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

[Stubborn]

Every Mass is of infinite value since it is the Sacrifice of Calvary.  To claim it is worth less than infinity is blasphemy.  And sacrilege to boot.  (In other words, NOT Catholic.) 

You perfectly describe the NOM.

It is, as you say, blasphemous and a sacrilege.

 

No it isn't.  Please don't attempt to make use of my words to support your specious, nutty, theologically ignorant, historically obtuse, liturgically inept, spiritually vacuous sedevacantist ravings.

Huh?

Here I'm thinking you understood there was a crisis.

Then why are you even here? - to mock the Holy Sacrifice same as the NOM does?

Stubborn, I am here to point out that you lack the necessary authority to declare an approved Rite of the Church blasphemous and sacrilegious.  I'll wait until the Church does so, thank you.  Perhaps I will be rebuked by God someday that I did not cull my theological opinions from semi-anonymous folks on the internet.

So that's why you're here. Well, just fyi, there is a crisis going on in the Church - so terrible is this crisis that there are those who approve blasphemous rites in position of authority to do so for over 50 years now.

Just fyi.

Also fyi, compare the mockery to that which it replaced - should take all of about 60 seconds to see which one is certainly Catholic.

[Stubborn]

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.

[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.

One can analyze the "New Mass" properly only by comparing it with that which its creators claim it is, the Mass of the Roman Rite. When Catholics now go to "mass," their habit is to see what is not there. The reason is, they have all but forgotten what the True Mass, and what they see is a resemblance of it. They read meanings into words which the words they hear do not say, while they fail to advert to what the words do say. In this way, the real objectives of the "vernacular movement" are realized. - Fr. Wathen

[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.

[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 ?"

[Stubborn]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Stubborn]

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...........

 

[Stubborn]

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.