It is currently Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:50 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ] 
 Are novus ordo followers catholics? 
Author Message

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post Are novus ordo followers catholics?
How should one respond to a friend who has informed them that they will be joining a novus ordo religious order?
I suppose it should be veiwed as someone telling you they are joining an Anglican order. Yet, how exactly would you respond to your Anglican friend if they told you they were becoming a religious?

Yet there is a big difference. Both the novus order religion and the anglican religion are not Catholic, yet, are not at least some of those who follow the Novus Ordo, through ignorance, still catholics? I would say that yes, they are still members of the Catholic faith.

They participate in all the madness of the Novus Ordo becuase they think it was given to them by the genuine authority of the Catholic church.

Situation A:
If a 10 year old child somehow misread his Catechism and then believed (without knowing what the suffix "Tri" stood for) that there were actually 4 members of the Holy Trinity, this child would still remain a Catholic. He is mislead on something extremely vital but this is only a mistake. Material Heretic or what not.

Situation B:
Yet where it gets more interesting is when there are many errors mistakenly believed to be Catholic teaching. What if some isolated person read a book which had been mislabled "The Balitimore Catechism" yet what they had actually read was the Koran. The wrong cover had been placed on this book somehow. They believed that what they were reading was actually the teaching of the Catholic Church. They wanted to believe the teachings of Catholicism so they mistakenly end up believing all the teaching's of Islam thinking that they are Catholic.

The situation is admittedly fantastic but I find it insteresting; would that person be a member of the Catholic Church? Which situation (A or B) are novus ordo followers closer to?

What is absolutely necessary for a person to be a Catholic? What at very least must they do and what mustn't they do in order to remain in the Church?


Thu May 25, 2006 1:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
brogan wrote:
The situation is admittedly fantastic but I find it insteresting; would that person be a member of the Catholic Church? Which situation (A or B) are novus ordo followers closer to?

What is absolutely necessary for a person to be a Catholic? What at very least must they do and what mustn't they do in order to remain in the Church?


To enter the Church as an infant one must be baptised.

To remain in the Church after attaining the use of reason one must keep the Faith externally, avoid schism, and avoid being excommunicated by name by the Holy See.

Since the third possibility is not presently possible, only the first two concern us. Merely internal sin does not affect membership in the Church. Thus if one were to commit the sin of heresy but not externalise it, one would remain a Catholic (but in mortal sin and destined for hell if one did not repent). The same is true of schism. So, our question is, what constitutes external schism and heresy?

Your examples both involve innocent (if alarming) mistakes. Neither is sufficient to put one out of the Church because neither is a sin of heresy, let alone a crime (i.e an external sin). Here is Cardinal de Lugo on the question. De Lugo was regarded by St. Alphonsus as the greatest theologian since St. Thomas Aquinas.

Quote:
...no-one is simply and absolutely a heretic unless he knowingly withdraws from the Church, for one who withdraws through ignorance remains in such a disposition that he can accept and most firmly believe whatever is sufficiently proposed to him as teaching of the Church, so that just as he who denies [an article of] the Faith through even culpable ignorance does not lose faith or withdraw from faith, so too one who withdraws from the doctrine of the Catholic Church through even culpable ignorance does not lose Catholicity, nor does he withdraw from the Catholic Church, and therefore is not a heretic, because notwithstanding that sin he can still sincerely say that he believes most firmly everything which the Church has proposed and taught. (Translated by John S. Daly.)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 25, 2006 3:12 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
brogan wrote:
Both the novus order religion and the anglican religion are not Catholic, yet, are not at least some of those who follow the Novus Ordo, through ignorance, still catholics? I would say that yes, they are still members of the Catholic faith.

They participate in all the madness of the Novus Ordo becuase they think it was given to them by the genuine authority of the Catholic church.


However, my experience at least is that most Novus Ordo attendees revel in the heresies and errors of V2, not because they believe that the Church teaches them, but because they like them. And further, that most of them hold some serious error (and usually a heresy) which even the V2 sect does not teach. A common example is universal salvation - find me a Novus who will admit that anybody burns in hell for eternity. As an adolescent Novus myself (in the early 'eighties), I found that it was impossible to get away with stating that Catholics were more likely to go to heaven than non-Catholics. Any such suggestion was met with undisguised horror by Presentation nuns and "Christian Brothers."

These people may blame the Church for some of their ideas, but they generally hold notions which they know full well even the V2 sect doesn't teach. The idea that they are in good faith in their errors is simply unsustainable.

So, in my humble opinion, some Catholics are to be found unwittingly enmeshed in the Novus Ordo, but not many.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 25, 2006 3:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:17 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Midwest USA
New post 
There's always a certain caution needed with polls, however.....
Source: National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 29, 1999 as cited in "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators" by Kenneth C. Jones:
(I only provide the numbers for 1999)

Percentage of Catholics who believe a person can be a good Catholic without performing the following actions:

Without going to Church every Sunday 77%
Without obeying Church teaching on birth control 72%
Without obeying Church teaching on divorce and remarriage 65%
Without obeying Church teaching on abortion 53%
Without believing that in the Mass, the bread & wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus 38%
Without their marriage being approved by the Catholic Church 68%
Without donating their time or money to help the poor 56%
Without donating their time or money to help the parish 60%
Without believing that Jesus physically rose from the dead 23%


Thu May 25, 2006 5:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION
John Lane wrote:
brogan wrote:
Both the novus order religion and the anglican religion are not Catholic, yet, are not at least some of those who follow the Novus Ordo, through ignorance, still catholics? I would say that yes, they are still members of the Catholic faith.

They participate in all the madness of the Novus Ordo becuase they think it was given to them by the genuine authority of the Catholic church.


However, my experience at least is that most Novus Ordo attendees revel in the heresies and errors of V2, not because they believe that the Church teaches them, but because they like them. . . .

So, in my humble opinion, some Catholics are to be found unwittingly enmeshed in the Novus Ordo, but not many.

(edited for reply)

Pax et Bonum.
I find this thread on N.O. Catholics very interesting and even moreso, important, especially now that we will all be in a novena to the Holy Spirit in preparation for the celebration of Pentecost Sunday.

Sister Lucy said that the continuing problem lies in "diabolical disorientation." A very good, independent, Traditional priest (altho' not sedevacantist as far as I know), Father Patrick Perez, pastor of Our Lady Help of Christians in California, explained to me that when one wonders why a N.O. Bishop or priest "just doesn't get it," even when you point out to them the actual evidence of the bad fruit of the Vatican II Council, the heretical writings of prelates, the wolves at the door, etc., they will say, "Yes, I agree it is so." and then not change their position one iota.

They JUST DON'T GET IT because they are diabolically disoriented. The demons have done their worst: destroyed the Faith in these men, who then destroy it in the Faithful, the blind leading the blind. The Catholic laity of the N.O. sect are also diabolically disoriented - they just don't get it. One can point out all the indisputable FACTS to these laity, and they will say "Oh, really? Yes, I see what you mean." and then go on their way - remaining N.O. Catholics. I know this to be true, because of so many dear (former) friends who are SINCERE N.O. Catholics. They are very devotional and very faithful to what they believe is the true Church and its teachings through Vatican II. They do not like the vagaries of some clergy, who push the limit of what is acceptable even in the Novus Ordo Missae. These N.O. Catholics seek out "orthodox" N.O. priests and bishops.

John wrote above: "However, my experience at least is that most Novus Ordo attendees revel in the heresies and errors of V2, not because they believe that the Church teaches them, but because they like them. And further, that most of them hold some serious error (and usually a heresy) which even the V2 sect does not teach."

Although one must agreethat there certainly are laity of bad faith, as John points out, and there are laity who listen to false teachings, swallowing them whole, because these false teachers "tickle their ears," still, again, I agree with Father Perez's postulation that many of these souls are under "diabolical disorientation" (as Sister Lucy said), and I blame it on the clergy who took the Vatican II ambiguities and errors and ran with them - over a steep hill! These wolves in shepherds' clothing take the N.O. sheep with them into the realm of the demonic "kingdom of this world," over which their Master reigns; Our Lord's Kingship being denied through the misguidance of the Vatican II documents - filled with diabolical disorienting thought - not Catholic thought.

