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

[JayneK]

I have compared the NO to the TLM.  I have concluded that the NO does not express Catholic doctrine as well as the TLM does. I further concluded that I would attend the TLM rather than the NO when possible.  I have not concluded that the NO is not a Catholic Mass.  It is not possible to show that the NO is not a Catholic Mass by comparing it to the TLM.  To do that, we have to compare the NO to the essential Catholic Mass.

The essential Catholic Mass? Forget that - whatever it is.

If you do not compare the NOM to that which it replaced, you'll end up believing that a Baptist service can be interpreted as Catholic because they say the same Our Father. That's not as far a stretch as it may sound.

Aside from a vastly superior wisdom and 6000 years in planning, the enemies who are ultimately responsible for infiltrating, implementing and basically outright fooling nearly the entire Catholic world were diabolically brilliant. Which is why it is necessary to focus strictly on that which was lost and replaced - because *that* is where the safeguards to the faith were maintained before their seeming willful surrender.

If we look at the Mass throughout the history of the Church, we see that some parts have always been there while other parts come and go.  This gives us a pretty good idea of what is essential to the Catholic Mass.  Using this process, one could not reasonably claim that saying the Our Father makes a service Catholic.  

If you say that the NO is not Catholic because it is different from the Tridentine Mass, then it follows that the Mass said in 600 was not Catholic because it was different from the Tridentine Mass.  I think it is fair to say that we can detect Modernist influences on the NO.  And I agree that we will be better off getting rid of it.  But you are not making a reasonable argument for claiming that it is not Catholic.

[JayneK]

I have compared the NO to the TLM.  I have concluded that the NO does not express Catholic doctrine as well as the TLM does. I further concluded that I would attend the TLM rather than the NO when possible.  I have not concluded that the NO is not a Catholic Mass.  It is not possible to show that the NO is not a Catholic Mass by comparing it to the TLM.  To do that, we have to compare the NO to the essential Catholic Mass.

There is no need to compare the two, the NO solemnly prays for heresy every year, what more do you need?

The Good Friday service is not, strictly speaking, a Mass.  Therefore its problematic prayers do not prove that the NO Mass is not Catholic. 

[Dellery]

You're being petty. The heretical Good Friday prayer is contained within the new rite, so in other words, the new rite contains heresy.
This means that the NO is not free from error, and therefore not Catholic.
We can also see how the Holy Spirit has protected the old rite from this dual covenant heresy, a protection that conspicuously was not afforded the new rite. 

[INPEFESS]

You're being petty. The heretical Good Friday prayer is contained within the new rite, so in other words, the new rite contains heresy.
This means that the NO is not free from error, and therefore not Catholic.
We can also see how the Holy Spirit has protected the old rite from this dual covenant heresy, a protection that conspicuously was not afforded the new rite. 

In a certain sense, I agree. Pius XII, in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, which is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, taught that Catholic liturgy must conform to the decrees respecting faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church. A liturgy--whether it be the Divine Office, the Sacraments, the Holy Week rites, or the Mass itself--that does not conform to these decrees (by error, heterodoxy, or heresy) cannot be Catholic liturgy, for it is inconceivable that such an error could be promulgated by the Church under the promised protection of the Holy Ghost. We must face the facts, as uncomfortable as they may be.

[JayneK]

You're being petty. The heretical Good Friday prayer is contained within the new rite, so in other words, the new rite contains heresy.
This means that the NO is not free from error, and therefore not Catholic.
We can also see how the Holy Spirit has protected the old rite from this dual covenant heresy, a protection that conspicuously was not afforded the new rite. 

In a certain sense, I agree. Pius XII, in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, which is an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, taught that Catholic liturgy must conform to the decrees respecting faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church. A liturgy--whether it be the Divine Office, the Sacraments, the Holy Week rites, or the Mass itself--that does not conform to these decrees (by error, heterodoxy, or heresy) cannot be Catholic liturgy, for it is inconceivable that such an error could be promulgated by the Church under the promised protection of the Holy Ghost. We must face the facts, as uncomfortable as they may be.

This argument seems to be that there is a questionable prayer that is used once a year and therefore the pope is not the pope and the Church is not the Church.  And people who are not convinced by this, just are too uncomfortable to face facts.  Well, I guess there is no way to counter that, since any attempt to do so just proves that I am not willing to face facts. 

[Stubborn]

I have compared the NO to the TLM.  I have concluded that the NO does not express Catholic doctrine as well as the TLM does. I further concluded that I would attend the TLM rather than the NO when possible.  I have not concluded that the NO is not a Catholic Mass.  It is not possible to show that the NO is not a Catholic Mass by comparing it to the TLM.  To do that, we have to compare the NO to the essential Catholic Mass.

