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

[James02]

The Church before Vee Poo was in bad shape.  All the Vee Poo bishops came from that Church.

By then, many were denying EENS, which opened the door to the false dignity of man.  This is the germ that sprouted the Vatican II abomination.  Just look at the 40's edition of the Baltimore Catechism.  It is heresy.  The original is pretty good.

[James02]

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

A Catholic may believe this.  True.

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

False.  Heresy.  A person who does not have Faith in Jesus can not be saved.  To say otherwise is to oppose the dogmatic Council of Trent.  Baptism of Desire is theorized to occur if a person with Faith in Jesus Christ wants to be baptized.  He therefore has a desire for water baptism.  If he dies before getting baptism, then he may be saved, and this is called Baptism by Desire.  Trent seems to support this.  Other Church writing opposes it.  I conclude the Church needs to settle this matter.  But the fact remains, Baptism of Desire has always meant a person with Faith in Jesus who desires WATER BAPTISM.

[INPEFESS]

321. How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?

Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.

A Catholic may believe this.  True.

323. How does an unbaptized person receive the baptism of desire?

An unbaptized person receives the baptism of desire when he loves God above all things and desires to do all that is necessary for his salvation.

False.  Heresy.  A person who does not have Faith in Jesus can not be saved.  To say otherwise is to oppose the dogmatic Council of Trent.  Baptism of Desire is theorized to occur if a person with Faith in Jesus Christ wants to be baptized.  He therefore has a desire for water baptism.  If he dies before getting baptism, then he may be saved, and this is called Baptism by Desire.  Trent seems to support this.  Other Church writing opposes it.  I conclude the Church needs to settle this matter.  But the fact remains, Baptism of Desire has always meant a person with Faith in Jesus who desires WATER BAPTISM.

Yes, but we should keep in mind the following conditions, too:

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see n. 1717]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom "the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior," cannot obtain eternal salvation.
Link

[Parmandur]

Impossible to make the link between the NO and the fallout? Thats the silliest thing you've posted yet.
You shoulda been around back then and you'da seen the fallout with your own eyes if they were open.

Causal link, Stubborn, causal link.  As in, you cannot show that the NO was the cause of the effects you listed.  You say cause, I say symptom of a problem which lies elsewhere.  Where's your proof that one caused the other, rather than vice versa?

The fact is, the Pope has the legitimate authority to change discipline, and is not bound by previous Popes or Councils.  The practice of the TLM in all of its specificity is a discipline.  No document from a previous Pope or Council prevents it from being changed by a legitimate Pope, even if it ought not to be done.  So if the NO is actually a valid sacrificial liturgy (2) and (+) the Pope is the Pope (2), he can (=) change the Mass validly and licitly (4).  This does not mean that it is the right thing to do, or the prudent thing, or the just thing, but the Pope is not bound.  He is the Pope, and the Mass is the Mass.

Who cares if the pope can do this or that or not?

Because if the NO is a valid Mass, which has been demonstrated adequately on the ground of the words of consecration being said by a priest (or in short, 2 + 2 = 4), then if the Pope can promulgate the Mass, it is both valid and licit.  Might not be prudent, or terribly good at forming the faithful, which I would vehemently assert, I think the NO was a bad idea that has not helped the Church.  But it is the Mass, if traditional theology has any truth value whatsoever, and is itself a symptom of problems in the Church rather than the root of the current issues.

[Parmandur]

Who is clueless?  I will break the news to you that "pro multis" means "for many", not "for all" as the NOM has used for 50 years. There's your "they changed the translation, to better represent the Latin original, 2+2=4 all right.

Yeah, that was my point, thanks.  The "for all" business was mostly an English language problem, though I gather a few other languages had similar issues, none were as bad as the English.  The current English is a pretty good translation, though the underlying Latin still has many issues, though of a lesser nature than touching upon validity.  It still remains, in English or Latin, that valid words of consecration (2) said (+) by a valid priest (2) is (=) the Eucharistic sacrifice (4), whether you like it or not.  You need to logically show otherwise, or question the premises.  Saying that the words of consecration are compromised because they reflect the Bible is not really undermining the premises, at all.  2 + 2 = 4.