I do not mean to excuse those Catholics who actually know the perennial teachings of the Church, nor do I think it is a hopeless situation, since I was a N.O. Catholic until a year ago, and found the way to the Traditional Catholic Church while reading the strange thoughts of JPII in his Crossing the Threshold of Hope. I was already disenchanted with the shenanigans of the various "celebrants" of the N.O. Missae. I wore a veil - usually the only woman doing so. I knelt for the Consecration after being instructed not to do so, I prayed a daily Rosary, attended all the traditional devotions offered - such as perpetual novenas - where the attendance was shamefully small - only a handful in a parish of thousands! I wondered where 40-hours devotion disappeared to, why we could suddenly eat meat on Friday (still I didn't), why did the sisters chuck their beautiful full length habits (sacramentals!) for "street clothes" or for "modified habits," why did priests not wear their Roman collars anymore - not even under their Roman togas at Mass, and all the usual perplexities of an orthodox Catholic who was mystified by the N.O. changes.

Then one day when I was studying Crossing the Threshold of Hope, I recall thinking "this isn't Catholic!"
:arrow: It was suddenly as if a light went on! I began a search for the "Latin Mass," didn't even know it was called the Tridentine Mass. I ordered Latin Mass magazine, and thus began my journey back to sanity!

What a great grace and how undeserving was I to receive such a great grace. SOMEONE HAD PRAYED AND SACRIFICED FOR ME -- UNBEKNOWNST. DEO GRATIAS!

So, I keep hope enkindled that through our own prayers and sacrifices, as Our Lady of Fatima taught us, we will win souls from the Novus Ordo sect to the Traditional Catholic Church - the true Faith of our Fathers.

Our Lord will one day ask for an accounting of these great graces we have each of us received to not come under that diabolical disorientation. As St. Paul instructs us, we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. And as Zelie wrote somewhere in these discussions: There but for the grace of God go I.

This forum is a great help in raising our awareness of the need for prayers and sacrifices for the very ones we see heading for that cliff, being led by wolves in shepherds' clothing. It certainly has helped me in my own resolve to pray more and sacrifice more, in gratitude and true charity. In all things, may God be Praised and may He bring Good of it! Amen.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Thu May 25, 2006 8:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Philly
New post NO catholics
Invincible ignorance only cuts so far.... when evidence all around suggests a widespread apostasy and noting truly holy there is enough indication that such persons AT LEAST have a troubled conscience and serious doubts. When all of the sacraments have been debased in some way or another, when we find sacrilege at masses, then anyone with a brain should know something is rotten


Thu May 25, 2006 11:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION
Abba wrote:
... I prayed a daily Rosary, ...


There's the source of the grace which rescued you from the mire of the Novus. Of course, saying the Rosary is a grace also. God is so good.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 25, 2006 11:56 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: NO catholics
xcordeeclesiae wrote:
Invincible ignorance only cuts so far.... when evidence all around suggests a widespread apostasy and noting truly holy there is enough indication that such persons AT LEAST have a troubled conscience and serious doubts. When all of the sacraments have been debased in some way or another, when we find sacrilege at masses, then anyone with a brain should know something is rotten


I agree. But we should keep in mind a crucial distinction - it is possible to sin, even gravely, against Faith without committing external heresy, and thus one remains a Catholic. The bad faith of many in the Novus is quite apparent - but the fact that each individual has left the Church is another question again, much harder to determine. We would all like to have a simple answer to this, so that everything would be nice and clear, but God has permitted this confusion and difficulty so we must bear it with resignation.

My personal view is that there are Catholics remaining in the Novus Ordo but that they are few. I look for a number of key elements - that they pray the Rosary, have a general dissatisfaction with V2, and are not addicted to any of the errors of our time (the survey above is a good exemplar list).


Fri May 26, 2006 12:07 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:43 am
Posts: 72
Location: USA
New post 
All I know is that I was raised in the NO, totally oblivious to the objections that were made to V2, very ignorant of religion as a whole, etc. If I can end up in the position I am now, anyone can. Does that mean everyone will? No, but it means there is always hope.

I do not even understand my own self, and the inner workings of my mind, body, or soul (let alone all there is to know about nature or grace). God, who made me, does. He knows what buttons to push, when to do so, and how gently (or firmly) they need to be pressed. This is true of each and every person He created from nothing.

When the Prophet Ezekiel complained to God about how all of Israel had forsaken Him, and that he alone was faithful, God told him there were still 7000 in Israel who had not betrayed Him.

_________________
"If you are wise, you will be reservoirs and not channels."


Fri May 26, 2006 1:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
This is a difficult question and one that should be answered with much caution. I have been “excommunicated” by several people that I have debated in the past although they did all retract their pronouncements when they realized (after I reminded them) the gravity of their words.

I don’t know what value there is in trying to decide who is and who isn’t “still a Catholic”. In a general sense, I guess one may speculate on this, but it gets complicated when one looks at individuals. If someone says they are a Catholic then I have no reason to doubt them…but do they know what it means to be Catholic? This is what must be pointed out…even if I conclude that all of those in the Novus Ordo are still Catholic, but many are probably not in a state of sanctifying grace (I know I wasn’t), then what good is being a Catholic?


Fri May 26, 2006 3:46 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Eastern MA, USA
New post Re: DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION
John Lane wrote:
[There's the source of the grace which rescued you from the mire of the Novus. Of course, saying the Rosary is a grace also. God is so good.


The Rosary seems to be the net that fishes people out of the Novus Ordo religion. Many I know were rescued from the Novus Ordo by Our Lady and their devotion to her Rosary.

In every modernist church I have ever been to, in most cases, those who still hold the Faith, though they are decieved, still pray the Rosary. The Rosary is probably the best means of grace for some of the people Vatican II religion.

A side note, I was reading the Secret of the Rosary out loud to someone else. I think it would make a good tape or CD for people to listen to. It is a very inspiring work and easy to understand. I wonder if such a tape could be used to help people understand the importance of the Rosary?


Fri May 26, 2006 4:51 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION
Janel wrote:
The Rosary seems to be the net that fishes people out of the Novus Ordo religion. Many I know were rescued from the Novus Ordo by Our Lady and their devotion to her Rosary.

In every modernist church I have ever been to, in most cases, those who still hold the Faith, though they are decieved, still pray the Rosary. The Rosary is probably the best means of grace for some of the people Vatican II religion.


Janel,

My experience is the same as yours. A "net" is a good metaphor. :)

The Rosary is pretty much the only source for those stuck in the Novus.

Which brings to mind another point, which is that for those who assist at the Indult, which is usually, or at least increasingly, offered by non-priests these days, the prayers of the Mass as prayers, and the Rosary, are pretty much the only sources of grace. And the results show. (This is not to minimise the value of the Rosary - quite the contrary - but only to highlight the necessity of the sacraments, especially the Blessed Sacrament). Such people really struggle to make progress, but once they get to an SSPX chapel or a "sede" or independent one everything starts to fall into place. I'm not debating this with anyone - it is merely my observation. Maybe I'm seeing things, or perhaps I'm blind, but that's what I see. :)

Anyway, let's just keep praying for those we know. It works.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri May 26, 2006 11:03 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:38 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Kansas City, USA
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
brogan wrote:
How should one respond to a friend who has informed them that they will be joining a novus ordo religious order?
I suppose it should be veiwed as someone telling you they are joining an Anglican order. Yet, how exactly would you respond to your Anglican friend if they told you they were becoming a religious? ?


