Question:
The New Order (Novus Ordo): Give thanks to God, the Father Almighty, and to Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, and to the Holy Spirit, for having begun His reign. "The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of Our Lord and His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever." (Apocalypse 11:15) What happened in the 1960’s?: God the Holy Spirit inspired Pope John XXIII to call a Council, which he did, known as Vatican II. Pope Paul VI, his successor, completed the Council and promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae as the New Mass, unilaterally, as the Pope, without asking for, receiving, or requiring, the approval of any of the bishops in the world. Who had a hand in the designing of the Novus Ordo?: God the Holy Spirit is the principal architect of the Novus Ordo. The actual details were worked out so as to appeal to everyone who was interested, Catholics, Protestants, even Freemasons. Who were the Freemasons?: "And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have not received a kingdom as yet, but they will receive authority as kings for one hour with the beast. These have one purpose, and their power and authority they give to the beast. These will fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is the Lord of lords, and the King of kings, and they who are with him, called, and chosen, and faithful. …The waters that thou sawest where the harlot sits, are peoples and nations and tongues. And the ten horns that thou sawest, and the beast, these will hate the harlot, and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh, and will burn her up in fire. FOR GOD HAS PUT IT INTO THEIR HEARTS TO CARRY OUT HIS PURPOSE, TO GIVE THEIR KINGDOM TO THE BEAST, UNTIL THE WORDS OF GOD ARE ACCOMPLISHED." (Apocalypse 17:12-17) The Freemasons were written about in the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Freemasonry. Their aim was to destroy the Catholic Church. They think that by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo they have succeeded. In their arrogance, they think they have forced the Pope (Paul VI and all his successors) to betray Catholicism. The Novus Ordo represents to them their handiwork, their final destruction of Catholicism. They are saying, "Peace and Safety", and sudden destruction is come upon them. (1 Thessalonians 5:3) What about the traditionalists?: The traditionalists are a group of Catholics who believe the Mass of Saint Pius V is the True Mass. They are correct in this belief. As long as they are not sedevacantists, they are faithful Catholics. What are sedevacantists?: Sedevacantists believe the See is vacant. They do not accept Pope John Paul II as the real Pope. This wrong thinking of theirs, cuts them off from the Catholic Church. If they persist in their error, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea that the Pope the whole world recognizes as the Pope, is not the true Pope, constitutes secret knowledge. The Catholic Faith is not based on any secret knowledge, but on Public Revelation. How come the Pope has the authority to change the very words of Christ?: The rejection of Novus Ordo by faithful traditionalist Catholics is based on two things: 1) The idea that God’s Gift of Infallibility does not pertain to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo by Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. To them, the Novus Ordo appears heretical, principally because, 2) The words of consecration of the Precious Blood of Christ were changed from "…for many…" to "…for all…". The Principle of Papal Obedience is clearly given by Saint Augustine in "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished." Saint Augustine clearly perceived that once the Pope ruled on an issue, he (Saint Augustine) had only one course of action available to him: conform his own personal opinion to match up with the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Pope. Saint Paul tells us, the letter of the law kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). Clearly, Our Lord died for all, and the traditionalists agree with this. The "all" in the New Mass means, "all" the elect – all persons of good will. The Pope has the authority to change the letter of the law, and Pope Paul VI exercised that authority. Enough, then, of second-guessing the Holy Spirit in the Chair of Peter! Rome has spoken, the cause is finished. Now the division will occur. The requirement for remaining faithful to Catholicism is, was, and ever shall be, obedience to the Chair of Peter. This is the test for the traditionalist. Those who pass the test, will recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and stop trying to cause the little ones (like me) to stumble. The little ones are your younger brethren in Christ, faithful Catholics who have been raised in the New Order. The rest of the Catholic world, those who can still remember pre-Vatican II days, have already accepted the Novus Ordo as valid. For the traditionalist, to whom the absolute purity of faith is dear, the following two statements previously made by me, stand: 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship. 2) The True Mass holds a special place as the center of Catholic devotion. Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me, not anyone! This is my thesis, as promised. It is being submitted by me to the Apostolic Nuncio of the Vatican, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, as an act of obedience by me to the Holy Father. No prophecy of Scripture is made by any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).
Response:
The New Order (Novus Ordo): How come the Pope has the authority to change the very words of Christ?:
No Pope has the right to change the words of Christ The Council of Florence, 1442 declares: "Wherefore the words of Consecration ,which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: ‘For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." . "De Defectibus" says: "If anyone removes or changes anything in the form of Consecration ofthe Body and Blood, and by this change of words, does not signify the same thing as thes words so, he does not confect the Sacrament." St. Pope Pius X, in ‘Ex Quo, Nono’ says: "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments." Pope Pius XII, in ‘Sacrementum Ordinis’ says: "As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the new law all have been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments." The Principle of Papal Obedience is clearly given by Saint Augustine in
"Take note tht if there were a danger to the Faith, subordinates would be bound to reprove theire prelates, even publicly." "One must resist the Pope who openly destroys the Church"- St. Cajetan "It is necessarty to obey a Pope in all things as long as hedoes not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed." Pope Innocent III 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship.
Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass. ‘Qui Primum’ clearly states "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us." Further, it states: "This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law….And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almight God , andthe Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Response:
As long as you are not a sedevacantist, you remain in the Catholic Church. Your quarell is not with me but with the Pope, since I am obedient to him. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The New Order (Novus Ordo): How come the Pope has the authority to change the very words of Christ?: No Pope has the right to change the words of Christ The Council of Florence, 1442 declares: "Wherefore the words of Consecration ,which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: ‘For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." . "De Defectibus" says: "If anyone removes or changes anything in the form of Consecration ofthe Body and Blood, and by this change of words, does not signify the same thing as thes words so, he does not confect the Sacrament." St. Pope Pius X, in ‘Ex Quo, Nono’ says: "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments." Pope Pius XII, in ‘Sacrementum Ordinis’ says: "As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the new law all have been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments." The Principle of Papal Obedience is clearly given by Saint Augustine in "Take note tht if there were a danger to the Faith, subordinates would be bound to reprove theire prelates, even publicly." "One must resist the Pope who openly destroys the Church"- St. Cajetan "It is necessarty to obey a Pope in all things as long as hedoes not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed." Pope Innocent III 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship. Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass. ‘Qui Primum’ clearly states "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us." Further, it states: "This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law….And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almight God , andthe Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
Response:
As long as you are not a sedevacantist, you remain in the Catholic Church. Your quarell is not with me but with the Pope, since I am obedient to him.
How can you follow someone who promotes error?
Response:
Who had a hand in the designing of the Novus Ordo?: God the Holy Spirit is the principal architect of the Novus Ordo. The actual details were worked out so as to appeal to everyone who was interested, Catholics, Protestants, even Freemasons.
That’s to say the enemies of The Church were given, by God, something pleasing to them, even if it didn’t please Catholics. If you’d think about it you’d see not the hand of God in that, but that of the devil. Who were the Freemasons?: "And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have not received a kingdom as yet, but they will receive authority as kings for one hour with the beast. These have one purpose, and their power and authority they give to the beast. These will fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is the Lord of lords, and the King of kings, and they who are with him, called, and chosen, and faithful. …The waters that thou sawest where the harlot sits, are peoples and nations and tongues.
And so on. You don’t know that refers to masonry. The only likely thing is that something in John’s Apocalypse refers to the present heresy in the institutional church. But I don’t know what those symbols are, myself. The Freemasons were written about in the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Freemasonry.
They were condemned by far more than just one encyclical. Trust me. Their aim was to destroy the Catholic Church. They think that by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo they have succeeded. In their arrogance, they think they have forced the Pope (Paul VI and all his successors) to betray Catholicism. The Novus Ordo represents to them their handiwork, their final destruction of Catholicism. They are saying, "Peace and Safety", and sudden destruction is come upon them. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)
You may be right, but I think the ‘peace and safety’ is talking about world ‘peace’, right before someone like the Chicom or Soviet decide it’s time to try ‘re-inventing’ socialism. What about the traditionalists?: The traditionalists are a group of Catholics who believe the Mass of Saint Pius V is the True Mass. They are correct in this belief. As long as they are not sedevacantists, they are faithful Catholics.
Traditionalist, rather, are simply Catholics. Traditionalists are the Catholics described in the book, cited below in the sig. Traditionalists are Aquinas, and Pius V, and Borromeo, St. Francis, John Vianney, and so on. What are sedevacantists?: Sedevacantists believe the See is vacant. They do not accept Pope John Paul II as the real Pope. This wrong thinking of theirs, cuts them off from the Catholic Church. If they persist in their error, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea that the Pope the whole world recognizes as the Pope, is not the true Pope, constitutes secret knowledge. The Catholic Faith is not based on any secret knowledge, but on Public Revelation.