Always remember that during a vernacular "mass," it makes no difference what the Latin has.

You can attempt to justify your opinion against the defined formula all you want,  perhaps one day you will compare the Institution Narrative to that which it replaced. Until then, you have nothing to base your opinion on.

The words of consecration are the words of consecration.  Importing language that Jesus spoke at the first Mass does not harm it.  2 + 2 = 4, Stubborn.  Keep denying that all you want.

[Parmandur]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a major logical fallacy.  The Church was in a bad place before the NO, and even before the Council.  This stuff didn't come out of nowhere all of a sudden, and the Council was called to attempt to address many of the factors you point to here which were already in an advanced stage in the 1950's and earlier.  It is impossible to make a strong causal link between the NO and any of these problems, though frankly I will agree it didn't exactly help anything.

Seriously!?  I cannot see a more open and shut case than the Novus Ordo Mass being the primary factor in the destruction of the Faith of millions.  The evidence is right there for all of us to see in black and white.  Neo-cons can deny it all they want, it just shows how stubborn and purposely blinded they truly are. The New Mass came along - usurped the title of "ordinary form," then the statistics show very clearly what happened in a steady progression from that exact point onward.  People were being presented and taught a different religion with the New Mass.  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi isn't BS, you know.  That law proves in spades that the New Mass cannot be Catholic.  Before the New Mass we didn't have well over half of professed "Catholics" not believing in the Real Presence, but we do now (actually I would dare to say that before the New Mass probably 99% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence). This is for no other reason than the New Mass and what it teaches and represents - which is most definitely not Catholicism.  If it taught and represented Catholicism properly we wouldn't have such dreadful statistics. 

This is what matters with the New Mass - this is what can be proven right now.  The apparent validity doesn't really matter at all.  As I have stated before, EO Masses are valid and even Satanic Black Masses can be valid Masses, but we shouldn't attend those because they're not Catholic.  If validity was all that mattered I could go to any valid Mass I so pleased, which is of course ridiculous.  This opens a gaping wound in the neo-con platform of blind obedience and head-in-the-sand mentality.

Also - just because something is labelled as "Catholic" absolutely does not make it so.  The "Charismatic Movement" is labelled as "Catholic" and accepted by the modern, post-conciliar hierarchy as legitimate.  One day the promulgation and perhaps even the total validity of the New Mass will be brought into question, but for now we have to go with the facts - and the fact is that the New Mass is simply not Catholic regardless of apparent validity.

So here is how it is broken down:

- Before the New Mass the overwhelming majority believed in the Real Presence.
-  a new rite of Mass was fabricated with the help of six Protestants and an alleged Freemason - a rite of Mass that is in truth Thomas Cranmer's rite - a rite that was declared heretical.
- This New Mass was somehow worked into the Church through ecclesiastical loopholes and usurped the title of "ordinary form," thus most of those who professed to be Catholics began attending this new rite.
- Over 40 years later, the majority of professed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.

To not see the correlation here is beyond me.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the New Mass is to blame.  One would have to be in some very serious denial to not agree.  Also, this is just showing ONE statistic.  We have many, many more of the downfall of Catholicism which began in the late 60's and early 70's - PRECISELY when these "reforms" were initiated.  This all stems from the New Mass and the spirit that made it possible (Vatican II).

The problem with your assumption is that all the problems you speak of were in full swing before the NO was put together, even before Vatican II.  A lot of this was already in an advanced state in the European countries.  The NO is a symptom, not a cause, of these problems.  Just because you didn't see them before the NO came on the scene doesn't matter to the fact that the "statistics" which you seem so obsessed with were pre-NO trends.  I don't think the NO helped, at all, but it is not the root problem.  Again, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, look it up.  Correlation is not causation.  That's basic statistics for you, right there.