This is a good question and I have two friends who went to join a NO order; one joined the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, which is the female group affiliated with "Fr." Benedict Groeschel's order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. I wrote to her about the problems with the Novus Ordo, including Communion in the hand, and she wrote back to say something like God wills Communion in the hand! Of course, (correct me if I'm wrong) everything that happens is God's will, but I'm sure God wouldn't really want people to receive Him in their hands. So I wrote back with quotes from Christopher Ferrara's book "EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong" about Communion in the hand, including Mother Teresa saying that that is the thing in the whole world that makes her the saddest. I don't know if it will convince her of anything. All I can do is pray.

_________________
"I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. There you will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity and the true way of all your loves upon earth." -J.R.R. Tolkien


Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:54 am
Posts: 147
New post 
Eamon Shea wrote:
All I know is that I was raised in the NO, totally oblivious to the objections that were made to V2, very ignorant of religion as a whole, etc. If I can end up in the position I am now, anyone can. Does that mean everyone will? No, but it means there is always hope.


Same with me. I grew up totally Novus Ordo. I didn't believe any heresies on purpose, simply did not know the issues surrounding these things. If someone can give a simple answer I'd appreciate it because a friend(who is Novus Ordo) has asked me: If a person is invincibly ignorant of the problems with Novus Ordo etc. and accept what they have been given because they believe in the infallibility of the Pope etc. and that the Church can't go wrong, and defend this(without knowingly embracing heresy), are they still considered Catholic, through their ignorance? Yes or no? Thanks.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:20 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12
Location: Philly
New post novus ordo catholics
To continue this thought, moving away from the average pew warming laity, how many priests or bishops can really be considered catholic? THis is why reception of the sacraments from any one ordaining in the new rite is especially problematic. Even for priests who were ordained in the old rite, the big question to ask is "does he have the catholic faith?"
Does the bishop who ordained him have the catholic faith? We dont know interior minds but we can judge by words and deeds. To reverse the old cliche "If it doesnt look like a duck, doesnt swim like a duck or quack like a duck, then its not a duck"


Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:17 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Midwest USA
New post Re: novus ordo catholics
xcordeeclesiae wrote:
Does the bishop who ordained him have the catholic faith? We dont know interior minds but we can judge by words and deeds. To reverse the old cliche "If it doesnt look like a duck, doesnt swim like a duck or quack like a duck, then its not a duck"


Fr. Malachai Martin said the same thing in one of those interviews: They cannot possibly be Catholic. If they were, they wouldn't do what they are doing.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:18 am
Posts: 56
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Corinne wrote:
This is a good question and I have two friends who went to join a NO order; one joined the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal, which is the female group affiliated with "Fr." Benedict Groeschel's order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.


Coincidence. My sister has decided to join that group and that is what really inspired this thread. I've been trying to talk her out of it but she's surounded by "charismatic" novus ordo people so its really difficult.

I convinced her to go to one Traditional Mass with me and afterwords she was saying that she would like to start attending the Traditional mass reguarly. Then, she moved away and is only around Novus Ordo followers and she is convinced that she will join this CFR group.

Groeschel isn't even really all that "conservative" of a Novus Ordoian either. I saw him on EWTN a while back and here is what he said. "If someone comes to me and they are a Jew I tell them they must go to temple. If they are a buddhist they must go to their Wat." He is of course right in line with the Modern Popes but I was supprised to see it on EWTN. They usually shy away from the more masonic aspects of Novus Ordoism. I suppose it's just a matter of time until all the "conservative" Novus Ordo followers are just as bad as Mahony. Which in turn means the same will happen to all the indult people. And I guess that's already happening with Robert Sungenis' site endorsing Communion in the Hand, ect.


Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:35 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
brogan wrote:
And I guess that's already happening with Robert Sungenis' site endorsing Communion in the Hand, ect.


I'm afraid it is very hard to hold much hope for any layman who makes a living from religion. If Our Lord Jesus Christ wanted professional lay apologists, He would have His Church establish some. He never has.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:15 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Eastern MA, USA
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
John Lane wrote:
I'm afraid it is very hard to hold much hope for any layman who makes a living from religion. If Our Lord Jesus Christ wanted professional lay apologists, He would have His Church establish some. He never has.


Is that your official unendorsement of Scott Hahn?
:D

What has he been up to lately? Or is he not "in" anymore? Also, I thought K. Keating was coming out with some kind of book against traditionalists.


Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:57 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Hello, everyone. I'm new to the forum, and first of all I just want to say that I want to believe the truth. The reason I'm saying this is because yes I believe that Benedict XVI is indeed Pope, and I believe many things that many of you obviously consider to be very wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope you can show me that I am, and if I'm shown to be wrong, I will happily believe the truth. So, just thought I'd say that before anything else.

John Lane wrote:
However, my experience at least is that most Novus Ordo attendees revel in the heresies and errors of V2, not because they believe that the Church teaches them, but because they like them.


Well, I'm not so sure that that is true, but sometimes it seems that way (by the way, I don't believe that Vatican 2 taught any heresies, but that's for another thread). I go to the Novus Ordo and many "Novus Ordo attendees" I know, do indeed believe the post-conciliar Church to not teach heresy. Are if it does teach heresy, they think it doesn't infringe on infallibility becuase when the "heresies" are being taught, they are not being taught under the circumstances required for infallibilty.

John Lane wrote:
And further, that most of them hold some serious error (and usually a heresy) which even the V2 sect does not teach. A common example is universal salvation - find me a Novus who will admit that anybody burns in hell for eternity.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the "Novus Ordo Church" does not teach universal salvation? I thought most sedevacantists believed that universal salvation was/is being taught by the "Novus Ordo Church." I, of course, do not believe in universal salvation, and neither do I believe that the Church teaches universal salvation (although I'll admit that sometimes it may seem that way).

Well, I guess I'm what you'd consider to be a "Novus," if you use that term for anyone who attends the Mass of Pope Paul VI, and I assure you that I do not believe in universal salvation. So, here goes: "I, Ioannes, believe that anyone who dies in a state of mortal sin will go to Hell and will burn there for all eternity."

John Lane wrote:
As an adolescent Novus myself (in the early 'eighties), I found that it was impossible to get away with stating that Catholics were more likely to go to heaven than non-Catholics. Any such suggestion was met with undisguised horror by Presentation nuns and "Christian Brothers."


I know what you mean. Once, I tried to say the very say thing you did, i.e., "Catholics were more likely to go to heaven than non-Catholics." And guess what? Many people (who considered themselves Catholic) considered me to be very wrong! Yes, the Church is in a huge crisis whenever there are people who consider themselves Catholic and yet still don't believe that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church! However, I'll have to say that many of these people don't know that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church. They believe what they believe out of ignorance. I think what the world needs is a big dose of Catholic education.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:59 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Ioannes wrote:
I think what the world needs is a big dose of Catholic education.


And can you name one Novus Ordo school that is intent on giving it to them? And if they did, wouldn't be in BIG trouble with their local chancellory?


Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:22 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Ioannes wrote:
They believe what they believe out of ignorance. I think what the world needs is a big dose of Catholic education.


Prior to V2, Catholic education came from the truly Catholic Magisterium. Even most basically ignorant Catholics knew the Catholic Church was the one true Church outside of which is no salvation. They also believed in hell. If modern day 'Catholics' are clueless about these basics, or what is more clearly the case, believe quite the opposite then it's a pretty safe bet they've been catechized by a different church that has different beliefs. The average guy in the pew didn't just start making this stuff up on his own. Your safest bet for many answers are all the essays posted at
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net written by Mr. Lane and Mr. Daly and some by Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor. You can't go wrong after reading these!

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:57 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ioannes wrote:

"They believe what they believe out of ignorance. I think what the world needs is a big dose of Catholic education."

I would also suggest reading "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" by Fr. Anthony Cekada. It is important to realize that how we pray is how we believe; this short booklet describes the changes (and mostly omissions) in the prayers of the Propers of the New Mass and how they have been “de-Catholicized”.


Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Ioannes wrote:
Hello, everyone. I'm new to the forum, and first of all I just want to say that I want to believe the truth. The reason I'm saying this is because yes I believe that Benedict XVI is indeed Pope, and I believe many things that many of you obviously consider to be very wrong. If I'm wrong, I hope you can show me that I am, and if I'm shown to be wrong, I will happily believe the truth. So, just thought I'd say that before anything else.


BTW Ioannes, how did you manage to stay Catholic in the NO; that is , who taught you the Faith?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Ioannes wrote:
I think what the world needs is a big dose of Catholic education.


And can you name one Novus Ordo school that is intent on giving it to them? And if they did, wouldn't be in BIG trouble with their local chancellory?


No, I don't know any specific school that would, but I'd bet that there are some.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:49 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Prior to V2, Catholic education came from the truly Catholic Magisterium. Even most basically ignorant Catholics knew the Catholic Church was the one true Church outside of which is no salvation. They also believed in hell. If modern day 'Catholics' are clueless about these basics, or what is more clearly the case, believe quite the opposite then it's a pretty safe bet they've been catechized by a different church that has different beliefs.


Not "a different church that has different beliefs," but the same Church which contains men who are afraid of the truth! People are afraid of the truth; they are too worried about offending people at the expense of truth. Although this is bad, it doesn't mean we have "a different church."


Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Your safest bet for many answers are all the essays posted at
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net written by Mr. Lane and Mr. Daly and some by Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor. You can't go wrong after reading these!


I will definitely give the link a look; thanks!


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:09 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I would also suggest reading "The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass" by Fr. Anthony Cekada. It is important to realize that how we pray is how we believe; this short booklet describes the changes (and mostly omissions) in the prayers of the Propers of the New Mass and how they have been “de-Catholicized”.


If I ever get the chance to read the book, then I sure will. Thanks! I have read quite a bit on the inernet about that, though. Still, as long as what is required for validity is present, then it is valid (by definition of course). I think it's still valid.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:12 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
BTW Ioannes, how did you manage to stay Catholic in the NO; that is , who taught you the Faith?


I receive the sacraments and pray. My parents taught (and still teach) me the Faith. I also read. There are many Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo .

By the way, I do go to the Tridentine occassionaly, and I do prefer it.

I think some people read things like http://www.novusordowatch.com, and then conclude that every or nearly every Novus Ordo Mass is extremely irreverent and has clowns and what not. That's simply not the case. There are many reverently celebrated Masses according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. I've been going to the Novus Ordo all my life, and I've never, ever seen a clown or a dancing priest or anything of that sort.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:30 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Ioannes wrote:
I receive the sacraments and pray. My parents taught (and still teach) me the Faith. I also read. There are many Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo .


Ioannes, if I understand you, you're saying that many people (some you must know) are fully Catholic (have the Faith) and attend the NO. What do you think these other NO's believe about other 'religions'? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they think it doesn't matter what church you attend; we're all going to heaven.

However, I can agree with you though that there are some Catholics attending the NO. I know of at least 4 who attend daily NO mass (and my world is not very big). At least 3 of them are of the 'recognize & resist' camp (Fr. Cekada's term). 2 of them have found the most reverent NO mass and attend that. One is stuck in a senior complex and attends daily; but, would in a heart beat attend the Old Mass. The 4th, is a little iffy.

You have been fortunate in your parents, but how are the other NO's that you feel are Catholic being catechized?

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:53 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 11:04 pm
Posts: 57
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Ioannes wrote:
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
BTW Ioannes, how did you manage to stay Catholic in the NO; that is , who taught you the Faith?


I receive the sacraments and pray. My parents taught (and still teach) me the Faith. I also read. There are many Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo .

By the way, I do go to the Tridentine occassionaly, and I do prefer it.

I think some people read things like http://www.novusordowatch.com, and then conclude that every or nearly every Novus Ordo Mass is extremely irreverent and has clowns and what not. That's simply not the case. There are many reverently celebrated Masses according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. I've been going to the Novus Ordo all my life, and I've never, ever seen a clown or a dancing priest or anything of that sort.


Dear Sister in Christ, Ioannes,

Peace and All Good to you, precious soul. How beautiful is your humility as I read your initial question and all the replies you gave to the "crew." How wonderful God has lead you to this forum, where CHARITY is FIRST and the mother of many virtues and KNOWLEDGE is a "tinkling cymbal" without Charity, eh?

You noted you are a student, but I am assuming that is college level? However, whatever age you are, high school or college, or even post-grad, your sincere and courageous spirit shine through.

I want to share with you my own path, through God's graces, to the Tridentine Mass and the Traditional Church that was always available to all Catholics throughout the world until the Novus Ordo was introduced - through gradualism - so as not to "disturb" the laity or priests unduly. You might see that gradualism can be a great evil if it is used in the way one kills a frog. Place him in cool water on the stove and then gradually turn up the heat - ever so gradually - that he won't even realize he is being cooked and soon he is dead.

I have the grace of a deep devotion to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament - since childhood. As the rite of the Mass changed from Latin Tradition to the vernacular and the priest turning his back on the Blessed Sacrament and facing the people - making them the center of his focus rather than GOD, I continued to hold onto that deep devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. I noticed that little by little the people at Mass were becoming less reverent.

You are MUCH younger than I and so you do not have the experience of seeing the changes in reverence since the Novus Ordo became the only Mass available to most Catholics. What you see nowadays seems normal to you. It is not normal -- it is full blown irreverence for the Center and Heart of our Faith - Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It is, plainly speaking, a lack of Faith in the Real Presence.

:arrow: You have probably heard the (true) story of a Protestant asking a Catholic if he believed that the Host is really Christ. The Catholic answered, "Catholics all believe this." Then the Protestant said: IF I BELIEVED THAT I WOULD CRAWL ON MY KNEES BEFORE THAT HOST!"

Ioannes, what do you see at Communion time in the Novus Ordo Mass? You see the following (and ask yourself does this show true belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in that Host?):

--Folks line up standing to receive Jesus. The kneelers are GONE - too humbling to kneel before God.

--They reach out their unconsecrated hands to receive the Sacred Host. Can this please God? Priests alone have consecrated hands, but they are now called Presiders, no longer called an alter Christus -another Christ.

--They placeIt clumsily into their mouths, chewing the Sacred Host. Some drop Our Lord to the ground. Some hide Him in their pockets (I have seen this!) Some spit Him out after they get back to their seats (These have been found later in the church after Mass).

--They dress in any manner that is comfortable for a picnic or riding a bike, yet they are coming before Christ Himself in this Blessed Sacrament. This manner of clothing shows outwardly the lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Christ the King. Would ANYONE dress so slovenly if they REALLY believed that they were standing before God Himself in Holy Communion? tight pants and skirts, levis even, tennis shoes, t-shirts, even shorts are seen, short skirts or high-slit skirts,
and on and on with disrespectful clothing exhibiting a lack of Faith in the Real Presence.

--Women with long painted fingernails and unconsecrated hands dare to handle Our Lord's Sacred Body as so-called Extraordinary Ministers. Think about that title, Ioannis. "Ministers?" Did Christ chose women to be his first priests? Bishops? When did this change? With Vatican II and their policies of false ecumenism (no more converting the pagans and heretics - just pray with them and tell them it is okay to be the best Protestants they can be and this will please God.)

--How about during Mass all the talking that goes on?

--How about AFTER Mass. Does anyone remain behind for a Thanksgiving because the Mass they just experienced taught them God is more important than man? No, that Mass has a table and not an altar; that Mass has a meal and not a sacrifice; that Mass has laity in the sanctuary, including women who NEVER belong in the sanctuary - never; that Mass has a Jewish meal prayer in place of what was once a Latin Traditional prayer of sacrifice; that Mass has secular music, rock music even (I know - I am a musician/vocalist), that Mass has taken Our Lady out of the prayers they offer; that Mass could be attended by a Protestant and they would find nothing offensive or against their heretical views (this was publicly revealed by one of the Protestants who helped Cardinal Bugnini write the Novus Ordo Mass!).