The essential Catholic Mass? Forget that - whatever it is.

If you do not compare the NOM to that which it replaced, you'll end up believing that a Baptist service can be interpreted as Catholic because they say the same Our Father. That's not as far a stretch as it may sound.

Aside from a vastly superior wisdom and 6000 years in planning, the enemies who are ultimately responsible for infiltrating, implementing and basically outright fooling nearly the entire Catholic world were diabolically brilliant. Which is why it is necessary to focus strictly on that which was lost and replaced - because *that* is where the safeguards to the faith were maintained before their seeming willful surrender.

If we look at the Mass throughout the history of the Church, we see that some parts have always been there while other parts come and go.  This gives us a pretty good idea of what is essential to the Catholic Mass.  Using this process, one could not reasonably claim that saying the Our Father makes a service Catholic.  

If you say that the NO is not Catholic because it is different from the Tridentine Mass, then it follows that the Mass said in 600 was not Catholic because it was different from the Tridentine Mass.  I think it is fair to say that we can detect Modernist influences on the NO.  And I agree that we will be better off getting rid of it.  But you are not making a reasonable argument for claiming that it is not Catholic.

Ok, my mistake - I thought "essential mass" was like NO mass or requiem mass etc"

First off, there is really no need to look back further than Trent because that was when all the elements for an acceptable Sacrifice were assembled to perfection, under the protection from error of the Holy Ghost - because that mass was intended to remain for all time. 

Trent:22nd Session
The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.

So we start any comparisons with perfection. We know the TLM is perfect because being guided by the Holy Ghost, we are assured that the Holy Sacrifice as codified at Trent is the Sacrifice acceptable to God.   

From there we can see that other popes and teachings were all in unity echoing Trent and the mass of Pope St. Pius V.

As INPEFESS relates, Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei  knew that enemies of the Church were closing in on the target ie the mass.

Whoever reads Mediator Dei should see that largely what is condemned in that encyclical was used as a road map for the NO to the point that the NO is anti-Mediator Dei. To site just a few quotes which exemplify this fact:

....We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times...........................But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See........................Hence, he would do something very wrong and dangerous who would dare to take on himself to reform all these exercises of piety and reduce them completely to the methods and norms of liturgical rites........................do not let a certain dangerous "humanism" lead them astray, nor let there be introduced a false doctrine destroying the notion of Catholic faith, nor finally an exaggerated zeal for antiquity in matters liturgical. Watch with like diligence lest the false teaching of those be propagated who wrongly think and teach that the glorified human nature of Christ really and continually dwells in the "just" by His presence and that one and numerically the same grace, as they say, unites Christ with the members of His Mystical Body.

So again, the way to see why one Mass is certainly Catholic and the other is not, is to first start with that which is, by virtue of the Holy Ghost and echoed since Trent, certainly Catholic.

[JayneK]

If we look at the Mass throughout the history of the Church, we see that some parts have always been there while other parts come and go.  This gives us a pretty good idea of what is essential to the Catholic Mass.  Using this process, one could not reasonably claim that saying the Our Father makes a service Catholic.  

If you say that the NO is not Catholic because it is different from the Tridentine Mass, then it follows that the Mass said in 600 was not Catholic because it was different from the Tridentine Mass.  I think it is fair to say that we can detect Modernist influences on the NO.  And I agree that we will be better off getting rid of it.  But you are not making a reasonable argument for claiming that it is not Catholic.

Ok, my mistake - I thought "essential mass" was like NO mass or requiem mass etc"

First off, there is really no need to look back further than Trent because that was when all the elements for an acceptable Sacrifice were assembled to perfection, under the protection from error of the Holy Ghost - because that mass was intended to remain for all time. 

Trent:22nd Session
The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.

So we start any comparisons with perfection. We know the TLM is perfect because being guided by the Holy Ghost, we are assured that the Holy Sacrifice as codified at Trent is the Sacrifice acceptable to God.   

The passage you quote neither says nor implies that the Tridentine Mass was intended for all time.  It says that the Church's doctrine of the Eucharist is perfect.  It is interesting that you quoted Mediator Dei because that encyclical very clearly says that the Mass can be changed.

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries.

It further says that the only person with the authority to make such changes is the pope.

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

How can we say that no changes are permitted to the  Tridentine Mass if the pope has the authority introduce new rites or modify existing ones?

By the way, read in context,  the specific examples of changes that Pius XII condemned in this encyclical were wrong because they were done without papal authority rather than because they were intrinsically wrong.

