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

[TrentCath]

I will provide sources again later today. If you reject them, it's on you.

I seriously doubt you will find anyone claiming every single part of the ordinary magisterium is infallible and if you do they're wrong, seeing as the popes have changed the ordinary and authentic magisterium many many times over the centuries

[Phillipus Iacobus]

The prayers prescribed or approved for universal use in public worship cannot be opposed to any revealed truth.  Hence the axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi,--the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.

Here are the actual scans of the pages:

[Stubborn]

Looks like you just confirmed that the NO is in no way infallible.

Since the Church is endowed with infallible authority for the express purpose of preserving intact the deposit of revealed truth and for expounding it without error.................... this alone condemns the belief that the NO is free from error.

[Dellery]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed that.

No, I don't believe there are two covenants.  The promises God made to Israel in the OT were inherited by the Church due to that nation's rejection of the Messiah.  The Church is the new Israel.

Thank God.

I just don't see that the prayer is heretical.  If the Jews "grow in faithfulness to his covenant", since there is only one covenant in effect, namely the new and eternal covenant poured out for you and for many, then they can only grow in faithfulness to this new covenant. I suppose you can interpret it as heresy, but I disagree with that interpretation.

 With all due respect, I think you choose to interpret it this way for your own convenience. The Jews can't grow in faithfulness because they don't worship the God of Abraham. Moreover to grow in faithfulness one first needs to have the Faith, and adherence to Talmudic theology is a clear rejection of the Faith.

But I'm kind of a dope, so I'm likely in error.  Meh.  

 I see we have something in common.

[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.

'simulate sacraments' do you even know what that means?  A priest who hears confessions without jurisdiction is not simulating a sacrament, I trust that you are referring to confessions and marriage? I would guess that even you are not crazy enough to deny the validity of SSPX masses?

Regardless there is the little matter of:
i) a state of necessity
ii)failing that, supplied jurisidction

With these two things you can't really accuse an SSPX priest of not having jurisdiction, though giving your penchant for ignoring reason and church teaching in favour of your own absurd opinions I don't doubt you will continue to do so.

Neither a state of necessity nor supplied jurisdiction apply.  Otherwise, there would be no need for the SSPX to negotiate sanation of all marriages performed in SSPX chapels as part of their rapprochement with the Holy See.  Q.E.D.   

Oh yeah, you've been considerably lacking in reason and Church teaching both I must say.  Don't have an aneurism.  That would not be in your "favour." 

"Favour."   

 

You really are clueless aren't you? You can't make a sound argument that there is neither a state of necessity nor supplied jurisdiction because you haven't the least clue about either of those two things, if you did you'd know its impossible to say that supplied jurisidiction doesn't apply as you'd be required to see the state of mind and knowledge of all those who approached the SSPX for confessions, something neither you nor I can do

In other words because of your total ignorance you've just shot yourself in the foot

As for anyone who denies that there's a state of necessity, they are ipso facto delusional and suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, no one who looks at the church today and makes an honest appraisal can deny that there is a state of necessity.

Seriously, you need to relax.  Strokes are dangerous.    

One cannot invoke supplied jurisdiction when a lawful superior (the diocesan ordinary) is present.  The SSPX priest would have to seek jurisdiction from the local bishop, which presumably would be denied in most cases.  You can't invoke supplied jurisdiction when the competent authority has denied you jurisdiction.  That's just common sense, otherwise you make a mockery of a hierarchical Church since the local bishop receives his authority from the pope and the SSPX (allegedly) recognizes the pope.  While canon law might presuppose some defect even when the ordinary is present, it does not presuppose a defect is "we don't like what the ordinary decides with his lawful authority" or "A quorum of internet traddies have decided we have jurisdiction."  Q.E.D.

As for common error, I hardly think it can be argued that the majority of SSPX attendees are unaware that the local bishop has not granted jurisdiction.  Well, I suppose it can be argued, but not very well.

I believe sede priests have more logical recourse to supplied jurisdiction than the SSPX. 

[DrBombay]

Looks like you just confirmed that the NO is in no way infallible.

Since the Church is endowed with infallible authority for the express purpose of preserving intact the deposit of revealed truth and for expounding it without error.................... this alone condemns the belief that the NO is free from error.

You're admitting the possibility of error and/or heresy in the non-solemnly defined teachings of the pope, Stubby?

Shame.   

[TrentCath]

Seriously, you need to relax.  Strokes are dangerous.    

One cannot invoke supplied jurisdiction when a lawful superior (the diocesan ordinary) is present.  The SSPX priest would have to seek jurisdiction from the local bishop, which presumably would be denied in most cases.  You can't invoke supplied jurisdiction when the competent authority has denied you jurisdiction.  That's just common sense, otherwise you make a mockery of a hierarchical Church since the local bishop receives his authority from the pope and the SSPX (allegedly) recognizes the pope.  While canon law might presuppose some defect even when the ordinary is present, it does not presuppose a defect is "we don't like what the ordinary decides with his lawful authority" or "A quorum of internet traddies have decided we have jurisdiction."  Q.E.D.