No, I didn't see the clowns and the magicians and the almost naked dancing girls prancing around the sanctuary - as they did at John Paul II's and now Benedict's XVI's Masses. I even had very reverent and scholarly priests in our former Novus Ordo parish. But that did not change the Novus Ordo Mass and the laity's irreverence into something beautiful for worshipping God. The Novus Ordo Mass worships man and mankind - not God,Ioannis. This is easy to discover when you read some of the links given to you previously. But most of all, the reverence pre-Vatican II Catholics were taught and experienced and offered to God is GONE in the Novus Ordo churches. This is why my husband I left to find the Traditional Latin Mass - the Most Beautiful Thing This Side of Heaven. A lack of reverence is a lack of Faith. Why did this happen? Because the True Faith is not taught through the Novus Ordo Mass. It is the opposite - faith in man is taught.

I pray you will attend the Tridentine Mass exclusively so you too can receive the great graces that flow from this true, unchanged Mass of all time. I pray you will see more clearly how irreverent and offensive to Our Precious Lord the Novus Ordo Mass is and causes the laity to be. (How can one be reverent when the Mass they are attending is a social hour with laity traipsing up and down the sanctuary steps, invading the Sacred sanctuary where only the Priest and altar servers (MALES) should ever be. Did you know that vocations to the priesthood often came to young men because they were altar boys? And just what are girls doing in the sanctuary?)

:idea: Do please take time to read the fine articles from those links and do ask God, The Holy Spirit, during this Octave of Pentecost, to show you the Truth about the Novus Ordo Mass - just in case you and your good parents are somehow missing it. He will answer your sincere prayer.

God Bless you, Ioannis. :) You are in my prayers, dear.

_________________
Our Immaculate Queen give you every grace and blessing,
Ardith (Abba)


Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:23 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ioannes wrote:

"If I ever get the chance to read the book, then I sure will. Thanks! I have read quite a bit on the inernet about that, though. Still, as long as what is required for validity is present, then it is valid (by definition of course). I think it's still valid."

I think you may have missed my point. My suggestion to read this book (it is very short) was to address why the typical NO catholic needs "a big dose of Catholic education". It is a fact that the prayers of the NO Mass have been "de-Catholicized" and that is why the typical NO Catholic no longer believes what the Church teaches...it has nothing to do with the validity of the NO Mass...the book does not argue for/against validity.


Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:37 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Abba wrote:

Dear Sister in Christ, Ioannes,


Hello as well, but just thought I'd mention that I'm a guy. No offense taken. (Ioannes is Latin for John)

Abba wrote:
Peace and All Good to you, precious soul. How beautiful is your humility as I read your initial question and all the replies you gave to the "crew." How wonderful God has lead you to this forum, where CHARITY is FIRST and the mother of many virtues and KNOWLEDGE is a "tinkling cymbal" without Charity, eh?


I'm sure glad that all of you sure seem very nice, and I appreciate it.

Abba wrote:
You noted you are a student, but I am assuming that is college level?.


I am in high school. I will be in 12th grade next year.

Abba wrote:
You might see that gradualism can be a great evil if it is used in the way one kills a frog. Place him in cool water on the stove and then gradually turn up the heat - ever so gradually - that he won't even realize he is being cooked and soon he is dead.


Okay, I see your point.


Abba wrote:
As the rite of the Mass changed from Latin Tradition to the vernacular and the priest turning his back on the Blessed Sacrament and facing the people - making them the center of his focus rather than GOD, I continued to hold onto that deep devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. I noticed that little by little the people at Mass were becoming less reverent.


I believe that much of the Mass (if not almost all) should still be said in Latin. If you'll recall, Vatican II did not call for the removal of Latin.

Also, Vatican II did not call for the priest to face the people, and I believe that Mass should still be said ad orientem.

If they "were becoming less reverent," then that is truly a shame.

Abba wrote:
You are MUCH younger than I and so you do not have the experience of seeing the changes in reverence since the Novus Ordo became the only Mass available to most Catholics. What you see nowadays seems normal to you. It is not normal -- it is full blown irreverence for the Center and Heart of our Faith - Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It is, plainly speaking, a lack of Faith in the Real Presence.


I assure you that while many might have "a lack of Faith in the Real Presence," I know many who attend the Novus Ordo and have a HUGE "Faith in the Real Presence." Most notably would be a priest whom I know personally. He has recently told me that he really, truly believes that the Blessed Sacrament IS God.

Abba wrote:
You have probably heard the (true) story of a Protestant asking a Catholic if he believed that the Host is really Christ. The Catholic answered, "Catholics all believe this." Then the Protestant said: IF I BELIEVED THAT I WOULD CRAWL ON MY KNEES BEFORE THAT HOST!"


Yes, I have.

Abba wrote:
Ioannes, what do you see at Communion time in the Novus Ordo Mass? You see the following (and ask yourself does this show true belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in that Host?):


First, much of what you say may very well be true for SOME parishes, but not mine, and not many other parishes. As a matter of fact, there are some parishes that have a Novus Ordo Mass that is in Latin, and is ad orientem. If you'd like, I'll post some pictures.

Abba wrote:
--Folks line up standing to receive Jesus.


standing--yes, but we could kneel, and I think it's best to kneel.

Abba wrote:
The kneelers are GONE - too humbling to kneel before God.


My parish most certainly has kneelers, and everyone (who can kneel, of course) most certainly uses them.

Abba wrote:
--They reach out their unconsecrated hands to receive the Sacred Host. Can this please God?


I believe that Holy Communion should be received on the tongue.

Abba wrote:
Priests alone have consecrated hands, but they are now called Presiders, no longer called an alter Christus -another Christ.


That's strange you say that because just recently I was meeting with the above mentioned priest, and he was stressing to me the importance of the priest being an alter Christus.

Abba wrote:
Some drop Our Lord to the ground. Some hide Him in their pockets (I have seen this!) Some spit Him out after they get back to their seats (These have been found later in the church after Mass).


I have never seen it in my parish. (Although I do recall someone accidentally dropping the Host on the ground.)

Abba wrote:
--They dress in any manner that is comfortable for a picnic or riding a bike, yet they are coming before Christ Himself in this Blessed Sacrament. This manner of clothing shows outwardly the lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Christ the King. Would ANYONE dress so slovenly if they REALLY believed that they were standing before God Himself in Holy Communion? tight pants and skirts, levis even, tennis shoes, t-shirts, even shorts are seen, short skirts or high-slit skirts,
and on and on with disrespectful clothing exhibiting a lack of Faith in the Real Presence.


I'll admit; lack of respect is a HUGE problem.

Abba wrote:
--Women with long painted fingernails and unconsecrated hands dare to handle Our Lord's Sacred Body as so-called Extraordinary Ministers. Think about that title, Ioannis. "Ministers?"


I don't think there should be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, except in extraordinary circumstances, as the name implies. Many parishes use them on a regular basis, and yes, that is something that should stop.

Abba wrote:
Did Christ chose women to be his first priests? Bishops? When did this change? With Vatican II and their policies of false ecumenism (no more converting the pagans and heretics - just pray with them and tell them it is okay to be the best Protestants they can be and this will please God.)


I'm not sure that I understand you; there are no women priests and bishops!!


Abba wrote:
--How about during Mass all the talking that goes on?


'tis a shame, but it is rare in my parish.

Abba wrote:
--How about AFTER Mass. Does anyone remain behind for a Thanksgiving because the Mass they just experienced taught them God is more important than man?


Yes.

(I will get to the rest of your post on a later date.)

Abba wrote:
God Bless you, Ioannis. :) You are in my prayers, dear.


Thank you, and you are in mine.


Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:36 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Ioannes,

Might I ask, if you find no fault in the traditional Mass, and even prefer it, why do you think the people you follow chose to change it?


Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:14 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Teresa Ginardi wrote:
Ioannes, if I understand you, you're saying that many people (some you must know) are fully Catholic (have the Faith) and attend the NO.


Yes.

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
What do you think these other NO's believe about other 'religions'? My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they think it doesn't matter what church you attend; we're all going to heaven.


Some I know for sure do not believe that "we're all going to heaven," but some most certainly do believe that almost all go to heaven and that "it doesn't matter what church you attend."

Teresa Ginardi wrote:
You have been fortunate in your parents, but how are the other NO's that you feel are Catholic being catechized?


By their parents and by priests who have held some classes (some of which I went to, and I assure you that they were very good.)


Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:18 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
Ioannes wrote:
By their parents and by priests who have held some classes (some of which I went to, and I assure you that they were very good.)


With respect, Ioannes, you assume that you are in a good position to form that judgement. As another who was raised in the Novus Ordo (born '68 ) I find that very difficult to accept. You won't realise how far apart the two religions are until you get away from the new one and solely practice the old one. And I suspect you won't realise how little Catholic doctrine you presently know, and how tainted it is, until some years have elapsed.

But perhaps you are an exceptional case. What is the source of your doctrinal formation? Particularly, from which books were you taught?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:28 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Brookfield,Wis. --Naples, Fla
New post True Church vs NewChurch
Dear Ioannes,

While it is necessary to proceed as the correspondents here are
saying to you and to all members of the NewChurch, it is also
necessary to also make clear that there are really two doctrines,
(i.e., two churches) of which we are speaking in different ways.

Considered brilliant by many on both sides of the two doctrines
is the Novus Ordo scholar, Dr. Von Hildebrand, r.i.p., yet whom
other scholars, such as Omlor, Fr. Cekada, Fr. Barbara, Fr.
Stepanich, Dr./Fr. Coomaraswamy, could and do argue this:

" There is only one weakness in Dietrich von Hildebrand's outlook
that marred his otherwise clear-sighted vision, and that is his
failure to realize the culpability of the Newpopes for the crisis of
the Church. Like many "conservative" Newchurchers, he had a
blind spot when it came to assessing the Newchurch papacy.

"While he reserved his criticism selectively for the likes of
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) and Avery Dulles, he seemed
totally unaware of the part played by Montini, Wojtyla, and
Ratzinger in the production of the false philosophies of Vatican II,
which were at the root of the apostasy in the modern Church.
In other words, he criticized prelates who accepted the
"New Theology," which he described as a betrayal of the
Depositum Catholicae Fidei, but failed to attribute that
"New Theology" and betrayal of the Roman Catholic Faith
to the Newpopes! " [from Traditio June 9 2006]

It is this very topic of which we write to the Novus Ordo members,
so that the mixture of false doctrine will not confuse them in the
quest to understand and come to believe in the True Doctrine
(Church).

There must be only one truth, and there is, in the Church of
Christ, one immutable, unchanging, eternal truth. It is the
mark of the Church and without that mark it is a false church.

Will you consider this seriously? That the NewChurch does not
have the mark of immutable doctrine?

Marilyn


Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:46 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
Ioannes,

Might I ask, if you find no fault in the traditional Mass, and even prefer it, why do you think the people you follow chose to change it?


By "the people you follow," I assume you mean Pope Paul VI? If so, then I think that he thought that he was doing the right thing.


Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: Are novus ordo followers catholics?
John Lane wrote:
Ioannes wrote:
By their parents and by priests who have held some classes (some of which I went to, and I assure you that they were very good.)


With respect, Ioannes, you assume that you are in a good position to form that judgement. As another who was raised in the Novus Ordo (born '68 ) I find that very difficult to accept. You won't realise how far apart the two religions are until you get away from the new one and solely practice the old one. And I suspect you won't realise how little Catholic doctrine you presently know, and how tainted it is, until some years have elapsed.

But perhaps you are an exceptional case. What is the source of your doctrinal formation? Particularly, from which books were you taught?


Please quiz me. See if what I believe is in line with the Catholic Faith. Go ahead, whatever you may want to ask. I'll be honest.

Also, while I may "know" "little Catholic doctrine," I don't knowingly believe anything that goes against Church teaching. I don't pick and choose; I want to believe whatever the Catholic Church teaches. If I unkowingly believe anything unorthodox, I am more than willing to conform my beliefs to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Almost all books that I read are books from pre-Vatican II. Copyrights usually range from about 1890s-1950s.

Here are some of my favorites, but I also have others from http://www.booksforcatholics.com/:

This Is the Faith
The Catechism Explained
The Twelve Steps to Holiness and Salvation
Sermons of Saint Alphonsus
The Glories of Divine Grace
The Incredible Catholic Mass


Last edited by Ioannes on Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:15 am
Posts: 7
New post 
I think it is very good that Ioannes is asking these questions. Not only for his soul but others who are reading these posts. Not to many seniors in high school are searching for the truth and that in itself is edifying. Not to change the core subject, but is being called an "ultra-traditionalist" supposed to be a slam? Isn't being an "ultra-traditionalist" a compliment?

_________________
http://www.augustineproductions.org


Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post Re: True Church vs NewChurch
Gratias wrote:
There must be only one truth, and there is, in the Church of
Christ, one immutable, unchanging, eternal truth. It is the
mark of the Church and without that mark it is a false church.


I agree.

Gratias wrote:
Will you consider this seriously? That the NewChurch does not
have the mark of immutable doctrine?


As far as I know (which isn't very far), The post-conciliar popes haven't declared something infallible that is false. If they had/did, then I would conclude that the ones who did so aren't real popes. I believe that the "NewChurch" teaches the same truth as the pre-Vatican II Church, and that the "NewChurch" is the same Church as the pre-Vatican II Church. Even so, I'll admit that many teachings are given ambiguously these days, which makes it harder to discern the truth. The problem is just interpreting the ambiguous teachings in the correct way. Just because the True Church has "immutable doctrine," doesn't prevent even some of the highest members of the hierarchy from believing false teachings.


Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post 
Ioannes wrote:
By "the people you follow," I assume you mean Pope Paul VI? If so, then I think that he thought that he was doing the right thing.


(Hope you don't think everbody is piling on just because we're asking a lot of questions. :) )

So, I hope you've read some of the references pointed out about the watering down (and maybe even denial) of the faith occasioned by the switch to the new prayers. So, what do you think? Do you think Paul VI did the right thing?


Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
(Hope you don't think everbody is piling on just because we're asking a lot of questions. :) )


Oh, no. Of course not. :)

Geoff Tribbe wrote:
So, I hope you've read some of the references pointed out about the watering down (and maybe even denial) of the faith occasioned by the switch to the new prayers. So, what do you think? Do you think Paul VI did the right thing?


I'm reluctant to say whether or not I "think Paul VI did the right thing" because, frankly, I do not know. Maybe the "watering down...of the faith" would have gotten worse if he hadn't done something. That said, I think that either the Tridentine needs to replace the Novus Ordo(which, I think, is extremely unlikely) or the Novus Ordo needs a huge reform (i.e., reform the Novus Ordo to such an extent that it resembles the Tridentine much more closely and would practically be the same as the Tridentine with a few changes). Then again, that's just my opinion (and it may very well be totally wrong).


Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Joannes,

Greetings from another Joannes.

I'd just like to chip in here a reminder that Paul VI famously admitted that during his pontificate (??) the Church was in a state of self-destruction. The Italian word used was "autodemolizione" which you don't need to consult a dictionary for.

Now if you think about it, you will notice that the Church doesn't just go round doing things on her own. Her acts are the acts of those who govern her. The Church teaches because the pope teaches. The Church inspires because the pope inspires. The Church governs because the pope governs.

So who is responsible when the Church engages in self-destruction?

Oh and since I'm here, and you're such an obliging young man, may I just add one more question? Do you firmly believe that the Mystical Body of Christ, the unique society established by God wherein men may render Him due homage and save their souls, is one and the same as, and precisely co-terminous with, the Roman Catholic Church? I ask the question because I believe it is one obvious point on which the Conciliar Church no longer even claims to teach traditional doctrine.