[Stubborn]

The passage you quote neither says nor implies that the Tridentine Mass was intended for all time.  It says that the Church's doctrine of the Eucharist is perfect.

Well, if you consider the works of the Holy Ghost as only a temporary thing, then I see why you believe the TLM was not intended for all time.
Can you site any other event in the history of the Church that is protected from error by the Holy Ghost which has expired or was otherwise only temporary? No, you cannot because the Holy Ghost is eternal and His judgements, laws and perfection and His protection from error  always lasts forever.
Precisely because we are assured that the TLM enjoys this protection from error forever is why it we are bound to cling to it - not replace it with anything else - certainly not replace it with a man made service prone to (and after 45 years proven to be riddled with) error.   

  It is interesting that you quoted Mediator Dei because that encyclical very clearly says that the Mass can be changed.

Not sure what you are reading. First, it clearly says the Divine elements cannot be changed in any way.
Second, it says the human components may be modified (not "changed" and certainly not removed and replaced completely) and then for the good of souls - and even then only under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Both of these critical points condemn the NOM.
There is a huge difference between what the encyclical says, what you think it says and what actually happened.
The NOM was not concocted or perpetrated under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

It further says that the only person with the authority to make such changes is the pope.

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

How can we say that no changes are permitted to the  Tridentine Mass if the pope has the authority introduce new rites or modify existing ones?

No one disputes the pope's authority to modify existing or add new rites. THAT has never been the issue - not ever.

However, the TLM was not changed, it was not modified, it was not revised - it was *replaced* with a certainly "not protected by the Holy Ghost" service. It, as the book says, was the work of human hands. It is said that it was replaced, among other reasons,  "to bring the Church up to date - to bring the church into the modern times"............IF that were the case, then why revert back to antiquity? That's back-dating, not updating. That reverting back to antiquity was already measured and sifted under the protection of the Holy Ghost at Trent and Pius XII condemned doing that. 

By the way, read in context,  the specific examples of changes that Pius XII condemned in this encyclical were wrong because they were done without papal authority rather than because they were intrinsically wrong.

Whether wrong or intrinsically wrong, wrong is wrong no matter who is responsible.

[JayneK]

The passage you quote neither says nor implies that the Tridentine Mass was intended for all time.  It says that the Church's doctrine of the Eucharist is perfect.

Well, if you consider the works of the Holy Ghost as only a temporary thing, then I see why you believe the TLM was not intended for all time.
Can you site any other event in the history of the Church that is protected from error by the Holy Ghost which has expired or was otherwise only temporary? No, you cannot because the Holy Ghost is eternal and His judgements, laws and perfection and His protection from error  always lasts forever.
Precisely because we are assured that the TLM enjoys this protection from error forever is why it we are bound to cling to it - not replace it with anything else - certainly not replace it with a man made service prone to (and after 45 years proven to be riddled with) error.   

If we were bound to never replace the TLM, Pius XII could not have said that the pope has the authority to introduce new rites.  I really don't see how the claims you make here have anything to do with the passage you quoted.  It was talking about the doctrines promulgated at Trent and did not even mention the Mass.

  It is interesting that you quoted Mediator Dei because that encyclical very clearly says that the Mass can be changed.

Not sure what you are reading. First, it clearly says the Divine elements cannot be changed in any way.
Second, it says the human components may be modified (not "changed" and certainly not removed and replaced completely) and then for the good of souls - and even then only under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Both of these critical points condemn the NOM.
There is a huge difference between what the encyclical says, what you think it says and what actually happened.
The NOM was not concocted or perpetrated under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The word "modified" means "changed".  The human elements of the Mass may be changed, the Divine may not.  So how do we tell which is which?  You are not even thinking about this, just treating the entire thing as unchangeable.  You have refused to admit that there are any human elements.

And what authority do you have to say that the promulgation of the NO Mass was not done for the good of souls and was not under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  This is merely an assertion that you are making.  It is your subjective opinion.  The only objective element that can be observed is whether it was authorized by the pope.

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

It further says that the only person with the authority to make such changes is the pope.

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

How can we say that no changes are permitted to the  Tridentine Mass if the pope has the authority introduce new rites or modify existing ones?

No one disputes the pope's authority to modify existing or add new rites. THAT has never been the issue - not ever.

However, the TLM was not changed, it was not modified, it was not revised - it was *replaced* with a certainly "not protected by the Holy Ghost" service. It, as the book says, was the work of human hands. It is said that it was replaced, among other reasons,  "to bring the Church up to date - to bring the church into the modern times"............IF that were the case, then why revert back to antiquity? That's back-dating, not updating. That reverting back to antiquity was already measured and sifted under the protection of the Holy Ghost at Trent and Pius XII condemned doing that. 

