mass begins with the Introit and ends with the "Ite Missa est."  The Last Gospel is also not a part of the Mass, nor is the sermon.

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/ Go to Ch. 3

If the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted at your NO, it is because they were removed - along with the altar.

Enough said.

I didn't realize this was even an issue of controversy.  The prayers at the foot of the altar are not part of the Mass.  Posting a page from your hand missal (a Modernist invention BTW) doesn't really prove anything I'm afraid. 

You concede my point about the altar in St. Peter's I see.  You're learning, this is good.

And I can't see the pic.  It's blocked for me? 

I posted pope Pius XII at St. Peters celebrating the Holy Sacrifice, in front of the altar, facing East, not facing toward the people  "where two or three are gathered in my name...." Facing people is the way prots worship, not Catholics.

This is a picture of Pope Pius XII saying Mass in St. Peter's.  Notice the steps leading up to the altar.



This is a picture of the altar in St. Peter's today.  Notice there are no steps on the opposite side of the altar, just a hole in the floor leading to St. Peter's tomb.  The pope says Mass on the other side of the altar, opposite St. Peter's tomb....facing the people.  And he always has. The pope didn't switch to the other side of the altar after the Council.  I mean, seriously....think, man.



Why is this even in doubt?

[Stubborn]

The prayers at the foot of the altar are not a part of the Mass.  They are preparatory prayers.  The Mass begins with the Introit and ends with the "Ite Missa est."  The Last Gospel is also not a part of the Mass, nor is the sermon.

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/ Go to Ch. 3

If the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted at your NO, it is because they were removed - along with the altar.

Enough said.

I didn't realize this was even an issue of controversy.  The prayers at the foot of the altar are not part of the Mass.  Posting a page from your hand missal (a Modernist invention BTW) doesn't really prove anything I'm afraid. 

The link I posted (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/ Go to Ch. 3) is from the Missale Romanum 1962 version. (Missale Romanum - that is the Missal on every altar in the world before V2) Every Mass I ever served over some +20 years began with the prayers at the foot of the altar unless it was a requiem mass or special feast day etc. That is what happens at the TLM for the last +500 years until the NO did away with those and other prayers.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about - that much is obvious. Abandon your NO from here on out and only assist at the TLM to get your head screwed back on straight.

And if every Church all over the world was St. Peter's Basilica, and if the pope celebrated every mass at every Church all over the world, then your point would make sense, as it is, the point you are trying to make in a feeble attempt to derail the fact that pre-NO, Catholic priests all over the world faced God when they worship Him in the Holy Sacrifice while only prots faced the people might be worth something.

The question and title of this thread was asked, answered and proven beyond question - amazing how you've missed the obvious for so long hey? That's only one thing, there are others but ya gotta do like I said - compare the NOM to that which it replaced........and be honest with yourself or it'll be a colossal waste of time.

ETA Missale Romanum is the Missal on every altar in the world before V2

[DrBombay]

The prayers at the foot of the altar are not a part of the Mass.  They are preparatory prayers.  The Mass begins with the Introit and ends with the "Ite Missa est."  The Last Gospel is also not a part of the Mass, nor is the sermon.

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/ Go to Ch. 3

If the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted at your NO, it is because they were removed - along with the altar.

Enough said.

I didn't realize this was even an issue of controversy.  The prayers at the foot of the altar are not part of the Mass.  Posting a page from your hand missal (a Modernist invention BTW) doesn't really prove anything I'm afraid. 

The link I posted (http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/ Go to Ch. 3) is from the Missale Romanum 1962 version. (Missale Romanum - that is the Missal on every altar in the world before V2) Every Mass I ever served over some +20 years began with the prayers at the foot of the altar unless it was a requiem mass or special feast day etc. That is what happens at the TLM for the last +500 years until the NO did away with those and other prayers.

You do not have any idea what you are talking about - that much is obvious. Abandon your NO from here on out and only assist at the TLM to get your head screwed back on straight.

And if every Church all over the world was St. Peter's Basilica, and if the pope celebrated every mass at every Church all over the world, then your point would make sense, as it is, the point you are trying to make in a feeble attempt to derail the fact that pre-NO, Catholic priests all over the world faced God when they worship Him in the Holy Sacrifice while only prots faced the people might be worth something.

The question and title of this thread was asked, answered and proven beyond question - amazing how you've missed the obvious for so long hey? That's only one thing, there are others but ya gotta do like I said - compare the NOM to that which it replaced........and be honest with yourself of it'll be a colossal waste of time.

ETA Missale Romanum is the Missal on every altar in the world before V2

Hey!  Hey?  Hey. 

Golly, it seems you're really not grasping what I'm saying, Champ.  You see, it doesn't matter what happened when you were serving Mass when you were 8 years old.  What matters is the structure of the rite.  The prayers at the foot of the altar are not part of the Mass.  They are considered preparatory prayers.  Nor is the Last Gospel or the sermon a part of the Mass.  (My, that sounds awfully familiar.) 

As for your contention that "only prots faced the people"...well, what can one say to that impeccable logic, the result, no doubt, of your exhaustive liturgical scholarship and intense theological training.  Pius XII might object to being called a prot, in fact he would probably whack you upside your skull with a Missale Romanum, altar edition.  But I must admit calling the Vicar of Christ a prot shows...something.  I'll leave it to the gentle reader to determine what exactly hey?   

Hey.