John Daly


Fri Jun 09, 2006 5:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Do you firmly believe that the Mystical Body of Christ, the unique society established by God wherein men may render Him due homage and save their souls, is one and the same as, and precisely co-terminous with, the Roman Catholic Church? I ask the question because I believe it is one obvious point on which the Conciliar Church no longer even claims to teach traditional doctrine.


Before I answer, let me ask you a question. Do you really mean "Roman Catholic Church" or just "Catholic Church." If you meant what you said then I think that the answer would be "no." (But please, if the Catholic Church teaches that the answer should be "yes," then count me as a "yes.") Now, if you meant "Catholic Church" (i.e., without "Roman"), then I think the answer should be "yes." Is this the orthodox belief? I assume it is because Eastern Catholics aren't Roman Catholics, right?


Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:25 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Joannes,

Eastern rite Catholics most certainly are Roman Catholics and very proud of it. The title "Roman Catholic" has no special authority except that it is used in countries with a Protestant majority to indicate clearly those who recognise the successor of St Peter as their proximate rule of faith.

I am asking whether you agree that the Mystical Body of Christ is co-terminous with the religious communion defined by habitual submission to the successor of St Peter, the Bishop of Rome. We Catholics usually call this body "the Catholic Church" but "Roman" is sometimes added to preclude the error of those who think that the schismatic "orthodox" or some Episcopalians have the right to call themselves Catholics.

Back to you, but don't expect a prompt reply from me as it's late here in France.

BTW I'd have said much the same things you're saying when I was your age. That's why I'm hoping you'll derive benefit from this forum...

God bless.

John


Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:07 am
Posts: 32
Location: Spokane WA.
New post 
Ioannes wrote:
No, I don't know any specific [new order] school that would [give a Catholic education], but I'd bet that there are some.

Don’t bet too much. The only way to get a truly Catholic education is to exclusively use pre v2 catechisms, and what new order schools do that.

Quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

CCC, #841, contains two separate heresies; first, by asserting that Muslims acknowledge the Creator’ it denies that Jesus is God, (remember that Muslims boldly deny the Trinity). Article 2 of the Koran states: "He who believes in the Trinity is impure just like excrement and urine.

Quote:
Catechism of the council of Trent p. 22 "In the one substance of the Divinity the Father is the first Person, who with His Only-begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost, is one God and one Lord, not in the singularity of one person but in the Trinity of one Substance."


Quote:
"Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." (1st. John 2:22, 23)

Secondly, by asserting that Muslims adore the God who will judge mankind on the last day, it is denying that Jesus will be mankind’s Judge on the last day.

Quote:
Trent p. 80 "...On the last day Christ the Lord will judge the whole human race."


Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:55 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:07 am
Posts: 32
Location: Spokane WA.
New post 
Colin Fry wrote:
If someone can give a simple answer I'd appreciate it because a friend(who is Novus Ordo) has asked me: If a person is invincibly ignorant of the problems with Novus Ordo etc. and accept what they have been given because they believe in the infallibility of the Pope etc. and that the Church can't go wrong, and defend this(without knowingly embracing heresy), are they still considered Catholic, through their ignorance? Yes or no? Thanks.

It is possible but no one can say as to any particular individual case.

Quote:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error.


Although ignorance of ones obligation to be a Catholic precludes one from the guilt of sin, nevertheless, it must be stressed that such ignorance only excuses if the ignorance of the Catholic faith is due to circumstances beyond their control. God will not excuse such ignorance if it exists because they failed to seek the truth. If an individual is ignorant of the Catholic faith because they have failed to seek the truth not only do they commit a mortal sin against faith but they are also culpable for the guilt of sin for any heresy which they hold.

Quote:
Baltimore Catechism No.3 Q. 1164 How does a person sin against faith? A. “A person sins against faith: 1st. By not trying to know what God has taught; …”
No.3 Q. 1166 “…God will not excuse our ignorance if we neglect to learn our religion…”


Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
A quick gloss on Crusader's very good reply, if I may...

Quite true that it is only morally innocent ignorance that excuses from sin those who err in the faith without full realisation of their error.

But I think it should be added that there is a degree of negligence that is in God's eyes a sin but does not yet reach the level of pertinacity necessary to incur automatic excommunication.

JD


Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:24 am
Posts: 24
Location: Victoria, Australia
New post 
Ioanass

My dear brother in Christ

I know what you are going through. For I to started searching for the truth in High School. Luckily I escaped the Novus Ordo in which I was brought up in and discovered the true Church.

I would like to remind you of the words of Pope Leo XIII
His Holliness Pope Leo XIII wrote:
If the Church ever had one inconsistency in her magisterium then that is enough evidence that she is not the Church of Christ


My friend, Mr. Daly asked you about the nature of the Church before because this is one of the most bold and glaring errors in Vatican II.

Lumen Gentium of Vatican II wrote:
The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church


However in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII teaches that the Catholic Church is one and the same as the Church of Christ.

The subsists in of Vatican II was expanded to its full heretical nature in Ut Unum Sint by John Paul II when he said our seperated brethren, though wounded because of their seperation from the Holy See, are part of the Church of Christ . The Catholic Church teaches that the Church of Christ is one and the same, identical, as the Church of Rome.
The Church of Vatican II teaches that the Church of Christ is wider then the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium) and that it also incorporates false sects (Ut Unum Sint).
Please remember that the Authority of Christ cannever officialy teach error to her children, officialy includes Councils, Encyclicals and Catechisms.

One may be content if the New Ecclesiology (what I have just enunciated above) was the only error of Vatican II. It is not.

Vatican II teaches religious liberty, and before you get that shocked "you deny religious liberty! How un civilized" shock that I got when I first read traditionalist articles ask yourself why you get that sudden shock of surprise. For me it was not because I had any great arguments against it, just that since our birth we have been weened on democracy and had a tacit acceptance of liberty. The rights of god above those of man.

Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II wrote:
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."


compare this with the following from Quanta Cura

Quanta Cura wrote:
"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church."



Now yes the New Mass may be valid, but so is the orthodox Mass. The New Mass ommits reference to the merits of the saints, hell, sin, wrath of god and more. I to was like you, I tried for "conservativism". I looked into Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ. But these are nothing more then High Church Anglicanism! Its heresy with a facade of reverence and a few cassocks!
If you want to learn more about the errors of Vatican II then go to http://www.traditionalmass.org and send out for a free information pack, its great!
Also the Administer of this forum, Mr. Lane has some great articles. You can read them at http://www.strobertbellarmine.net
I will be praying for you, keep to your rosary my friend, its a weapon of mass conversion.

_________________
In Christ Our Lord
Dylan


Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:05 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:24 am
Posts: 15
Location: MidWest Ozark Region
New post 
Since there are no secrets to God, I would think that those of Good Will, but ignorantly are of the novus ordo church, will accept the graces to withdraw from that den of inequity before they lisp their last.

Some notes I took years ago when asking the same question...

