|
Post by johnyurich on May 12, 2017 12:51:25 GMT -5
Where do you come up with that nonsense that transubstantiation does not happen during the Novus Ordo mass? The priest states during the consecration of the bread and wine for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is one of the teachings of the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo (New Mass) is a counterfeit Mass. Vatican II is counterfeit. God does NOT change to suit mans whims. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever". It is doubtful if the Priests who say the New Mass are even ordained and valid Priests as the Rite of Ordination was changed during the counterfeit Vatican II council. The priests are considered to be ordained and valid priests by the Vatican. And the Vatican considers the Novus Ordo Mass to be a valid Mass.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 12:58:46 GMT -5
The Novus Ordo (New Mass) is a counterfeit Mass. Vatican II is counterfeit. God does NOT change to suit mans whims. "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever". It is doubtful if the Priests who say the New Mass are even ordained and valid Priests as the Rite of Ordination was changed during the counterfeit Vatican II council. The priests are considered to be ordained and valid priests by the Vatican. And the Vatican considers the Novus Ordo Mass to be a valid Mass. The current Vatican is run by an anti-Pope (Francis). Francis is a counterfeit just like the New Mass he promulgates. They are fakes deceiving millions of people.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 12, 2017 16:35:24 GMT -5
We can all wish johnny fare thee well
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 19:53:15 GMT -5
Just yesterday I encountered a Novus Ordoite who told me she "does not believe in Confession". Another example of the Protestantization of the Novus Ordo. Anything goes in the NO except the TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH!!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 15:45:48 GMT -5
I have encountered so many different versions of the apparition of Our Lady of LaSalette that it makes my head spin. Could someone, please point me in the direction of the Church approved apparition of Our Lady of LaSalette??
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on May 14, 2017 18:08:13 GMT -5
Just yesterday I encountered a Novus Ordoite who told me she "does not believe in Confession". Another example of the Protestantization of the Novus Ordo. Anything goes in the NO except the TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH!! From my experience of people close to me, I would say this person is the norm. I have never met a Novus Ordo attendee that goes to frequent confession but on the contrary, know many that never go to confession or haven't been to confession in decades. If there is no sin, why do you need confession?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 12:57:24 GMT -5
I have read that if a validly ordained pre-Vatican Priest says the consecration using the correct words at the Novus Ordo that Transubstantiation takes place. I would like people's thoughts regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2017 15:56:36 GMT -5
I have read that if a validly ordained pre-Vatican Priest says the consecration using the correct words at the Novus Ordo that Transubstantiation takes place. I would like people's thoughts regarding this. Veronica, There are two issues at play in grasping this: 1. Was Paul VI a Pope? If he was pope and he promulgated this rite, including the authorized translations, there could do be no doubt about its validity from that fact alone. Even if it was not promulgated correctly as some assert, the fact that he expressly willed it to be used and permitted its usage would have made it law by custom. I believe Paul VI was not a pope, therefore the rite was not protected by the Church, meaning it could be invalid or an incentive to impiety. If one concludes that Paul VI was not pope, then this rite came from outside the Church. The question then remains, is it valid even without this guarantee from the Church? 2. The question of validity is a debatable point. We must wait until the Church authoritatively resolves this, but in the meantime, I believe it is safe to conclude that there is a legitimate doubt about its validity as the consecration form of the wine into the Blood of Christ has been changed. There have been arguments presented by both sides on this, and in my opinion, the question of validity of the Novus Ordo said by a validly ordained priest, is at a minimum an open question, and that alone is one reason among many others to avoid it. Some of the best writing on this subject was written by Patrick Henry Omlor. He wrote a book titled the Robber Church, which makes very good and airtight arguments against the validity of the Novus Ordo consecration. You can find the book online HERE
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 16:24:26 GMT -5
I have read that if a validly ordained pre-Vatican Priest says the consecration using the correct words at the Novus Ordo that Transubstantiation takes place. I would like people's thoughts regarding this. Veronica, There are two issues at play in grasping this: 1. Was Paul VI a Pope? If he was pope and he promulgated this rite, including the authorized translations, there could do be no doubt about its validity from that fact alone. Even if it was not promulgated correctly as some assert, the fact that he expressly willed it to be used and permitted its usage would have made it law by custom. I believe Paul VI was not a pope, therefore the rite was not protected by the Church, meaning it could be invalid or an incentive to impiety. If one concludes that Paul VI was not pope, then this rite came from outside the Church. The question then remains, is it valid even without this guarantee from the Church? 2. The question of validity is a debatable point. We must wait until the Church authoritatively resolves this, but in the meantime, I believe it is safe to conclude that there is a legitimate doubt about its validity as the consecration form of the wine into the Blood of Christ has been changed. There have been arguments presented by both sides on this, and in my opinion, the question validity of the Novus Ordo said by a validly ordained priest, is at a minimum an open question, and that alone is one reason among many others to avoid it. Some of the best writing on this subject was written by Patrick Henry Omlor. He wrote a book titled the Robber Church, which makes very good and airtight arguments against the validity of the Novus Ordo clonsecration. You can find the book online HEREThe words "for all" in the consecration was changed to "for many" a few years ago. Does this make a difference in the consecration's validity, if said by a pre-Vatican II Priest?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2017 16:48:14 GMT -5
