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

[DrBombay]

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...........

 

"Prayers at the foot of the Altar" are not a part of the Mass.  But you knew that of course.

They have always been part of the Holy Sacrifice, but where removed completely in the new mass along with the altar. Woulda been kinda silly to have kept those prayers without an altar don't you think.

And just which direction did the pope face prior to the Council when he said Mass on the High Altar in St. Peter's....hmmmmmm?? No, it's not a trick question.  But it is a question.

Who cares which way the pope faced? The fact remains the NO priest faces the people, which is new, not traditional, not Catholic and has always been the way prots worship.

I didn't expect the NOers among us would care much for the answer I gave. But no sense tripping over the obvious any longer hey?

The prayers at the foot of the altar are NOT a part of the Mass.  Or will you now argue you know more about the Mass than Archbishop Sheen? 

And all those rubrics in the NO that instruct the priest to face the altar, etc? Those don't really exist hey? Hey?? HEY??  Yeah, that's what I thought.

And I certainly wouldn't expect a sede to care what the pope does, but most Catholics do.  And here's a clue.  The pope says Mass facing the same way now as he always has in St. Peters.  Oooo...another one of your wack sede fantasies destroyed hey?  Sucks I know.  Hey.

Hey?  HEY!

[INPEFESS]

The same principle applies. There is a difference between the local, bloody sacrifice of the cross being propitiatory and the Mass itself being propitiatory. This was addressed in my post.

Your theology is flawed.  The sacrifice of Calvary IS the sacrifice of the Mass.  You can dance around this all you want but you're just playing semantic games.

My theology is flawed? Quite possibly. But perhaps a closer read will exonerate me for the time being. I said:

There is a difference between the local, bloody sacrifice of the cross being propitiatory and the Mass itself being propitiatory.

The Mass is not a bloody sacrifice. It is an unbloody sacrifice. How else would you have me distinguish between the historical event that took place in the year 33 A.D. on the physical Mt. Calvary and its re-presentation on the altar? The Church makes this distinction, and I am merely representing what She has said. They are the same substance, but the former was bloody; the latter is not.

"Sacrifice of praise" is not a sacrifice offered for remission of sin. The remission of sin was what was accomplished on Calvary, but that remission needs to be applied to the sins, offenses, and negligences of all faithful Christians living and dead by the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, not by a sacrifice of praise that merely recalls the redemptive sacrifice on Mt. Calvary; at least the Council of Trent thought so. I cited the relevant text from the Council of Trent in my post. 

Well son, then your argument is with the Council of Trent, not me since the quoted text is from the Roman Canon.  You know, the one from the traditional Mass.

(1) Then what the point of posting it as evidence that the new liturgy contains a clear statement of the Mass's propitiatory nature?

(2) Then it is a good thing the traditional Latin Mass also emphatically says elsewhere that the Mass is also a propitiatory sacrifice. The Catholic Mass is a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, and propitiation. The traditional Latin Mass proclaims all three, since they are all taught by the Church. The new liturgy refuses to admit the propitiatory end of the sacrifice, since this is the teaching with which Protestants disagree. So my argument is still with what is not said in the new liturgy, not with what is said in the traditional Latin Mass.

“Sacrifice of reconciliation” is not a statement of the sacrifice of the Mass as being atonement for sin, regardless of how desirable it may be to think it so. The same could be said of a sacrifice of “praise and thanksgiving,” since such a sacrifice likewise advances the peace and salvation of the whole world by recalling His passion and death. See footnote 5b to see what is meant by a clear statement of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice. The Holy Ghost gave us several examples in the Missal of St. Pius V of what He meant. Are we now to think that He has changed His mind? 

Again, you're playing semantic games.  It may be desirable for you to think that a "sacrifice of reconciliation" is not propitiatory, but you're wrong. You see, "sacrifice of reconciliation" implies that said sacrifice reconciles us to God since it atones for our sin. Q.E.D.

That is your own theological interpolation of the text; it is not a clear statement of the propitiatory nature of the sacrifice. Why? Because "reconciliation" does not mean "propitiation." The Protestants "reconcile" with God all the time, yet they would deny that continuous atonement for sin is necessary. We are concerned with the clear statements of the Church, not attempts to extrapolate our own interpretations to fill in what is missing. Interpretive implications are not the same as unequivocal professions of dogmatic decrees.

Well, it's worth a try, but I'm not sure you are going to find what no-one has been able to find for 50 years. After all, it isn't as though it was removed by accident.

It's prolly not really worth a try since I've already pointed out two obvious examples and you dismiss them and as I say, I weary of getting bogged down in NO minutiae.  I think we can both agree that someday the NO will be abolished, or abrogated/obrogated/derogated/suppressed, whatever.  Perhaps my time would be better spent praying that God will hasten that inevitability rather than arguing with other Catholics.  I suspect we agree on a lot more than we disagree.  God bless.   

