The following is by Fr. Charles Nwora Okeke on courageouspriest.com:
A liturgical Rite represents a church tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. There are about 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today.
Of these, the ordinary form of the Latin Rite, referred to as the Novus Ordo by some people, has been the target of unremitting negative attacks. The way the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered in the ‘Novus Ordo” is stipulated in the Roman Missal. What is to be said by the priest is printed in black and what he is to do is printed in red. If the rubric were followed, as stipulated, the ‘Novus Ordo’ mass would be reverential as it is meant to be.
When a priest offers the Mass in a distracted manner, then that is his personal fault that has nothing to do with the Rite. If a priest were to add words and make gestures that are not in accord with the laid-down rubrics, then that is his fault. If a priest were to preach uninspiring homilies at Mass, then that is a personal problem that has nothing to do with the Rite. If the congregation were irreverent at Mass, then that is their fault for there is no place where the Church officially stipulates that the Mass be participated in irreverently. If anyone thinks otherwise let him or her present the document.
It is about time we stopped conflating individual defects with a perfect liturgical Rite into a liturgical entity despicably referred to as Novus Ordo. Instead of incurring sin to ourselves through such unwarranted and ignorant criticism of a valid liturgical Rite, we can quietly begin to attend the Mass in any of the other Rites that are in communion with Rome…unless, of course, we think that the other Rites too are defective. Let us focus on living our faith.
Full article at courageouspriest.com.
Yes, the Novus Ordo Missae is perfectly valid! What has sadly changed, is that the clergy have a great deal of unprecedented freedoms, since Vatican II– and many just do as they please.
We all know of very shocking, irreverent examples of priests and bishops doing things at Mass that are terribly wrong— and immoral, a sacrilege. Before Vatican II, all clergy had to follow Rome, with very strict guidelines– no “freedoms” allowed, to do as you please. And the priest was always in charge of his parish, and the local bishop strictly administrated all things in his diocese. Not so today! If Most Holy Redeemer parish, or the USF Jesuits (of San Francisco) want to do some crazy thing– the will do it! And no one can do anything about it! Because “Vatican II freedoms” are prized by Rome! By contrast– there is no such thing, as “Vatican II freedoms,” with the old Latin Mass.
Sorry, I have a typo, in my sixth line, in my above post– it should read, “– they will do it!”
I have always LOVED the Shrine of Our Lady of Peace church, in Santa Clara, with its reverent and beautiful Novus Ordo Masses, many daily religious devotions, as well as a priest always in the Confessional! BEST Novus Ordo church!!
Thank you Father Okeke! Both the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form of the Mass are valid and licit. Pope Benedict XVI stated this in the motu proprio permitting the celebration of the EF Mass. May God continue to bless you Father!
and there in is part of the problem….forbidding a crucifix and statues in our churches is still the result of Vatican 2….as an artist…I need to ‘see’ that which brings the heart and mind to God and that which is of heaven….a Catholic church should be a spiritual display of windows from heaven….it is like going to a musical concert without singing or music…
Dear Ms. Young,
If you have read the Vatican II documents, you will not find anywhere a forbidding of crucifixes and statues. Absolutely not! However, you have irreverent priests who have declared such things to be o.k. Vatican II only sought to get the people more involved in the Mass rather than having them pray the Rosary or other devotionals during it. Please read the documents!
This is a very slippery slope, like trying to hang on to a greased pig. When the NO was first introduced, there were difficulties with it. But as time passed, the problems were released like time bombs: altars facing the people, standing for Communion, hand Communion, awful hymns, women on the altar, altar girls, dancing, and insipid homilies. Put them all together and they spell a Protestant service. Instead of adoring God, the NO adores the world. It is that simple. Today, many priests do not believe transubstantiation, and as a result, neither do the people. With the Pope saying that almost anyone can receive Communion, sacrileges are rampant. If the Mass were left alone in 1970 and no changes made, it would have been better.
Vatican II didn’t change the Mass as you believe it did. I would strongly suggest that you read the documents before criticizing the Council. However, there were freemasons that had weaseled themselves into the Council and who got to the media quickly, spreading a bunch of lies and confusion about the Council. Rumors often die when facts present themselves accurately. Please read the Vatican II documents.