[Nic]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a major logical fallacy.  The Church was in a bad place before the NO, and even before the Council.  This stuff didn't come out of nowhere all of a sudden, and the Council was called to attempt to address many of the factors you point to here which were already in an advanced stage in the 1950's and earlier.  It is impossible to make a strong causal link between the NO and any of these problems, though frankly I will agree it didn't exactly help anything.

Seriously!?  I cannot see a more open and shut case than the Novus Ordo Mass being the primary factor in the destruction of the Faith of millions.  The evidence is right there for all of us to see in black and white.  Neo-cons can deny it all they want, it just shows how stubborn and purposely blinded they truly are. The New Mass came along - usurped the title of "ordinary form," then the statistics show very clearly what happened in a steady progression from that exact point onward.  People were being presented and taught a different religion with the New Mass.  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi isn't BS, you know.  That law proves in spades that the New Mass cannot be Catholic.  Before the New Mass we didn't have well over half of professed "Catholics" not believing in the Real Presence, but we do now (actually I would dare to say that before the New Mass probably 99% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence). This is for no other reason than the New Mass and what it teaches and represents - which is most definitely not Catholicism.  If it taught and represented Catholicism properly we wouldn't have such dreadful statistics. 

This is what matters with the New Mass - this is what can be proven right now.  The apparent validity doesn't really matter at all.  As I have stated before, EO Masses are valid and even Satanic Black Masses can be valid Masses, but we shouldn't attend those because they're not Catholic.  If validity was all that mattered I could go to any valid Mass I so pleased, which is of course ridiculous.  This opens a gaping wound in the neo-con platform of blind obedience and head-in-the-sand mentality.

Also - just because something is labelled as "Catholic" absolutely does not make it so.  The "Charismatic Movement" is labelled as "Catholic" and accepted by the modern, post-conciliar hierarchy as legitimate.  One day the promulgation and perhaps even the total validity of the New Mass will be brought into question, but for now we have to go with the facts - and the fact is that the New Mass is simply not Catholic regardless of apparent validity.

So here is how it is broken down:

- Before the New Mass the overwhelming majority believed in the Real Presence.
-  a new rite of Mass was fabricated with the help of six Protestants and an alleged Freemason - a rite of Mass that is in truth Thomas Cranmer's rite - a rite that was declared heretical.
- This New Mass was somehow worked into the Church through ecclesiastical loopholes and usurped the title of "ordinary form," thus most of those who professed to be Catholics began attending this new rite.
- Over 40 years later, the majority of professed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence.

To not see the correlation here is beyond me.  There is no doubt whatsoever that the New Mass is to blame.  One would have to be in some very serious denial to not agree.  Also, this is just showing ONE statistic.  We have many, many more of the downfall of Catholicism which began in the late 60's and early 70's - PRECISELY when these "reforms" were initiated.  This all stems from the New Mass and the spirit that made it possible (Vatican II).

The problem with your assumption is that all the problems you speak of were in full swing before the NO was put together, even before Vatican II.  A lot of this was already in an advanced state in the European countries.  The NO is a symptom, not a cause, of these problems.  Just because you didn't see them before the NO came on the scene doesn't matter to the fact that the "statistics" which you seem so obsessed with were pre-NO trends.  I don't think the NO helped, at all, but it is not the root problem.  Again, Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, look it up.  Correlation is not causation.  That's basic statistics for you, right there.

Denial is a "logical fallacy" as well, which neo-cons suffer from immensely.  Just a tiny taste of what we have today was "in effect" before Vatican II - it was INDEED the New Mass that allowed the statistics we see today to take hold - there is absolutely no doubt about it.  Since the precise time of its fabrication and initiation/usurpation the belief in the Real Presence has taken a nose dive - which is very basic Catholicism.  Very plainly, with the information we have since the arrival of the New Mass, you would have to be a moron not to see that the New Mass is the catalyst - or just simply in denial.