Indeed. Pax Christi tecum.

[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...........

 

"Prayers at the foot of the Altar" are not a part of the Mass.  But you knew that of course.

They have always been part of the Holy Sacrifice, but where removed completely in the new mass along with the altar. Woulda been kinda silly to have kept those prayers without an altar don't you think.

And just which direction did the pope face prior to the Council when he said Mass on the High Altar in St. Peter's....hmmmmmm?? No, it's not a trick question.  But it is a question.

Who cares which way the pope faced? The fact remains the NO priest faces the people, which is new, not traditional, not Catholic and has always been the way prots worship.

I didn't expect the NOers among us would care much for the answer I gave. But no sense tripping over the obvious any longer hey?

The prayers at the foot of the altar are NOT a part of the Mass.  Or will you now argue you know more about the Mass than Archbishop Sheen? 

You argue for the sake of arguing I see.

Either Google or go out and buy a pre-V2 Missal and you'll see the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass. Go to any TLM except Requiem today right now and you'll see  the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass.
Go to YouTube (doesn't get much easier than this) and watch the TLM from the beginning and you'll see the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass.

And all those rubrics in the NO that instruct the priest to face the altar, etc? Those don't really exist hey? Hey?? HEY??  Yeah, that's what I thought.

What rubrics? What altar? They took out the altars over 40 years ago all over the world - I know because 40 years ago,  I was one who salvaged a high altar that was thrown out so they could put in a table for the New Bride.

How old are you anyway - 13?
 

And I certainly wouldn't expect a sede to care what the pope does, but most Catholics do.  And here's a clue.  The pope says Mass facing the same way now as he always has in St. Peters.  Oooo...another one of your wack sede fantasies destroyed hey?  Sucks I know.  Hey.

Hey?  HEY!

Sede's, wrong though they are, have more love and respect for the Catholic faith than many trads and certainly more respect  than you do based on what you post - but that is only obvious -  hey?

Just to show how inundated with modernism you are,.........................

[Stubborn]

It occurred to me that there are likely many here who have no idea that the prayers at the foot of the altar actually are the first part of the Ordinary of the [true] Mass. Here is a site showing what is in the Missale Romanum, albeit the 1962 version - it still shows not only the entire Mass, from what I see, it looks to be also showing all the exacting rubrics - right down to the proper way for the priest to fold his hands.

Additionally, while I don't know if they're here, the rubrics state that the priest is not to even look out at the congregation, much less face them - except during his sermon and again at the Last Blessing. If you ever attend the TLM, whenever the priest turns away from the altar, notice that his eyes are gazing down, not looking out.

fwiw
 

[Phillipus Iacobus]

It’s a long established principle of the  Church never to completely drop from her public worship any ceremony, object, or prayer which once occupied a place in that worship.

Yet, this is what exactly happened. The long established principle was completely ignored.

[DrBombay]

The prayers at the foot of the altar are NOT a part of the Mass.  Or will you now argue you know more about the Mass than Archbishop Sheen? 

You argue for the sake of arguing I see.

Either Google or go out and buy a pre-V2 Missal and you'll see the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass. Go to any TLM except Requiem today right now and you'll see  the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass.
Go to YouTube (doesn't get much easier than this) and watch the TLM from the beginning and you'll see the prayers at the foot of the altar are the first prayers of Mass.

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.

And all those rubrics in the NO that instruct the priest to face the altar, etc? Those don't really exist hey? Hey?? HEY??  Yeah, that's what I thought.

What rubrics? What altar? They took out the altars over 40 years ago all over the world - I know because 40 years ago,  I was one who salvaged a high altar that was thrown out so they could put in a table for the New Bride.

How old are you anyway - 13?

Compliments will avail you little, but thank you.   

The Introductory Rites

1. When the people are gathered, the Priest approaches the ALTAR with the ministers while the Entrance Chant is sung.

When he has arrived at the ALTAR, after making a profound bow with the ministers, the Priest venerates the ALTAR with a kiss and, if appropriate, incenses the cross and the ALTAR. Then, with the ministers, he goes to the chair.

That's on the first page of the Missal.  There's plenty of more examples but I think the point is made.  I mean, it's not my fault the Church calls an altar an altar.  Odd, but there it is.
 

And I certainly wouldn't expect a sede to care what the pope does, but most Catholics do.  And here's a clue.  The pope says Mass facing the same way now as he always has in St. Peters.  Oooo...another one of your wack sede fantasies destroyed hey?  Sucks I know.  Hey.

Hey?  HEY!

Sede's, wrong though they are, have more love and respect for the Catholic faith than many trads and certainly more respect  than you do based on what you post - but that is only obvious -  hey?

Just to show how inundated with modernism you are,.........................

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? 

[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.

[JayneK]

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.

[JayneK]

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.

[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.

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.