However, one thing the Council tried to do was to bring the people into the Mass with more participation rather than just attending it and not really participating. I remember people praying Rosaries during Mass, etc, which is not the proper place for it. Yes, we had the English on one side and Latin on the other (here in the U.S., but imagine how visitors felt with this “cult” language. Could they follow along? There have been many accusations by the freemasons that the Catholic Church has a secretive, demonic language, placing on us the truth of their own demonic practices.
It may be the fault of the priest but it is the congregation that suffers
Probably the way Fr. Okeke says Mass, it is perfectly valid, or the way the New Mass is celebrated at Our Lady of Peace Shrine in Santa Clara, yes, the new Mass is validly celebrated, and so on.
But there have been many “masses” where the celebrant clearly indicated a purpose other than what the Church intends, either by explicit comments during the liturgy or by directly and purposefully changing the Eucharistic prayers. Many of us have attended some “masses” where the Eucharistic prayers were not approved, did not have words of Institution, and by other statements of the priest, it was clear he did not believe in transubstantiation. This is the problem.
Sir,
Since the 20’s, there were already Freemasons (Communists — many homosexuals) that had invaded the seminaries. By the time Vatican II was called, many of them had become “fake” priests or even “fake” Bishops and Cardinals. We are still being affected today though the Church is struggling had to identify these men (and the women that support them that hold various positions in the Church) and get rid of them.
It is not Vatican II that is the problem. No Council could successfully be called if the Holy Spirit didn’t call it. Please remember that Christ said He would be with His Church till the end of time. He also said the wheat and the tares would grow up together, that wolves would be within and without.
The Novus Ordo is valid and licit. No question. But…
• Is it really what the 2,147 Council Fathers desired or expected when they ratified Sacrosanctum Concilium in 1963?
• Has it cultivated and spread the faith the way its predecessor did?
• Does it demonstrate our belief in the Real Presence better than its predecessor?
• Is the most widely-used Eucharistic Prayer (#2), scribbled by a few priests one night at a trattoria, communicate the faith better than the Canon handed to us from the Apostolic Age?
• Why does the Ordinary Form, as commonly practiced, seem to be closer to Cranmer’s liturgy than the Extraordinary Form it replaced?
To use a poor analogy, the Yugo was a “valid and licit” automobile, but it left a lot of people…
Comparing the NO with the Tridentine Mass is like comparing a McDonald’s hamburger with Beef Wellington. Both contain beef and a mixture of flour and water. The first is fast food, while the second is finely prepared. While both are healthy, the Beef Wellington is more nutritious. You can also compare the two rites with transportation; the NO is like a Greyhound bus, while the Traditional Mass is like riding in a private Pullman car or a luxury Leer jet. Both get you there, but the dignity and style of the train or private jet greatly surpasses the cattle car atmosphere of the bus. Even when the priest reads the black and does the red, the NO lacks dignity.
Look, the problem is much greater than just Vatican II.
Just to show how nuts the modern Catholic church has become consider this: Today is August 5th, the feast day of Our Lady of the Snows. A miraculous summer snowfall marked out for Pope Liberius was to build a great basilica to the Bl. Virgin. It is St Mary Major.
Now, 16 centuries later, were this to happen, our new secular “Catholic” doctrinal leadership would interpret this as a catastrophic sign of man-made climate change, and to intone attacks on capitalism and economic development.
That is how far off the rails we have gone.
There have been many changes to the Mass throughout the history of the church and there will be more in the future. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling and stop trying to “fix” something you have no control over.
Because several Protestant observers were responsible for helping to compose the Novus Ordo, and because they and other non-Catholics found that the NO contained nothing that would offend them, this is cause enough for an alarm. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, as well as the Methodist service is very similar to the NO. These Protestant faiths and the NO follow the same lectionary, so the readings are the same at Catholic Masses and Protestant services. In the NO there is practically no mention of ‘sacrifice’, but many references to a meal. A priest is one who offers sacrifice, while a minister is one who serves a meal. Today there is hardly any difference between a Catholic NO Mass and a Protestant service.