[Parmandur]

Denial is a "logical fallacy" as well, which neo-cons suffer from immensely.  Just a tiny taste of what we have today was "in effect" before Vatican II - it was INDEED the New Mass that allowed the statistics we see today to take hold - there is absolutely no doubt about it.  Since the precise time of its fabrication and initiation/usurpation the belief in the Real Presence has taken a nose dive - which is very basic Catholicism.  Very plainly, with the information we have since the arrival of the New Mass, you would have to be a moron not to see that the New Mass is the catalyst - or just simply in denial.

Denial is not a logical fallacy.  That is an absurd statement.  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc means "after this, therefore because of this."  Just because something happened after another, that does not prove causation one way or the other.  The main problem with your theory, is that most of the problems listed predate both the NO and VII.  That you did not see the problems in your parochial sphere does not mean they were not already rampant.  The statistics, after all, don't lie.

You have no proof of which way causation goes except for emotional assertion.  That is not reasonable.  Basic statistics would let you know that correlation is not causation.

[Stubborn]

Impossible to make the link between the NO and the fallout? Thats the silliest thing you've posted yet.
You shoulda been around back then and you'da seen the fallout with your own eyes if they were open.

Causal link, Stubborn, causal link.  As in, you cannot show that the NO was the cause of the effects you listed.  You say cause, I say symptom of a problem which lies elsewhere.  Where's your proof that one caused the other, rather than vice versa?

Casual link?
Put it this way - when the changes were introduced in about 1965-7, people were already looking at the door - a few years later when the TLM was completely banned and replaced with the NOM, the exodus of people leaving the Church, convents, schools, seminaries, their marriages etc. happened in lock step.

You can continue to call that a coincidence as most NOers do, but the reality is that the NOM stopped teaching the true faith and started teaching any faith. It is no different today far as the teaching goes - and people who strive to learn and  persevere in the true faith are called "trads" nowadays - and they still help keep the numbers down because generally speaking, they still avoid the NO completely.
 

The fact is, the Pope has the legitimate authority to change discipline, and is not bound by previous Popes or Councils.  The practice of the TLM in all of its specificity is a discipline.  No document from a previous Pope or Council prevents it from being changed by a legitimate Pope, even if it ought not to be done.  So if the NO is actually a valid sacrificial liturgy (2) and (+) the Pope is the Pope (2), he can (=) change the Mass validly and licitly (4).  This does not mean that it is the right thing to do, or the prudent thing, or the just thing, but the Pope is not bound.  He is the Pope, and the Mass is the Mass.

Who cares if the pope can do this or that or not?

Because if the NO is a valid Mass, which has been demonstrated adequately on the ground of the words of consecration being said by a priest (or in short, 2 + 2 = 4), then if the Pope can promulgate the Mass, it is both valid and licit.  Might not be prudent, or terribly good at forming the faithful, which I would vehemently assert, I think the NO was a bad idea that has not helped the Church.  But it is the Mass, if traditional theology has any truth value whatsoever, and is itself a symptom of problems in the Church rather than the root of the current issues.

You don't get it at all. In your zeal to be obedient to the pope, you don't even care that what he did was wrong - REGARDLESS if he could or could not do it.

What are you going to say when PBXVI's successor bans the OF and concocts a Newer Rite that is twice as bad as the NO? Are you going to run right behind with a banner proclaiming "it is his right to concoct an even more terrible mockery of the TLM, it's so bad it even mocks the NOM - - - -  and because he is the pope, God approved and is automatically pleased  - and all is well you bunch of paranoid nitwits?"

What will you do when the pope after him concocts yet another Rite that is worse yet? Then the next pope does the same thing and so on................ What is there to stop them? After all, according to you, the pope does have the right to invent new rites at his pleasure!

According to your mentality, the above scenario is what is supposed to occur with each new pope - - - - and we are bound to embrace whatever contradicting errors are a part of the latest Rite because, thank God, it was the pope's fault - so that makes everything well!

 

[UnamSanctam]

The Church before Vee Poo was in bad shape.  All the Vee Poo bishops came from that Church.

 
Added to list of favorite Trad puns:

Vee Poo
Novel Ordo
Bogus Ordo