Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?

[JayneK]

Speaking of problematic Masses, my teenage daughter overheard my husband and I talking about clown Masses today.  She wanted to know what they are, so we explained.  Her reaction was along the lines of, "That's dumb.  It wouldn't make people like Mass more.  Lots of people are afraid of clowns."

Perhaps my daughter is becoming a trad. 

[Parmandur]

Speaking of problematic Masses, my teenage daughter overheard my husband and I talking about clown Masses today.  She wanted to know what they are, so we explained.  Her reaction was along the lines of, "That's dumb.  It wouldn't make people like Mass more.  Lots of people are afraid of clowns."

Perhaps my daughter is becoming a trad. 

From the mouths of babes. 

But seriously, the Masses in Stubborns video ain't clown Masses.  They are the Mass.  Period.

[Tim]

She's right. One viewing of "It" from King will straighten folks out on clowns.

tim

[Stubborn]

Repeatedly posting the same video of perfectly valid Masses and calling them a mockery does not make it so.  The Lord Jesus Christ is present in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the NO video you posted.   You are the one mocking Jesus Christ.

Well, one one hand, we can hope He is not present at the mockery, OTOH, there's no way to prove it either way now is there?

We do know that "the words of Our Lord" were changed for the NO as the major innovation of the new "mass" - for pastoral reasons - - - please explain what "pastoral reasons" are?

If there was ever a mockery of the TLM, the vids I posted show it plainly - in your haste to keep your head firmly buried in the sand, you keep denying the reality of what the NOM is, and why it is.   

[Parmandur]

Repeatedly posting the same video of perfectly valid Masses and calling them a mockery does not make it so.  The Lord Jesus Christ is present in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the NO video you posted.   You are the one mocking Jesus Christ.

Well, one one hand, we can hope He is not present at the mockery, OTOH, there's no way to prove it either way now is there?

We do know that "the words of Our Lord" were changed for the NO as the major innovation of the new "mass" - for pastoral reasons - - - please explain what "pastoral reasons" are?

If there was ever a mockery of the TLM, the vids I posted show it plainly - in your haste to keep your head firmly buried in the sand, you keep denying the reality of what the NOM is, and why it is.   

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Repeatedly posting the same video of perfectly valid Masses and calling them a mockery does not make it so.  The Lord Jesus Christ is present in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the NO video you posted.   You are the one mocking Jesus Christ.

Well, one one hand, we can hope He is not present at the mockery, OTOH, there's no way to prove it either way now is there?

We do know that "the words of Our Lord" were changed for the NO as the major innovation of the new "mass" - for pastoral reasons - - - please explain what "pastoral reasons" are?

If there was ever a mockery of the TLM, the vids I posted show it plainly - in your haste to keep your head firmly buried in the sand, you keep denying the reality of what the NOM is, and why it is.   

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

He's not arguing about validity, but licitness.

[Parmandur]

Repeatedly posting the same video of perfectly valid Masses and calling them a mockery does not make it so.  The Lord Jesus Christ is present in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the NO video you posted.   You are the one mocking Jesus Christ.

Well, one one hand, we can hope He is not present at the mockery, OTOH, there's no way to prove it either way now is there?

We do know that "the words of Our Lord" were changed for the NO as the major innovation of the new "mass" - for pastoral reasons - - - please explain what "pastoral reasons" are?

If there was ever a mockery of the TLM, the vids I posted show it plainly - in your haste to keep your head firmly buried in the sand, you keep denying the reality of what the NOM is, and why it is.   

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

He's not arguing about validity, but licitness.

He's saying there is doubt that Christ is present.  There is none, theologically, unless you want to change the definition of the Eucharist or deny the priesthood of those in the video.

[Stubborn]

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

 Do not say "Words of consecration" when referring to the NOM - you need to use your own NO terms from now on.........call it the same thing that the NO Missal calls it - "The Narrative of the Institution" - THAT is the approved NO term - the NO  purposely and with good reason stopped using traditional terms 50 years ago and if you start using NO terms exclusively, it may be a start to help you from confusing the Holy Sacrifice with the NOM. Since it seems you have not noticed, aside from a little window dressing, the two are completely and totally different.

So step #1 for you is to start using the proper NO terminology when referring to the NOM from now on.
 


 

[Stubborn]

Repeatedly posting the same video of perfectly valid Masses and calling them a mockery does not make it so.  The Lord Jesus Christ is present in Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the NO video you posted.   You are the one mocking Jesus Christ.

Well, one one hand, we can hope He is not present at the mockery, OTOH, there's no way to prove it either way now is there?

We do know that "the words of Our Lord" were changed for the NO as the major innovation of the new "mass" - for pastoral reasons - - - please explain what "pastoral reasons" are?

If there was ever a mockery of the TLM, the vids I posted show it plainly - in your haste to keep your head firmly buried in the sand, you keep denying the reality of what the NOM is, and why it is.   

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

He's not arguing about validity, but licitness.

I'm saying that because the form (and possibly the matter............and who knows about intention?) is VERY different than what has been defined pre-V2 as necessary for validity, there is reason to doubt validity. Personally, I "think" the video shows a valid consecration - but because it looks to me to be mocking the defined form established for the TLM (NOM = facing people, loud voice, different words, no crucifix, no altar etc) there's no way to be sure.


Don't believe me, that's fine - but to show how easy the NO dupes the unknowing, perhaps you'll believe the NO guy himself as he actually tells you the truth..............

The commentator says: "This part of the Eucharistic prayer is called the "Institution Narrative" because it recalls when and how Christ instituted the Eucharist and with it His holy priesthood".

Now whoever wants to argue can contact the NO commentator and tell him he is wrong - tell the guy it's not recalling when and how etc.......let the guy know that it's a valid sacrifice pleasing to God dagnabbit!

Oh - does anyone know what pastoral reasons are?
 

 

 

[Parmandur]

You show a video of priests, saying the words of Consecration.  We can say with the certainty of Faith that Jesus Christ is present.  I am not keeping my head in the sand, I am saying that 2 +2 = 4.  You say it equals 5, even that it "plainly" equals 5.  That's theology as bad as any Modernist ever.

 Do not say "Words of consecration" when referring to the NOM - you need to use your own NO terms from now on.........call it the same thing that the NO Missal calls it - "The Narrative of the Institution" - THAT is the approved NO term - the NO  purposely and with good reason stopped using traditional terms 50 years ago and if you start using NO terms exclusively, it may be a start to help you from confusing the Holy Sacrifice with the NOM. Since it seems you have not noticed, aside from a little window dressing, the two are completely and totally different.

So step #1 for you is to start using the proper NO terminology when referring to the NOM from now on.

This bullshit is really the argument you are going with?  The words of consecration are the words of consecration.  2 + 2 = 5, no matter how much you whine and try to wriggle out of it with sophistic nonsense,