While there is reference to “sacrifice” in the novus ordo, there is no reference to “propitiatory sacrifice”. The protestant services are sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, but not of propitiation. The Council of Trent infallibly defined mass at its essence as a “true propitiatory sacrifice”, but this dogma was omitted in the novus ordo as it was seen as a major a stumbling block to ecumenical dialogue with protestants. That creates a problem with the priest intending to do what the Church does, because the novus ordo rite does not express what the Church has defined Mass to be.
Do you know what the words you are using mean?
You have been influenced by schismatics or you are one of them.
The Mass is valid and licit.
Every schismatic Mass is valid if the priest has been validly ordained but none are licit.
The Eucharistic Prayers make clear that these prayers are offered, not to Christ, but to the Father. It is worship offered to the Father by Christ as it was at the moment of his passion, death and resurrection, but now it is offered through the priest acting in the person of Christ, and it is offered as well by all of the baptized, who are part of Christ’s Body, the Church. This is the action of Christ’s Body, the Church at Mass.
Herman, that there is hardly any difference between a Catholic Mass and a Protestant service should be a cause for celebration.
Michael, because Trent referred to the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice doesn’t mean that those words need to be used in the rite for it to be true. Besides which, there are many references to the “sacrifice which has made our peace with you”, and many many other references which communicate the same concept.
YFC, there is a big difference between a Catholic Mass and a Protestant service.
Don’t buy into the lies.
The devil knows how to tempt people into grave sin.
No Protectant observers helped to “compose” the Mass.
I have never been to a Protestant service but it does not matter what they do.
You don’t seem to have been to a Catholic Mass.
How tragic that so many Catholics have been deceived by the very people who were supposed to be true shepherds but are instead ravenous wolves. The very title New Order Mass ought to be a clue to faithful Catholics that it is nothing other than an invention of demonic-inspired wolves who, through their hatred of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of Jesus Christ, like Crammer and Luther before them, intended to deceive the sheep into believing their worship of man was an improvement over the Holy Mass that had been the most sublime and reverent and dutiful worship of God, inspired by the Holy Ghost and the making of thousands of saints.
If your salvation is important to you, avoid this unholy liturgy at any cost.
What is a post of Elaine’s doing on a Catholic site?
The Image provided with the article reminded me of something – but it took a while to remember just what
Then it came to me – it is evocative of Greek / Roman Pagan Mythology – what with the Womyn in long dresses giving a salute – perhaps to Odin, or Thor or Zeus or any object of the Greek Tragedies
But Not Catholicism – that is the one point which really stands out about the image; it qualifies as an Artiste O-Mage type image worthy of a Staged Play, but alien to all I have known about the Catholic Church
Like the ‘pseudo catholic’ Homosex Activist Musician I recall from another Parish performing “Liberace does Catholic Lite’ – there is some meaning known only to the artistically ‘enlightened’ – in their own not so humble…
I say Fr. Okeke is VERY correct when he criticizes those who conflate, confuse individual deviations by the celebrant at Mass with the efficacy and merits itself of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form. These people who criticize the Mass in the OF have been called out and rightfully corrected by F. Okeke. Well done!
If the priest does not “intend what the Church intends”, and manifests that by specific words, actions, additions or substantive deletions of the Eucharistic Prayer or for that matter, other sacraments, as some priests have done and still actively do, the validity of the sacrament is doubtful.
Denials and protestations of the reality of defective sacramental celebrations contradicts the apology that none other than by P. John Paul II in Ecclesia in Eucharistia (2003, see n.52), where he acknowledges the abuses that have occurred; And yet 14 years later, abuses regularly continue in the so-called Novus Ordo Mass.
Attacking the observers as “critics” is analogous to those who mindlessly defended the status quo during…
About the picture above, are those 4 (is it safe to say women), altar girls? What are they doing? Yes it is the New Order (Novus Ordo) of course where anything goes, nothing of any resemblance to the Holy Mass of our great grandparents, their great grandparents, their great grandparents and any generations in between! Find and read the excellent book written by Fr. Meagher in the 19th Century, “How Christ said the First Mass” It will surprise you with so much information(_400 pages) you would never have dreamed of the significance of how God arranged and taught to His Apostles how He wanted us to worship Him! By following God’s example to the “T” we are showing Him obedience, honor, and reverence. Anything less is dishonor!…
The term “novus ordo” is NEVER the official term of the Mass. This term has become a term of derision by folks like Doug and those who wish to denigrate the Mass of Pope Paul VI (the Ordinary Form). This book by Fr. Meagher which Doug is peddling examines the Jewish elements in the Catholic Mass, which is a fine study. In that case therefore Doug–by recommending Meagher’s study–should be pleased that the priestly prayers during the Offertory, which are essentially the Jewish berakah prayers, are found in the Ordinary Form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The term “Novus Ordo” in fact was originally employed by the Bugnini’s Consilium itself, when it was formally announced in April, 1969 in Bugnini’s liturgical periodical Notitiae. It was regularly referred to as “the New Order/Novus Ordo”, continuing throughout 1969 well into the 1970’s. Paul VI himself publicly referred to the New Mass as “the Novus Ordo Mass”, on at least one occasion (May 24, 1976).
