brendan1104 Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 If the Novus Ordo is celebrated correctly, yes it is valid and licit. So then tell me, can Pope Benedict forbid the Novus Ordo?
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:48 PM']Whatever is needed to save souls, is done. The Church recognizes that... [right][snapback]733076[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I may believe that it is necessary to kill kittens to save souls. The Church says no...and I insist that the Church is wrong. Who's the whackjob here?
Era Might Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:48 PM']Whatever is needed to save souls, is done. The Church recognizes that... [right][snapback]733076[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, this is not true. The end does not justify the means. Schism is never justified. Edited September 21, 2005 by Era Might
brendan1104 Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 If the Novus Ordo is celebrated correctly, yes it is valid and licit. So then tell me, can Pope Benedict forbid the Novus Ordo?
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:49 PM']If the Novus Ordo is celebrated correctly, yes it is valid and licit. So then tell me, can Pope Benedict forbid the Novus Ordo? [right][snapback]733079[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes. It would be prudent to institute another order of the Mass, though...just like Vatican II did. Besides, I've seen the Mass celebrated illicitly many times, but only invalidly (I think) once. If Jesus is man enough to go there, why can't you be?
brendan1104 Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 I never said that schism was justified... I did say and truly believe that the SSPX is not in schism, as well as those who are well-versed in Canon Law... the Church has recognized and maintained that law for centuries, though I think it was Pope St Pius X who stated it...
Era Might Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:54 PM']I never said that schism was justified... I did say and truly believe that the SSPX is not in schism, as well as those who are well-versed in Canon Law... the Church has recognized and maintained that law for centuries, though I think it was Pope St Pius X who stated it... [right][snapback]733087[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Unfortunately, it's not your job to determine what Canon Law does and does not say. The Bishop of Rome speaks for Christ himself. "Vicar of Christ" is not just a nice title. It means something.
brendan1104 Posted September 21, 2005 Author Posted September 21, 2005 Bishops can be mistaken... even the Bishop of Rome
Era Might Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 06:09 PM']Bishops can be mistaken... even the Bishop of Rome [right][snapback]733103[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So Martin Luther firmly believed...
MC Just Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 what i would love to see is the parishes that offer Novus ordo to, bring back stain glass windows with saints on them, bring back statues, normal crucifixes, tabernacles in the middle behind the altars. Stop making noisy and disruptive music the main part of the mass. I would like to see Vatican II correctly applied to all the parishes. This is my main complaint, i dont disagree with VII. I hate and I repeat HATE the misenterpretations of VII. Whats wrong with the traditional vestments and traditional architecture? Cant we have those things included in the Novus Ordo? Why do many of our parishes no longer look, feel or sound Catholic?
toledo_jesus Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 While I would like to see the reconciliation of the SSPX with the rest of the Catholic Church, and the legitimacy of Tradition defended, I agree with the Holy Father most definitely that the only way to be Catholic is to see Vatican II in the light of Tradition and follow it according to the intents of the Council Fathers and according to what the documents [i]actually say[/i]. As it is, I think too often the discovery of the "real Church" has a rather gnostic appeal to it. I, upon my discovery of the more traditional elements in the Church, thought of myself the possessor of secret knowledge. "Oh, those poor deluded N.O. Catholics...they'll never know the [i]true[/i] Catholic Church. But I do!" Rather glad I found out that Vatican II didn't actually do away with any of it... Just my opinion...
MC Just Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 also i have a question, if a priest is a active homosexual, and has molested many boys in the parish and hasnt repented, when he says mass is the Eucharist Valid? To me that would just seem like desacration and sacrilege.
Era Might Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) A brother once asked St. Francis what he would do if he knew a Priest had mistresses. He responded: [quote]When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the Sacred Body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands.[/quote] Edited September 21, 2005 by Era Might
MC Just Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 ah so a unrepentant sinner in the state of grave mortal sin is some how still anointed. hmmmm
Era Might Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 (edited) [quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 21 2005, 06:40 PM']ah so a unrepentant sinner in the state of grave mortal sin is some how still anointed. hmmmm [right][snapback]733144[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes. It's called, theologically, an "indelible mark", and it is effected through three Sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The question of Sacramental validity was settled in the time of St. Augustine, against the Donatists. The Sacraments are effected ex opere operato. IOW, their validity does not depend on the holiness or even the faith of the minister, so long as he intends to do what the Church intends to do. Edited September 21, 2005 by Era Might
cmotherofpirl Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 05:54 PM'] I did say and truly believe that the SSPX is not in schism, as well as those who are well-versed in Canon Law... [right][snapback]733087[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I can go a a garage and call myself a car, does that make it so? The Church says they are in schism, and so they are. And until they start with some obedience and a whole lot of humility, it is obvious that is where they will remain - outside looking in.
cappie Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 "[i]Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can be only one way of belonging to the Catholic Church: i.e. by having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is to say according to the intention of the Fathers of the Council and the letter of the text. [b]This is a perspective that rather frightens us ….[/i]"[/b] (Emphasis added)
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Sep 21 2005, 06:09 PM']Bishops can be mistaken... even the Bishop of Rome [right][snapback]733103[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Roman Pontiff is the authority on which all canon law rests. That makes him its judge, by nature of his office. In other words, as regards canon law, he's never wrong.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 21, 2005 Posted September 21, 2005 [quote name='MC Just' date='Sep 21 2005, 06:40 PM']ah so a unrepentant sinner in the state of grave mortal sin is some how still anointed. hmmmm [right][snapback]733144[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, this is true. I heard a story about one of the recent mystics, I believe it was Pope John Paul, who was walking through a crowd in St. Peter's Square and out of nowhere turned and made his way through the people, off the predetermined path, to a man in plain clothing, who had left the priesthood. "Hello Father," he said. Priests, regardless of their sins, are still priests and act in Persona Christi. It's an indelible mark, as Era Might said, and the Church upheld this view against the Donatist heresy, which said that a priest's sins can affect the sacraments he bestows.
Recommended Posts