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

[JoniCath]

Inspired by a recent thread about CAF, I spent some time reading posts there.  It gives me a changed perspective on the OP.  While I may not think that Stubborn has chosen the best way to explain what is wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass, I can agree with him that there is a serious problem.  Some of the CAF posts left me reacting "What planet do you live on?" and  thinking that my disagreements with Stubborn are relatively small ones.

All of us on here, no matter what "position" we hold, resist Vatican II and everything it entails. Even if one doesn't want to say resist, it could be oppose or disagree with. This is key, as it shows, at the heart of it all, the all trads have some problem with what has happened. Even the one's who "prefer" the smells and bells, if the VII liturgical changes had been successful, there wouldn't be any preference. And this isn't a preference like favoring a Ruthenian liturgy over a Russian liturgy or low Mass over high Mass, but a serious preference, whether it be over altar girls, communion in the hand, versus populum, the way many Catholics have changed in their belief and practice of the Faith, the list could go on and on.

YES! I have to say that I dislike  the word "prefer or preference" when used as a means to explain our attendance at the EF. It makes me think of serving dessert. "Would you PREFER pie or cake". I attend the EF. exclusively because I believe that GOD prefers it.

[Parmandur]

Inspired by a recent thread about CAF, I spent some time reading posts there.  It gives me a changed perspective on the OP.  While I may not think that Stubborn has chosen the best way to explain what is wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass, I can agree with him that there is a serious problem.  Some of the CAF posts left me reacting "What planet do you live on?" and  thinking that my disagreements with Stubborn are relatively small ones.

All of us on here, no matter what "position" we hold, resist Vatican II and everything it entails. Even if one doesn't want to say resist, it could be oppose or disagree with. This is key, as it shows, at the heart of it all, the all trads have some problem with what has happened. Even the one's who "prefer" the smells and bells, if the VII liturgical changes had been successful, there wouldn't be any preference. And this isn't a preference like favoring a Ruthenian liturgy over a Russian liturgy or low Mass over high Mass, but a serious preference, whether it be over altar girls, communion in the hand, versus populum, the way many Catholics have changed in their belief and practice of the Faith, the list could go on and on.

YES! I have to say that I dislike  the word "prefer or preference" when used as a means to explain our attendance at the EF. It makes me think of serving dessert. "Would you PREFER pie or cake". I attend the EF. exclusively because I believe that GOD prefers it.

Agreed.  But the thesis of the OP suggests that those who attend the NO are damned, like Cain.  That is sick.

[JoniCath]

Don't know how you can be sure. Personally, I cannot say one way or the other.

The word "Valid" Is really "MInimilist-speak. The fact that the TLM. represents ALL of Catholicism, That it's uplifting, it's beautiful, it's awe-inspiring, it's fed both the poor & rich Catholics, those who are saints & those who are sinners for 1650 yrs. The TLM. has lasted through MANY wars, much upheaval. Today we honor St. Patrick, who attended that very mass. I"m not settling for "valid"    

[Old Salt]

To all,
No disespect intended to Stubborn, but there is a severe disconnect in reality for him when it comes to ecclesiastical laws and rules when it comes to the Mass.
Further argumentative statement with him on the Missal of '69 will only bring frustration and scandal since Stubborn is set in this flawed belief "system".

[Phillipus Iacobus]

He is arguing a position that the Novus Ordo is illicit and that Paul VI, whom he acknowledges as pope, somehow invalidly promulgated the Novus Ordo. What a nice get out of jail card!

I have heard this argument from several a trad of good will, including a prominent Canadian friend of mine. It just doesn't hold up. Unless one thinks that Paul VI was not the pope, it is impossible to say the Novus Ordo is illict or not pleasing to God. See:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html

[Stubborn]

Assuming the priest has the right intent, how 'bout we just say the Sacrificial Lamb being offered is pleasing to God--always. But the liturgy? I'd say not so much.

Do you believe this is this valid?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qynP0ZO0zMY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qynP0ZO0zMY</a>


There is no reason to even question this one = avoid the NO.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ROeoq2CNo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ROeoq2CNo</a>

I finally got around to watching these videos.  What even makes you  begin to suspect these of being anything other than valid Consecrations of the Sacrament? 

You understand what makes the Sacrament, don't you? 

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.

[Stubborn]

Don't know how you can be sure. Personally, I cannot say one way or the other.

The word "Valid" Is really "MInimilist-speak. The fact that the TLM. represents ALL of Catholicism, That it's uplifting, it's beautiful, it's awe-inspiring, it's fed both the poor & rich Catholics, those who are saints & those who are sinners for 1650 yrs. The TLM. has lasted through MANY wars, much upheaval. Today we honor St. Patrick, who attended that very mass. I"m not settling for "valid"    

   

[Stubborn]

He is arguing a position that the Novus Ordo is illicit and that Paul VI, whom he acknowledges as pope, somehow invalidly promulgated the Novus Ordo. What a nice get out of jail card!

I have heard this argument from several a trad of good will, including a prominent Canadian friend of mine. It just doesn't hold up. Unless one thinks that Paul VI was not the pope, it is impossible to say the Novus Ordo is illict or not pleasing to God. See:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html

Read Michale Davies' Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Maybe just the first few chapters - let +ABL know when you see him that the NO was licit and pleasing.

[Stubborn]

To all,
No disespect intended to Stubborn, but there is a severe disconnect in reality for him when it comes to ecclesiastical laws and rules when it comes to the Mass.
Further argumentative statement with him on the Missal of '69 will only bring frustration and scandal since Stubborn is set in this flawed belief "system".

Have you even tried to find out why the SSPX was formed in the first place?

[Phillipus Iacobus]

He is arguing a position that the Novus Ordo is illicit and that Paul VI, whom he acknowledges as pope, somehow invalidly promulgated the Novus Ordo. What a nice get out of jail card!

I have heard this argument from several a trad of good will, including a prominent Canadian friend of mine. It just doesn't hold up. Unless one thinks that Paul VI was not the pope, it is impossible to say the Novus Ordo is illict or not pleasing to God. See:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html

Read Michale Davies' Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Maybe just the first few chapters - let +ABL know when you see him that the NO was licit and pleasing.

The problem is, it doesn't matter what the Archbishop (God rest his soul) thought, or what any clerics thinks, but what the Church teaches. I say this admiring the Archbishop.