Those who claim the term N.O. was a “term of derision” coined by critics are ignorant of the true history and are flagrantly guilty of historical revisionism.
The mass that was approved from the 2nd Vatican Council is nothing close to what is called the mass of today except the transubstantiation. Example, if you read the document from the council, ministers for communion are only to be used in the case of an emergency. As the photo shows, there is nothing written about dancing, what would be in the case, the sanctuary, riiiiiight.
Protestants are also Christians. We share the same Bible. Yes, there are significant disagreement about major point of Theology. I see nothing wrong in having a common lectionary with some Protestant sects.
If you prefer to be protestant then do so. That was another problem with the council, it invited protestants. The counsil was intended to be Catholic Pastoral and nothing more.
I grew up in the pre-Vatican II church and was an altar boy. Not everything was wonderful with the Mass and every priest did not necessarily “follow Rome”! One of our parish priests was an alcoholic and was often hung over in the morning. He would mumble the Latin prayers and often omit entire sections of the Mass if he was in a hurry. The “good old days” were not always good. It is easy and deceiving to look at the past through rose colored glasses. I prefer the Mass in English.
So, you take the most negative example(s) of failed priestly behavior in the pre-V2 Church, which deviate from the many fine priests who were exemplary in the pre-V2 Church, to discredit the traditional Church.
By that same measure, then, the post-V2 Church is entirely convicted of failure and fraud.
Before V2, the Mass was called a SACRIFICE. Immediately after V2, the Mass was termed a SACRIFICIAL BANQUET. Today the Mass is defined as a MEAL, a commemoration of the Last Supper. A friend of mine’s daughter was listening to an Elton John CD, and there was a song on it; some words I recall are ‘It’s no sacrifice at all”. This can really be applied to the NO because even in the instruction, originally in Latin, the Mass is called THE LORD’S SUPPER. Also, even in Latin, the prayers have lost their rich meaning and are watered down. Look at the prayer for the feast of Our Lady of The Rosary, if you do not believe me. Ave Maria Purrissima !
In 1965, Annibale Cardinal Bugnini, who was in charge of writing the text for the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI, made a statement that seems to not be remembered, by many in the Church, today.. His statement contains the truth of the Vatican’s intentions of the New Mass. Bugnini explicitly stated that the Catholic Church must strip her prayers and her liturgy of every shadow of a stumbling block, for Protestants, to promote Christian unity. It is certainly no longer the intention of the Vatican, to uphold Catholic Truth any more! I and many others will always hold to Catholic Truth– but the Vatican… well, I don’t care any more about what they do, in Rome! Hopeless!
Traditional Catholics claim that there are 2 possibilities and 2 possibilities only:
1) The infallible pronouncement at the Council of Trent (1570) regarding the Mass is authoritative and correct.
In other words, the Mass may not be changed, even by a future Pope or a future council.
2) The “new” Novus Ordo Mass created by Bugnini and 6 Protestants (the “Vatican 2 Mass”) is a valid Mass.
If it is an issue of canon law, should it be an issue for canon lawyers to solve?
No less than Pope Pius XII himself said, in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei that the Holy Father “alone” has the right to change the liturgy as he sees fit (paragraphs 50 and 58). This decisively refutes the notion that the Council of Trent forbade even future popes to change the mass. If the council had done so, Pius XII would certainly have known that.