As for common error, I hardly think it can be argued that the majority of SSPX attendees are unaware that the local bishop has not granted jurisdiction.  Well, I suppose it can be argued, but not very well.

I believe sede priests have more logical recourse to supplied jurisdiction than the SSPX. 

Yeah, you pretty much confirmed my view, you are clueless, you are talking about ordinary jurisdiction not supplied jurisdiction, the entire point of supplied jurisdiction is that it isn't granted by a bishop or even the pope, it arises 'ex lege' from the law itself

Likewise your argument for common error is nonsensical, the error is not that the bishop does or does not supply jurisdiction but error about the law i.e that the SSPX does in fact have jurisdiction due to a state of necessity etc..

You can believe what you want, but so far your beliefs have shown themselves to be absurd and misinformed.

[TrentCath]

The prayers prescribed or approved for universal use in public worship cannot be opposed to any revealed truth.  Hence the axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi,--the rule of prayer is the rule of faith.

Here are the actual scans of the pages:

 

Not seeing how this demonstrates that the entire magisterium is infallible and moreover one can set it against St Robert Bellarmine, Bl Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Turrecremata, Archbishop Kendrick, Ott and Co.

Moreover there is the issue that the NO is evil by omission and obfuscation, it doesn't necessarily contain anything explicitly contrary to revealed truth.

[DrBombay]

Oh, I see. Sorry, I missed that.

No, I don't believe there are two covenants.  The promises God made to Israel in the OT were inherited by the Church due to that nation's rejection of the Messiah.  The Church is the new Israel.

Thank God.

I just don't see that the prayer is heretical.  If the Jews "grow in faithfulness to his covenant", since there is only one covenant in effect, namely the new and eternal covenant poured out for you and for many, then they can only grow in faithfulness to this new covenant. I suppose you can interpret it as heresy, but I disagree with that interpretation.

 With all due respect, I think you choose to interpret it this way for your own convenience. The Jews can't grow in faithfulness because they don't worship the God of Abraham. Moreover to grow in faithfulness one first needs to have the Faith, and adherence to Talmudic theology is a clear rejection of the Faith.

But I'm kind of a dope, so I'm likely in error.  Meh.  

 I see we have something in common.

No, I choose to give the Church the benefit of the doubt in that the Church cannot give the faithful anything that will harm them spiritually.

[DrBombay]

Seriously, you need to relax.  Strokes are dangerous.    

One cannot invoke supplied jurisdiction when a lawful superior (the diocesan ordinary) is present.  The SSPX priest would have to seek jurisdiction from the local bishop, which presumably would be denied in most cases.  You can't invoke supplied jurisdiction when the competent authority has denied you jurisdiction.  That's just common sense, otherwise you make a mockery of a hierarchical Church since the local bishop receives his authority from the pope and the SSPX (allegedly) recognizes the pope.  While canon law might presuppose some defect even when the ordinary is present, it does not presuppose a defect is "we don't like what the ordinary decides with his lawful authority" or "A quorum of internet traddies have decided we have jurisdiction."  Q.E.D.

As for common error, I hardly think it can be argued that the majority of SSPX attendees are unaware that the local bishop has not granted jurisdiction.  Well, I suppose it can be argued, but not very well.

I believe sede priests have more logical recourse to supplied jurisdiction than the SSPX. 

Yeah, you pretty much confirmed my view, you are clueless, you are talking about ordinary jurisdiction not supplied jurisdiction, the entire point of supplied jurisdiction is that it isn't granted by a bishop or even the pope, it arises 'ex lege' from the law itself

Likewise your argument for common error is nonsensical, the error is not that the bishop does or does not supply jurisdiction but error about the law i.e that the SSPX does in fact have jurisdiction due to a state of necessity etc..

You can believe what you want, but so far your beliefs have shown themselves to be absurd and misinformed.

You have no idea what supplied jurisdiction is do you?  The whole basis for it is ordinary jurisdiction.  Deny the ordinary and you have no leg on which to stand.  You can't appeal to 'ex lege' when you deny the very lege. 

Likewise, you have no idea what common error is.  It is the belief of the people that a priest who, in fact, has no jurisdiction does have jurisdiction.  Which is why I say, it is extremely improbable that most SSPX faithful can claim ignorance on that score.  Necessity might reasonably be argued in the absence of the competent territorial authority which is not the case here.

You can believe what you want no matter how absurd, illogical and nonsensical, or contrary to divine law, common sense and rational discourse it is since God gave us free will.