Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
June 20, 2013, 12:24:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
 
Author Topic: Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?  (Read 8805 times)
Parmandur
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 3,514



« Reply #190 on: March 17, 2012, 04:33:PM »

All I can say is that if whoever cannot tell the difference between the Institution Narrative of the NO and the TLM's Consecration  should go get their eyes examined.

It's not that I can't tell the difference.  But the NO video you posted is clearly the Eucharist, as it follows the form and matter of the Sacrament.  The hosts so Consecrated are the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, offered by His priests as a Sacrifice, deserving of worship and adoration.  For Heaven's sake, the voice over in the video even makes this clear.  Maybe you need to get your ears examined?   LOL

You've been to too many NOMs is my guess. Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

Do you deny that the words of consecration are the form of the Eucharist?   Huh?

I really have no idea what the Hell you object to at this point.  You are making no sense.
Logged

Stubborn
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 5,017



« Reply #191 on: March 17, 2012, 04:34:PM »

All I can say is that if whoever cannot tell the difference between the Institution Narrative of the NO and the TLM's Consecration  should go get their eyes examined.

It's not that I can't tell the difference.  But the NO video you posted is clearly the Eucharist, as it follows the form and matter of the Sacrament.  The hosts so Consecrated are the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, offered by His priests as a Sacrifice, deserving of worship and adoration.  For Heaven's sake, the voice over in the video even makes this clear.  Maybe you need to get your ears examined?   LOL

You've been to too many NOMs is my guess. Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

Do you deny that the words of consecration are the form of the Eucharist?   Huh?

I really have no idea what the Hell you object to at this point.  You are making no sense.

First answer my question - - Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?
Logged

It is the Mass that matters.

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse  3:16
Parmandur
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 3,514



« Reply #192 on: March 17, 2012, 04:36:PM »

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre
8 November 1979
The New Mass and the Pope

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

    - that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

    - that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

    - that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

    - that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;

    - that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

    - the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

    - Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

    - the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

    - the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

    - the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

    - the Epistle read by women;

    - Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this................



Thank you for making my point?  Huh?
Logged

Phillipus Iacobus
Blue Fish
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,297


« Reply #193 on: March 17, 2012, 04:37:PM »

Abp. Lefebvre founded the FSSPX for the formation and preservation of the traditional priesthood.
Logged
Parmandur
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 3,514



« Reply #194 on: March 17, 2012, 04:38:PM »

All I can say is that if whoever cannot tell the difference between the Institution Narrative of the NO and the TLM's Consecration  should go get their eyes examined.

It's not that I can't tell the difference.  But the NO video you posted is clearly the Eucharist, as it follows the form and matter of the Sacrament.  The hosts so Consecrated are the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, offered by His priests as a Sacrifice, deserving of worship and adoration.  For Heaven's sake, the voice over in the video even makes this clear.  Maybe you need to get your ears examined?   LOL

You've been to too many NOMs is my guess. Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

Do you deny that the words of consecration are the form of the Eucharist?   Huh?

I really have no idea what the Hell you object to at this point.  You are making no sense.

First answer my question - - Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

That doesn't matter.  It doesn't answer the question, of whether the NO is valid and licit, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.  Marcel Lefebvre, in your recent post, has to admit as much because it is true.
Logged



Stubborn
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 5,017



« Reply #195 on: March 17, 2012, 04:40:PM »

Abp. Lefebvre founded the FSSPX for the formation and preservation of the traditional priesthood.

Well, that's good for a partial answer............but why did he form the SSPX and not just stay in retirement?
Logged

It is the Mass that matters.

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse  3:16
Stubborn
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 5,017



« Reply #196 on: March 17, 2012, 04:42:PM »

First answer my question - - Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

That doesn't matter.  It doesn't answer the question, of whether the NO is valid and licit, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.  Marcel Lefebvre, in your recent post, has to admit as much because it is true.

"That doesn't matter" = you'll always wave both flags till it does matter.
Logged

It is the Mass that matters.

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse  3:16
Stubborn
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 5,017



« Reply #197 on: March 17, 2012, 04:49:PM »

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm


It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith................

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this................



Thank you for making my point?  Huh?

I NEVER disputed that - try reading what was written - or do you suppose I made the last sentence bold by mistake?
Logged

It is the Mass that matters.

But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse  3:16
Tim
Gold Fish
*
Gender: Male
Location: chicago
Posts: 12,600



« Reply #198 on: March 17, 2012, 04:50:PM »

Having been involved here I'd like to make an observation. I think for some we are using the same words but meaning different things, and for others the word "valid" in regards to the NO Mass calls into question there attendance at the TLM.  The difference in the meaning of the words used is not reconcilable unless definitions are agreed upon. 

There are others here where the mere mention of the NO Mass and the word "valid" seems to expose their insecurity, and they charge in to do battle, because their assumptions concerning the Crisis have never been thought through. Please excuse me I'm not a philosopher, but the philosophers call that type of a belief a "notion". It is usually gotten from reading books and not fully understanding their import.

That is something which is held without conviction, just assent. It is a way to rationalize something which is beyond their ken. You can see that from the irrational arguments that have been put forward here. It is a way to put all the frustration with the details away, and cling to another's analysis of the facts.

It is disturbing for some, to think the NO Mass is valid when they either can't stand it or are carrying others digust which has been taken as their own. I've seen this here among many of the younger trads. I wonder where this visceral hatred comes from. They obviously have found Tradition without much trouble and they should be rejoicing. Instead they are bitter, and hateful. Why ?

Morover they do not seem to understand how dangerous for the eternal soul it is preaching these things without complete understanding, nor for the souls peering in here who may lose theirs because of what is said. The crisis as it has been described here is very complex, and that alone, because we are not trained to analyze it thoroughly, should give us pause.

Words are important and the meaning conveyed more so, and we will be judged on those things we have said, but we will not be on those where we held our tongues because we didn't understand fully,or where we state facts and others ignore them.


ps; In the beginning I commented here inadvertently. I make a point to not comment in certain fora, and the SSPX is one of them for sure.
 
Mea Culpa, Tim
Logged
Parmandur
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 3,514



« Reply #199 on: March 17, 2012, 04:53:PM »

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm


It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith................

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this................



Thank you for making my point?  Huh?

I NEVER disputed that - try reading what was written - or do you suppose I made the last sentence bold by mistake?

You seem to be very insistently claiming that 2 (valid Mass) + 2 (licit Mass) = 5 (displeasing to God).

You are being irrational and contradictory.
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC