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

[Catholicmilkman]

Milkman, under your definition of universal laws and infallibility, how is the TLM protected from error? According to you, it can't be called infallible because it doesn't apply to the Eastern Rites.

Don't bash my "traditional credentials" when your position doesn't even allow you to hold that the TLM is infallible!

Well it is not infallible the way Rev. Fr. Cekada and his associates believe. The Mass is not meant to be a fossil. That is why many things were changed in the Missal even after St. Pius V promulgated it, such as the addition of St. Joseph in the canon and St. Pius X bringing the Sunday Masses back to the proper place instead of the Saints of the day taking over.

[StevusMagnus]

Or I said that if you have a real problem with the NO, you have no choice but to be a sede

Either way, at least you're consistent.  

Even though I obviously reject their conclusions, they really do the best job of stating the arguments why it is absurd to think Christ would allow His Church to promulgate an intrinsically evil Mass!

[neel]

Or I said that if you have a real problem with the NO, you have no choice but to be a sede

Either way, at least you're consistent.  

Even though I obviously reject their conclusions, they really do the best job of stating the arguments why it is absurd to think Christ would allow His Church to promulgate an intrinsically evil Mass!

I can roll with that.

And this is where most sedes are coming from.  We're not out nitpicking words or what have you.  We became convinced of the evil of the NO, and then simply followed the conclusions.  Its an issue about infallibility of liturgical rites.

[neel]

Milkman, under your definition of universal laws and infallibility, how is the TLM protected from error? According to you, it can't be called infallible because it doesn't apply to the Eastern Rites.

Don't bash my "traditional credentials" when your position doesn't even allow you to hold that the TLM is infallible!

Well it is not infallible the way Rev. Fr. Cekada and his associates believe. The Mass is not meant to be a fossil. That is why many things were changed in the Missal even after St. Pius V promulgated it, such as the addition of St. Joseph in the canon and St. Pius X bringing the Sunday Masses back to the proper place instead of the Saints of the day taking over.

Infallible in this case simply means protected from error.  Thats all!  Either Paul VI was pope and protected from error or he wasn't and its evil.  There's no middle ground.

[Catholicmilkman]

It doesn't HAVE to apply to the whole Catholic world. You missed the entire point of the quote.

Tell me then, how it is universal?

Because a univeral law is also a "particular which has force in a certain limited territory." Which means the entire Latin Church.

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.

You're the one with displaying "common illogic," so don't go bashing Fr. Cekada by calling him a "self-proclaimed theologian."

I didn't But is he not one?

You may disagree with many of his conclusions, but he is one of the brightest traditional minds out there. He is an encyclopedia of Catholic knowledge (and others as well). The man is a genius. I know this from personal interaction with him.

I don't doubt he knows more than I do.

These are the guys with multiple PHDS in Church law, history, theology. These are the theologians of the Church. These are the guys who had all there works approved by bishops before Vatican II and are thus free from error.

They were still just men, neels, with human weakness and fallibility. St Thomas Aquinas (ora pro nobis) is the Theologan of the Church per excellence and yet he got somethings wrong. That's human nature even with PhD's. Just because you wrote before Vatican II doesn't mean you were free from error.

Wrong. It specifically says "ceremonies", which would mean the rubrics of the mass themselves.

You prove my point, the rubrics are not the words of the Missal but the bodily gestures. Read this definition: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/ceremony

[Catholicmilkman]

Infallible in this case simply means protected from error. Thats all! Either Paul VI was pope and protected from error or he wasn't and its evil. There's no middle ground.

So was Pope John XXII protected from error? How many times does it have to be repeated Papal Infallibility only protect Ex Cathedra statements?

[neel]

As much as its going to drive me crazy not being able to answer (seriously), just thought I'd tell you that I'm going to be gone a few hours.  I'm driving over to Illinois.  I think I'll have internet there so I can devote some more time to this debate this evening.

[Catholicmilkman]

As much as its going to drive me crazy not being able to answer (seriously), just thought I'd tell you that I'm going to be gone a few hours. I'm driving over to Illinois. I think I'll have internet there so I can devote some more time to this debate this evening.

May St. Raphael the Archangel and St. Christopher go with you in JMJ.

[Supercertari]

Infallible in this case simply means protected from error. Thats all! Either Paul VI was pope and protected from error or he wasn't and its evil. There's no middle ground.

I thought sede positions were not welcome here? It seems this debate, no matter how sophisticated the arguments, has descended into a sede/non-sede one. I for one am certaily not happy to see the Mass, no matter how deficient the form is, being declared evil from a position which is, literally, groundless.

[confiteor1]

Cm,

Although the Council of Trent did not anticipate the NOM and its abuses, we must take the anathema seriously.

We can say that the NOM is deficient in its composition and thus an unworthy liturgical setting for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, we cannot say that the NOM is an "incentive to impiety" because it is in point of fact a composition of "ceremonies and outward signs" used by the Church to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and as such falls under the definition of Canon 7.

Thus, if we say that the NOM in the Typical Edition promulgated by Pope Paul VI is per se an "incentive to impiety", then we are heretics and rightfully anathematized.

No, read above. The anathema is general not specific like that. It does not say "a composition of" but the "ceremonies, vestments and exterior signs" in and by themselves.

[/QUOTE]

The Missal of Blessed John XXIII is a ceremony that is used in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice.  The Missal of Paul VI is also a ceremony that is used in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice.  The Holy Sacrifice is one, the ceremonies used to offer it are many.  If we say that any ceremonial rite promulgated by a legitimate Pope for the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an "incentive to impiety" (even if it is gravely deficient in its composition), we are heretics and anathematized according to Canon 7.