Veronica, There are two issues at play in grasping this: 1. Was Paul VI a Pope? If he was pope and he promulgated this rite, including the authorized translations, there could do be no doubt about its validity from that fact alone. Even if it was not promulgated correctly as some assert, the fact that he expressly willed it to be used and permitted its usage would have made it law by custom. I believe Paul VI was not a pope, therefore the rite was not protected by the Church, meaning it could be invalid or an incentive to impiety. If one concludes that Paul VI was not pope, then this rite came from outside the Church. The question then remains, is it valid even without this guarantee from the Church? 2. The question of validity is a debatable point. We must wait until the Church authoritatively resolves this, but in the meantime, I believe it is safe to conclude that there is a legitimate doubt about its validity as the consecration form of the wine into the Blood of Christ has been changed. There have been arguments presented by both sides on this, and in my opinion, the question validity of the Novus Ordo said by a validly ordained priest, is at a minimum an open question, and that alone is one reason among many others to avoid it. Some of the best writing on this subject was written by Patrick Henry Omlor. He wrote a book titled the Robber Church, which makes very good and airtight arguments against the validity of the Novus Ordo clonsecration. You can find the book online HEREThe words "for all" in the consecration was changed to "for many" a few years ago. Does this make a difference in the consecration's validity, if said by a pre-Vatican II Priest? Possibly, but I would still not trust it until the Church settles the matter. There are other issues with the Novus Ordo consecration other than "for all."
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 16:57:35 GMT -5
The words "for all" in the consecration was changed to "for many" a few years ago. Does this make a difference in the consecration's validity, if said by a pre-Vatican II Priest? Possibly, but I would still not trust it until the Church settles the matter. There are other issues with the Novus Ordo consecration other than "for all." Thanks. I agree with you that it is best to avoid even if the consecration is by a pre-Vatican II Priest. I had read an article regarding the matter and was just curious and wondering about it. Thanks for the link to the book also!!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2017 17:00:22 GMT -5
Veronica, I would urge you t0 read Section IV, #4 (found in the middle of page 10) of The Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, on the Consecration, to study some of the other issues with the Novus Ordo consecration other than the "for all" matter. Link found HERE
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 16, 2017 17:23:52 GMT -5
Possibly, but I would still not trust it until the Church settles the matter. There are other issues with the Novus Ordo consecration other than "for all." Thanks. I agree with you that it is best to avoid even if the consecration is by a pre-Vatican II Priest. I had read an article regarding the matter and was just curious and wondering about it. Thanks for the link to the book also!! You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 19, 2017 15:42:20 GMT -5
Regarding the valdidity of the novus ordo mass, I have attended an anglican "mass" that used the English Missal, which is a faithful reproduction of the Latin Mass from the early 20th century with only very minor changes that themselves came from the Sarum missal. Those who celebrated it believed fully in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
However, catholics would say it is void. And I agree with them. But it would appear to me, and I am no expert of course, that the defect which renders the service invalid is not so much from the intent or liturgy. It is that the priest is no priest at all, and therefore, for all its solemnity, it is not a mass.
Now the novus ordo seems to me to be a far bigger change from the tridentine mass, but would the defect rely in the same issue? Namely that the priest is not validly ordered and therefore incapable of celebrating a true mass? Even if all believe in transubstantiation?
|
|
|
Post by Marya Dabrowski on Jun 19, 2017 19:53:52 GMT -5
Regarding the valdidity of the novus ordo mass, I have attended an anglican "mass" that used the English Missal, which is a faithful reproduction of the Latin Mass from the early 20th century with only very minor changes that themselves came from the Sarum missal. Those who celebrated it believed fully in the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, catholics would say it is void. And I agree with them. But it would appear to me, and I am no expert of course, that the defect which renders the service invalid is not so much from the intent or liturgy. It is that the priest is no priest at all, and therefore, for all its solemnity, it is not a mass. Now the novus ordo seems to me to be a far bigger change from the tridentine mass, but would the defect rely in the same issue? Namely that the priest is not validly ordered and therefore incapable of celebrating a true mass? Even if all believe in transubstantiation? A lack of a validly ordained priest, a change in form and sometimes a change in matter.
|
|