Jon, You try and come across as an authority, but I need to inform you your wrong! The term Novus Ordo term of derision which you accuse me and others are out to denigrate the Mass of Paul the VIth, was invented and named by the Vatican itself as the New Ordo. The New Ordo didn’t just refer to the changed mass; but the whole Roman Catholic makeover! All of the 7 Holy Sacraments were changed. Many Roman Catholic practices and sacramental were scorned and virtually eliminated. By the way, I remember as an Altar Boy serving the Mass of Paul the VIth. It was pretty much a change to the vernacular language and removal of the second Confiteor and Absolutions prayed just before public received the Eucharist. Many changes have continued…
It was pretty much a change to the vernacular language and removal of the second Confiteor and Absolutions prayed just before public received the Eucharist. Many changes have continued since then, I don’t know of any man-made changes that improved upon Christ’s work still in place at that point! Peddling you say? How naïve you are Jon. Fr. Meagher’s book is history, and explanation of the Tridentine Latin Mass which progressives like yourself disdain as it shakes the foundations of the Norvus Ordo tales! I read Fr. James Meagher’s whole book cover to cover. I wonder if you did, or even scimmed through it, or even picked it up? The TLM has more parts in it than just the Offertory. The NO service does not = the TLM.
Red herring Doug. Nobody is saying that the Ordinary Form is the same as the TLM. However, it will be erroneous that to say that the Ordinary Form is less of a sacrament, and less efficacious in transmitting God’s grace, than the EF. That would be heresy.
The term of “Ordinary Form” is not the exact term for the New Mass! It was a term invented when Pope Benedict announced his “Summorum Pontificum,” to differentiate between the so-called “Ordinary Form” of the Mass — the *New Mass,” or “Novus Ordo Missae,” of Pope Paul VI — and the so-called “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass– the Tridentine Latin Mass, which was the Catholic Mass for two millenia. Nobody knows what the Vatican will do next, in the unstable, new world of post-Vatican II— invent more novelties??
The TLM has more parts in it than just the Offertory. The NO service does not equal the TLM as there are vast differences between them. The NO service is not merely a translation to the vernacular. Major changes were made from the beginning to the end. Many whole prayers and the last Gospel were deleted, other prayers were completely replaced with others of lesser reverence, many prayers were changed drastically and have not the same meaning/intent. For nearly 40 years the words of consecration were wrong until Benedict the XVIth corrected the error and brought back a little latin feel by reincorporating “Et cum spiritu tuo”. How arrogant to presume man could improve upon God’s Masterpiece –, the TLM.
Excuse me Doug, but your argument falls flat, especially if one recognizes the role of the Magisterium in overseeing the sacramental discipline and rubrics of the Church. The rubrics were created by the Church, and it is the same Church—specifically the Magisterium–that has the AUTHORITY to oversee and make amendments/changes to the way the Church worships God. There is NOTHING in the way that the Magisterium has constructed the Ordinary Form that should cause any Catholic to doubt its efficacy. NONE! The writing of this courageous priest, Fr. Okeke, is a rebuke to the wrongheaded notions of those who deride and disparage the sacraments of the Church in the Ordinary Form.
Here we have denial of historical facts.
Yours is a denial of the God-given authority of the Magisterium over the sacramental life of the Church!
Hum. From one who has no clue what the Magisterium is.
Doug, you cant read one book written by a priest who died in 1954, before Vatican II, and use it to judge the Holy Mass. The book was published in 1906. I am sure that Father Meagher would want you to read a modern explanation of the Mass. Education never hurts.
Mikem, Which version of the Bible are you referring to when you say Modern Catholics and Protestants share the same bible? There are many protestant and evangelical versions/interpretations of the bible on the book shelves in Christian Family Religious Stores and I am not talking about English verses other languages. Most protestants and ecumenists probably focus on the very popular protestant version King James Bible; but there are big differences in that compared to Roman Catholic authored and approved Holy Bibles like the revered Douay-Rheims version. Placed side by side, compared sentence by sentence and there are varying differences in the sentence structure, sentence content, and words. Sometimes the sentences come out to the…
Placed side by side, compared sentence by sentence and there are varying differences in the sentence structure, sentence content, and words. Sometimes the sentences come out to the same meanings, but not all of them time. Sometimes the meanings are far different from each others. So which version would be correct? The Douay-Rheims RC Holy Bible!
Doug, good question. Most Protestant churches use the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The Catholic Lectionary uses the New American Version. Let’s not forget that the Protestant Bibles don’t include several books that are in the Catholic Bibles.
Some of the notes in the New American Version are horrid and very often highly inaccurate. The study Bible put out by Ignatius Press (Catholic Revised Version) is much better if one wants more modern language, including some of the newer archaeological findings. The New Jerusalem Bible seems to have some very good notes, but its constant use of “Yahweh” is inaccurate. I believe Mother Angelica used the Navarre Bible, but it is one I have not read it. I often cross check with the Douay-Rheims.
Mikem: thank you for your posts on CCD. I am a practicing Roman Catholic but enjoy fellowship with some Protestant friends and also enjoy participating in a Bible study led by some Protestants. God Bless.
Research “nouvelle theologie” even by starting with Wikipedia. You will soon realize what happened, and that popes warned us about the present crisis for centuries if anyone actually cares about anything pre-Vatican II. Religious liberty, the definition of the Church (“subsists in”), and ecumenism as defined in the conciliar documents have all been previously condemned by the Magisterium. But since according to the “nouvelle theologie” truth itself evolves, previous condemnation would not matter.
1. Religious liberty = condemned by encyclicals Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura
2. Lumen Gentium definition of Church = condemned by encyclical Satis Cognitum
3. Ecumenism = condmned by encyclical Mortalium Animos
If VII is Catholic, you…
Anonymous: By my previous comments I was not trying to discredit traditional Catholics. I was merely providing some balance to those who promote that the pre- Vatican II Church was perfect and heaven-on-earth. It was neither! Priests and lay people are human and therefore imperfect and sinners. If you can find the perfect church…join it…it will no longer be perfect. Pax takem.
“Priests and lay people are human and therefore imperfect and sinners.”
Wow, Fred, did you just come up with that? Simply brilliant.
Doug: surely research and scholarship have discovered a few new facts about the Mass since the 19th century when Father Meagher’s book was published.
Mikem: fundamentalist Catholics who worship the traditional Latin Mass are as to fundamentalist Protestants who worship the Bible. Both groups are sincere, but mistaken, in that they worship an idol of their own making instead of God. They violate the first commandment in so doing.
Just as the New Church Catholics have decided to worship the false god named Vatican II.
Fred, You said “surely research and scholarship have discovered a few new facts about the Mass since the 19th century”. Yes that can be true at the personal level because few of us study the Roman Catholic Faith. Honestly how many people read about the works of the Doctors of the Church? Saints? The Catechism of the Council of Trent. There are thousands of Roman Catholic Church approved documents which discuss the Roman Catholic Faith of our Fathers since Jesus Christ, God made man instituted it. However, from a Roman Catholic Church level, there is no research or scholarship necessary, nor new facts, as Holy Mother the Church knows what God has decided to reveal to Her already! Any new, ideas like the VII Council invented are…
Any new, ideas like the VII Council invented are age-old modernists ideas understood and resisted by the Holy Fathers like Pope St. Pius the Xth, because of the potential destruction at hand. Yes there were modernists out to attack the Roman Catholic Faith back at the turn of the 19th Century according to the records of history. Pope St. Pius the Xth like valid Pontiffs before him defended and guarded the true Roman Catholic Faith because it was their duty to Jesus Christ to do so.
Fred, Yes there were a minute percentage of issues in pre-V2; however post-V2, issues and scandals have exploded geometrically. Like Jesus said: “You will know them by their fruits”.
Fred, Yes there were a minute percentage of issues in pre-V2; however post-V2, issues and scandals have exploded geometrically. Like Jesus said: “You will know them by their fruits”.
Scott, Are you drunk? Your term: “Fundamentalist Catholics” do not worship the Tridentine Latin Mass! No, we worship the Blessed Trinity by participating in the Tridentine Latin Mass, which was the official form of Roman Catholic worship for hundreds of years (and officially still is) before the V2 Ecumenical Council and then Paul the VIth declared all Catholics “must promptly adhere” to the new rites! Reference Vatican City (AP) reports in many large newspapers dated 19 November 1969. The TLM is not our idol as you mistakenly said, and those…
. . . . . Paul the VIth declared all Catholics “must promptly adhere” to the new rites! Reference Vatican City (AP) reports in many large newspapers dated 19 November 1969. The TLM is not our idol as you mistakenly said, and those who practice Traditional Latin Rites are not breaking God’s 1st Commandment!
