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

[Stubborn]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

[DrBombay]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

[Dellery]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Hypocrite. You publicly declare the new rite to be free of error, and have the nerve to accuse others of heresy!?
You didn't respond the first time, but I'll ask again:  When has the Church ever held that there are presently two covenants?

[DrBombay]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Hypocrite. You publicly declare the new rite to be free of error, and have the nerve to accuse others of heresy!?
You didn't respond the first time, but I'll ask again:  When has the Church ever held that there are presently two covenants?

Yes, the normative form of the Roman Rite is free of error.  And if you deny that you are a heretic.  Q.E.D.   

[TrentCath]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

For the last time, the ordinary and authentic magisterium is NOT infallible, the ordinary and universal magisterium IS, if it was infallible the popes would have contradicted themselves several dozen times in the last few centuries alone!

[TrentCath]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Hypocrite. You publicly declare the new rite to be free of error, and have the nerve to accuse others of heresy!?
You didn't respond the first time, but I'll ask again:  When has the Church ever held that there are presently two covenants?

Yes, the normative form of the Roman Rite is free of error.  And if you deny that you are a heretic.  Q.E.D.   

 

So Cardinals Bacci, Ottaviani, all the theologians who took part in 'The short critical study...' and Archbishop Lefebvre were heretics? 

That's the funniest thing I've heard all month.

[Dellery]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Hypocrite. You publicly declare the new rite to be free of error, and have the nerve to accuse others of heresy!?
You didn't respond the first time, but I'll ask again:  When has the Church ever held that there are presently two covenants?

Yes, the normative form of the Roman Rite is free of error.  And if you deny that you are a heretic.  Q.E.D.   

 Here we have it. You have just publicly professed a believe in two covenants. This is indeed heresy, and you are on the verge of committing consensual spiritual adultery if you haven't already. I'll provide proof that you do not hold what the Church does, hopefully this will help you humble yourself to authority as your soul is in peril.

Pope Pius XII - Mystici Corporis Christi

28. That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that it is...molded, it is now that it is created... Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.

[DrBombay]

Bombay is correct. If the Novus Ordo is an act of the ordinary Magisterium, by that very fact it must be free from error.

Nope.

If what you say is correct then there is no crisis.

Ah, so you do deny the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Heretic. 

You've gotten yourself even more screwed up - went and became an armchair theologian I see. 

Learn your faith before you try to understand that which, without faith there can be no understanding of.

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Hypocrite. You publicly declare the new rite to be free of error, and have the nerve to accuse others of heresy!?
You didn't respond the first time, but I'll ask again:  When has the Church ever held that there are presently two covenants?

Yes, the normative form of the Roman Rite is free of error.  And if you deny that you are a heretic.  Q.E.D.   

 Here we have it. You have just publicly professed a believe in two covenants. This is indeed heresy, and you are on the verge of committing consensual spiritual adultery if you haven't already. I'll provide proof that you do not hold what the Church does, hopefully this will help you humble yourself to authority as your soul is in peril.

Pope Pius XII - Mystici Corporis Christi

28. That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that it is...molded, it is now that it is created... Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.

   You actually think I'm going to read that novel?  Heh.  As if.   

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Enough already. Whilst his position of recognizing and resisting a pope is erroneous, it's troubling to see people doubt that an emergency situation exists which necessitates, on a purely pastoral level, the work the SSPX does.

[DrBombay]

Silence, heretic.  I know my faith.  You, however, have demonstrated that your hatred for Christ's Church has led you where it always leads.  Into the denial of Truth.

I'd repent if I were you.  You really don't want to die a heretic.  Especially one who's been receiving invalid "absolution" from priests without faculties for decades.  Just sayin. 

Enough already. Whilst his position of recognizing and resisting a pope is erroneous, it's troubling to see people doubt that an emergency situation exists which necessitates, on a purely pastoral level, the work the SSPX does.

And what emergency is that son?  Because you might say I'm intimately familiar with a certain diocese in which the SSPX operates and I assure you at no time has there been a necessity for suspended priests to exercise their ministry and simulate sacraments in said diocese since there are sufficient Catholic priests and parishes to serve the needs of all the faithful, and have been for decades.