Parts of the NO are the same as the TLM.  It is not a completely new rite. The practice that was condemned by Pius XII and Trent was automatically assuming that older practices are better than more recent ones.  That does not mean there is anything wrong with reviving old practices for good reasons.  It even said that in the passage I quoted from MD: "Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew."

By the way, read in context,  the specific examples of changes that Pius XII condemned in this encyclical were wrong because they were done without papal authority rather than because they were intrinsically wrong.

Whether wrong or intrinsically wrong, wrong is wrong no matter who is responsible.

What is intrinsically wrong is always wrong.  If it is not intrinsically wrong, it may be wrong under some circumstances but not wrong under others.  For example, if it was not intrinsically wrong to use the vernacular, but wrong because it was done without papal authority, that means when authorized by the pope, it is no longer wrong.

[Stubborn]

The passage you quote neither says nor implies that the Tridentine Mass was intended for all time.  It says that the Church's doctrine of the Eucharist is perfect.

Well, if you consider the works of the Holy Ghost as only a temporary thing, then I see why you believe the TLM was not intended for all time.
Can you site any other event in the history of the Church that is protected from error by the Holy Ghost which has expired or was otherwise only temporary? No, you cannot because the Holy Ghost is eternal and His judgements, laws and perfection and His protection from error  always lasts forever.
Precisely because we are assured that the TLM enjoys this protection from error forever is why it we are bound to cling to it - not replace it with anything else - certainly not replace it with a man made service prone to (and after 45 years proven to be riddled with) error.   

If we were bound to never replace the TLM, Pius XII could not have said that the pope has the authority to introduce new rites.  I really don't see how the claims you make here have anything to do with the passage you quoted.  It was talking about the doctrines promulgated at Trent and did not even mention the Mass.

You are placing your own interpretations into and beyond that which is constant Catholic teaching.

The TLM, being Divine, is unchangable..........which is why it was replaced and not changed. Which is also why a new and error prone rite was created, albeit without the protection from the Holy Ghost.
Because it was not under Divine protection, it is not possible for the NOM to be free from error.
This error prone rite of mass replaced that which was Divinely protected and infallibly declared to be  an acceptable offering to God. The pope (Paul VI), in submission to the Council (as though his duty was to obey the council and not the other way around) replaced that which is certainly acceptable to God with something certainly inferior - which being certainly inferior ipso facto is unacceptable to God.

I don't know how else to explain that to you. I mean the Holy Ghost wanted a certain form of worship.
The Holy Ghost got the form of worship He demanded from Trent. That's where it ends. There is no alternative UNLESS the Holy Ghost changes His mind. Again, can you site any other event in the history of the Church that is protected from error by the Holy Ghost which has expired or was otherwise only temporary?

In effect, the pope and council said - "nah, let's get rid of the TLM the Holy Ghost wants for all time, and replace it with this thing called the NOM ---- now the Holy Ghost will accept this or He'll get nothing at all!"
Yet you are stuck on wrong is right if the pope says wrong is right - where can you site an example of that from anywhere in the history of the Church - please site the source where you find that teaching.

  It is interesting that you quoted Mediator Dei because that encyclical very clearly says that the Mass can be changed.

Not sure what you are reading. First, it clearly says the Divine elements cannot be changed in any way.
Second, it says the human components may be modified (not "changed" and certainly not removed and replaced completely) and then for the good of souls - and even then only under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Both of these critical points condemn the NOM.
There is a huge difference between what the encyclical says, what you think it says and what actually happened.
The NOM was not concocted or perpetrated under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The word "modified" means "changed".  The human elements of the Mass may be changed, the Divine may not.  So how do we tell which is which?  You are not even thinking about this, just treating the entire thing as unchangeable.  You have refused to admit that there are any human elements.

And what authority do you have to say that the promulgation of the NO Mass was not done for the good of souls and was not under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  This is merely an assertion that you are making.  It is your subjective opinion.  The only objective element that can be observed is whether it was authorized by the pope.

We tell which is which by what is in the Mass itself - the words of consecration are Divine, not one change permitted - even in your missal it should tell you which parts are "unchangable".

I have no authority to say why the mass was changed - but why is my [lack of] authority questioned or even involved here - the trads all over the world know there is a crisis in the Church and after seeing 45 years of what the NOM has accomplished  for the destruction of the Church, faith and world for that matter, whoever chooses to believe the NOM replaced the TLM for the good of souls is a fool.

As for your other points, they center around "wrong being wrong unless the pope says it's right" - again, please post where you get that teaching from.