Quote:
"He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St John viii 47)

"That whatever is done in ignorance must not be considered a sin is hereby condemned as error" (Pope Innocent II; errors of Peter *can't read my own writing here* no 10 Testante Apostolo DNZ 377 & 78)

"If ignorance is not a sin then Saul did not sin when he persecuted the Church, because he surely did this in ignorance, therefore he shouldn't have said "I obtained the mercy of God"( 1 Tim i 13) but rather "I received by reward" (St Bernard)

"Christ enlightens everyone who comes into the world, why so many unlightened? How then does Christ Enlighten every man? Grace is poured out over everyone. It is easily attainable by all. Hwever, if some people willfully shutting hte eyes of their mind do not wish to receive the light then their darkness arises from their own wickedness in cutting themselves off from grace whoever does not wish to enjoy these gifts may blame himself for his blindness" (St J Chrysostom)

"For their own Malice blinded them" (Wisdom ii 21)

"Those who keep their eyes shut cannot see. God made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it. Refusal to hear truth leads to sin, and that sin itself is punishment for the preceding sin. A sinner is inexcusable whether he knows it or not. For ignorance itself in those who don't want to know is without a doubt a sin and in those unable to know is the penalty of sin. In neither case then is there a just excuse - but in both a just condemnation." (St Augustine Epistle to Sivtus)

"If you are ignorant of the truths of the Faith you are obliged to learn them. A Christian is bound to learn the words to the Creed, Pater, and Ave under pain of mortal sin.
Many have no idea of the Most Holy Trinity. The Incarnation, mortal sin, judgement, pradise, hell or eternity and this deplorable ignorance damns them." (St Alphonsus Liguori)

"No one is lost without knowing it, and no one is deceived without wanting to be."
(Teresa Avila)

"Inumerable souls are miserably lost through ignorance of religion"
(St Francis Cabrini)

"But if any man know not, he shall not be known"(1 cor xiv 38)

*Pope St Pius X*
"Reflect on the ruin of souls wrought by this single cause: ignorance of truths which must be known by all men alike in order they may attain eternal salvation. This we solemnly affirm the majority of those condemned to eternal punishment fall into everlasting misfortune through ignorance of the mysteries of the faith which must necessarily by known and believed by all who belong to the Elect."



_________________
L.Francis


Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ioannes,

You wrote the following:

Quote:
Also, while I may "know" "little Catholic doctrine," I don't knowingly believe anything that goes against Church teaching. I don't pick and choose; I want to believe whatever the Catholic Church teaches. If I unkowingly believe anything unorthodox, I am more than willing to conform my beliefs to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Almost all books that I read are books from pre-Vatican II. Copyrights usually range from about 1890s-1950s.


It sounds to me like you really do "want to believe whatever the Church teaches". I would like to know your reasoning for limiting your reading to those materials that are “almost all pre-Vatican II"?

RB


Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:59 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 28
Location: Brookfield,Wis. --Naples, Fla
New post 
Dear Ioannes,

The "smattering" of modernized changes was being sprinkled into books long before the 1950's, Pope St. Pius X would tell us. Pope Pius XII would remind us of the level of theological and religious training in this country in 1939 "was abominable." This had to do with books at every level, from kindergarten to dissertations at Catholic University!

You say you are careful about learning the Faith, and that you will believe it when you find the truth. This is admirable, and what you need to guard in order to acquire your prize. Let me show you a group of people I still remember. They were not careful and did not watch out for "ease" in liturgical and doctrinal matters, or for "softness" in teaching. They were poorly catechized, and rather than looking to the doctrinal teachings of the Church, trusted others for their sources. They were not poor Catholics to watch, but visibly dutiful, if argumentative without facts, nevertheless they did not "guard" their treasure, and here was the result:

(Many people here, (elderly ones) could write this scenario:)

Maybe few of us noticed what was being written, or how soft religion was before 1950, but gradual changes were openly beginning in 1958, "Well, we don't do that in MY parish," or "We are now doing this," or "Our priest does that," (referring to the Liturgy of the Mass) and this was was a visible sign of future fracturing between Catholic friends and families. Monthly I heard this conversation at card club, and because we were still meeting like this, the dating of the liturgical changing was memorable. This continual libertine liturgy did not begin with the Council. It was in full force parish-to-parish by 1959. Perhaps we have forgotten. I only remember because of this, and the women were now discussing what was going on in "their" parishes, none of them the same. It was alarming. It was not yet 1962 but we abandoned the group during 1962, after several years of listening to the liturgical changes being noted. And perhaps because of that. The Council came in October, 1962.

Every Catholic at that table was in favor of the changes for one reason or another, none of them very well catechized. "What's a few changes," or "Don't be so rigid," or some other such thing. This takes bad will, bad will they did not recognize. They wouldn't have known an insignificant administrative change (meat on Fridays) from a doctrinal one, ("for many"). One got her "liberal Jesuit catechical conversion" by way of marriage, two were Catholic nurse graduates of private Catholic nursing schools. One attended Catholic girls' school, famous for its Sisters of Charity, not for its deep theological program, such as the academy nuns were where I attended, yet that eventually made little difference to the vast numbers of Catholic girls whom I knew there. Two of the husbands were educated by monks at boys prep schools. Marquette and Don Bosco. All the husbands were Marquette graduates, some with post graduate degrees. Marquette at the time (it was 1953) was soft on theological instruction, limiting its program to "general instruction" for those who did not attend Catholic parochial or secondary schools. Those who had were matriculated into its third-year theology, but still nothing was mentioned of scholarly learning of the doctrine, or of encyclicals, or of superior theological matters, i.e., the raison d'etre to which we give our Catholic fealty.

They had a smattering of ignorance, incomplete catechism, but their positive flaw was that they embraced and WANTED CHANGES!!

Over the years I watched them. They are now Novus Ordo, but I'm not so sure that they are comforted by this. Their children have wandered into indifferentism, Protestantism, paganism, immorality, and drugs. They, themselves, still revel in the "all are saved" mantra, but it sounds hollow, and cremation of parents and spouses has become accepted by them all, along with the divorces and remarrying of their own children, children all with much less learning than ever their parents had. It was predictable. Can we still say they wanted to remain Catholic? That they now do "not know sin?" That their consciences are gone? Are we not seeing really seeing self-willed blindness? Whatever name we give it, it is certainly an occasion of sin to associate with it. And if it is an occasion of sin, then it cannot be good for salvation.

Looking back, how much did it take for the Catholic world to forget? To forget to want to be careful about what they read or learn? They did not guard their treasure, their Faith. It would be difficult to believe that they cannot remember even the little that they were taught, or that they do not notice that it is not only the secular world that is devoid of morality and faith. Yet they were raised simply and in spite of the education received, it still takes the will to abandon God's grace. It also takes will to hold. What do we say to these sweet, innocent, ignorant, and --what? --Catholics?

Marilyn (Gratias)


Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:17 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 2:32 am
Posts: 6
New post 
This can be viewed the same as we view protestants.
1) there is no salvation outside the "catholic" faith
therefore I must be a "catholic"tobe saved.
2) the modern church is "not"Catholic and therefore it is outside the church.(true Catholic Church)
therefore modern Catholics are outside the True Church.
3)We cannot participate for fear of loss of our souls
4) but it is up to the mercy of almightyGOD as to who is saved. Such as an example as revealed in "the Glories of Mary" by St. Alphonsus de Liguori. where this holy Saint reveals the mecy of God by telling about a protestant man who was saved only because he constantly passed a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary on his daily routine and always showed it respect as to who it represented. The hand of Our Lady intervened. this shows that we must always do what is right, but it is by the mercy of God that anyone can be saved. also another example of how the devotion to Our lady is important.


Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:45 am
Profile

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:47 am
Posts: 13
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I would like to know your reasoning for limiting your reading to those materials that are “almost all pre-Vatican II"?
RB


A lot of pre-Vatican II books are written in a "clear-cut" kind of way, which is the style I like. Some post-VII books are ambiguous.


Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Ioannes wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:
I would like to know your reasoning for limiting your reading to those materials that are “almost all pre-Vatican II"?
RB


A lot of pre-Vatican II books are written in a "clear-cut" kind of way, which is the style I like. Some post-VII books are ambiguous.


I would agree that most orthodox pre-Vatican II books are written in a "clear" way while post-Vatican II books are often confusing and ambiguous, lending to themselves many different interpretations...in some cases these interpretations are in direct conflict.

I do reject however, your assertion that it is a difference in "style"...writing in a “clear style” verses an “ambiguous style”. The clear writing properly conveys the writer’s ideas and therefore what is written may be challenged...the ambiguous writing is difficult to challenge because it is unclear as to what is being said. Ambiguity is not truth. It also appears that many previously censured writers were given free reign after Vatican II to spread their errors.


Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:07 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.