Doug: God is more infinite than any church and any form of the Holy Mass…of which there are many forms in the Catholic Church.
Garvey: simple truths for simple minds!
More profound words from the sage of CCD.
To clarify, Mikem is Catholic not Protestant.. Differences in Bible translations are part of the theological differences acknowledged in my first post.
Sorry, Fred, Jon, and many pro-modernist Vatican 2 Church members who are blind and just don’t see the truth. Only through God’s Grace will the truth be revealed to you. Even with all the decline in the modern Church i.e., loss of hundreds of millions of souls (the most stark and damaging fruit/metric of the V2 Church) you don’t recognize “By their fruits you shall know them”. Hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics practicing the traditional Latin Sacraments and devotedly saying the Holy Rosary are receiving God’s Grace and do comprehend. Ask for God’s Grace to show you His way. Like He said: “Knock and the door shall be opened”. My prayers for God’s Grace to all modernists to see His Light .
Peoples: In harmony with the words of Fr. Okeke, here are words from Jeffrey Mirus who holds a Ph.D. in intellectual history from Princeton University and a co-founder of Christendom College aimed at those who just love to denigrate the OF:
“My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the Ordinary Form. Combat abuses of the Novus Ordo where you can; the Church will thank you for that. But do not denigrate the rite itself, as if it is something unworthy or profane, and never imply that the billion Catholics who use and have come to love it are somehow inferior in their Faith…
Wow.
A Ph.D. In quote ” intellectual history” from that bastion of Catholic tradition, Princeton. ( is this part of the capital M Magisterium?)
Hear ye, hear ye.
One doesn’t need to be a member of the Magisterium in order to be able to say authentically as Mirus did: namely that those who are the devoted to the EF and at the same time look down on Catholics who are being nourished by the OF are not justified in their attitude.
jon, many people learn the hard way– do not be a dyed-in-the-wool advocate, for whatever Rome orders people to do! Make up your own mind, carefully, as to your true beliefs!! Don’t waste your life being a “yes-man” to Rome! Rome may flip-flop totally, on you– and there you will be, crying!! Oh, fickle, faithless Rome– fickle and faithless, to “yes-man,” too-faithful YOU!! Watch out! What would you do, if Rome suddenly “turned tail” on you– and declared that ONLY the Latin Tridentine Mass would be offered? For their own funny reasons, unknown to us all?? How much do you truly ADORE the Vatican II Mass??
If it is not too late . I would request the writer of this article and those who speak their mind to read carefully the Documents 1. Quo Primum Tempore of Pope (St) Pius V which forbade any change in the canon of the TLM under pain of excommunication (Anathema) and 2. “Ottaviani Intervention” – a critique of the Pauline Mass. Ask and answer the following questions : Did the laity ask for it ? 2. What was the real need for change in the way we worshipped. 3. Who were responsible for making the change. 4. What were their objectives in making the change. 5. Why was the change required, and 6. How they executed the mass of all time. 7. What has been the effect of the change in the mode of worship. 8. Is this the Mass instituted by…
This is a deeply stupid little article. How stupid? Read this book: Work of Human Hands, by Rev Anthony Cekada. He shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Novus Ordo is both invalid and illicit.
Cekada is a sedevacantist-those who believe there has not been a Pope since Pius XII. Sede=seat vacant
May the Holy Father abolish, abrogate, forbid and cancel the celebration of the TLM in the Latin Church, forcing Trads to choose between union with the Church and their beloved TLM, so that the Novus Ordo deniers will be exposed for the dissidents and schismatics they are.
I continue to be astonished how each “side” insists they are right, and admonish the other. And the article is superficial at best….”referred as Novus Ordo by some”??? Is that not what the church itself called in the late 1960’s? I can say that a year ago I knew of none of it as I only knew NO. Boy things have changed since discovering TLM. Trads have points that need discussed without fear, and NO believers need to be able to discern those concerns without name calling….and vice versa. There is no doubt that there were some bad apples in the Vatican II proceedings, and many objections to liturgical proposals. Both sides, be brave and pray for discernment.