The ’secret knowledge’ refers to ‘hidden revelation’, not to whether or not the papacy is held by an imposter. That’s not secret, it’s merely debatable. I don’t think the case has been made. It centers around whether a Pope can be a heretic in his private opinion, or if he jeopardizes his position only by an act of formal heresy. One of the great fears of those who defend JP II and Paul VI is that if they were false Popes, and as they’ve held the papacy together for 40 years (a Biblical sort of number, btw), if there is a _real_ Pope unrecognized out there somewhere, could he still be alive? would Apostolic succession, itself, be placed in jeopardy – and so this sort would never even consider the possibility of false Popes, out of anxiety and fear, and a mistrust of God. But the sede, on the other hand, has to confess unholy Popes in the past. He has to confess that not all Popes have been orthodox in their private opinion or actions. And he has to somehow find the argument that the heresies expressed in private audiences were not the fault of translation, and the same for public speeches, and that if heresies they were, that these are sufficient to say that the Pope – isn’t Catholic. It’s a leap between pointing out JP II’s suggestions of heresy, such as at Assisi, or his refusal to offer The Holy Mass, and concluding that, therefore, he is simply not the Pope. How come the Pope has the authority to change the very words of Christ?:
He doesn’t, not unless you adopt the Prot canard that says Catholics think the Pope is God. You’re just misinformed on this – sad to say. The rejection of Novus Ordo by faithful traditionalist Catholics is based on two things: 1) The idea that God’s Gift of Infallibility does not pertain to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo by Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. To them, the Novus Ordo appears heretical, principally because, 2) The words of consecration of the Precious Blood of Christ were changed from "…for many…" to "…for all…".
Well, that’s where it goes from valid but illicit, to invalid and illicit, clearly. It puts words in Our Lord’s mouth, and has Him say something heretical. And if the intention is stated there, of universal salvation (a heresy), then does that intention also infect the consecration of the host, suggesting the intention there as well, and rendering that part of the consecration equally invalid? It may well be that this is how it will be judged by future council, God willing – but I’m not saying I know. The Principle of Papal Obedience is clearly given by Saint Augustine in "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished." Saint Augustine clearly perceived that once the Pope ruled on an issue,
But ‘new order’ isn’t a point of doctrine. And if the issue is concluded, hence and forever, once a council and/or Pope decree a liturgy, then we are bound by The Mass standardized by Trent. For the Pope has ruled. And Catholics will not disobey. the elect – all persons of good will. The Pope has the authority to change the letter of the law, and Pope Paul VI exercised that authority.
But when people call the Pope, My Lord, out of respect – they don’t mean to say, My God. I hope you understand the difference, there. Enough, then, of second-guessing the Holy Spirit in the Chair of Peter!
‘New order’ is clearly not the work of God, The Holy Spirit. It is an unholy substitute liturgy, from the ‘workshop’ of disaffected Prots, masons and librals, at odds with the very documents of Vatican II, and designed to water down the Faith, and rob Catholics of The Eucharist, in hopes that ecumenism might succeed. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished. Now the division will occur.
The division already ‘occured’. It was made to occur. There were people who acted as . . ‘occurers’. Now Catholics must defend the Faith against these heretics, against the attempt to divide the household. There is only One Church, and it is not characterized by universal salvation, feminism, ecumenism, the ’spirit of’ or George or George (if I may say). requirement for remaining faithful to Catholicism is, was, and ever shall be, obedience to the Chair of Peter.
Then why disobey Pius V? How was he suddenly not Pope? You still don’t understand. There ARE no ‘dead Magisteriums’. Once a Magisterium, one could say, always so. The libral doesn’t like to think about that. But it’s expected. This is the test for the traditionalist. Those who pass the test, will recognize the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo and stop trying to cause the little ones (like me) to stumble.
That’s what happens because of ‘new order’. Those who would warn you back to Catholicism hope you don’t fall for false teaching that sounds good to the ear. The little ones are your younger brethren in Christ, faithful Catholics who have been raised in the New Order.
You just don’t know. If it weren’t for the young families of the traditionalist movement, I doubt it would be growing as it is. The rest of the Catholic world, those who can still remember pre-Vatican II days, have already accepted the Novus Ordo as valid.
So did many Catholics in England, so much so that people have wondered how Protestantism was so easily imposed on that nation. ‘Just following orders’? You still don’t understand. That’s not what Catholics do. Catholics judge what they are told by the standard of – what Catholics believe. It’s only what Catholics have always believed. For the traditionalist, to whom the absolute purity of faith is dear, the following two statements previously made by me, stand: 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship.
Prot worship, perhaps. 2) The True Mass holds a special place as the center of Catholic devotion.
But not so, ‘new order’. There’s a difference. Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me, not anyone!
Know what Catholics believe. Just read this stuff. It’s on-line. Roman Catechism, the one with all the kudos I quoted to someone else (who was having none of it). Encyclicals, council documents, writings of fathers and Saints. LET THIS BE YOUR GUIDE, not some nutty private revelation. Just a little free advice. Peace. * When one finds nothing more to say to God, * but just knows He is there — * that, in itself, is the best of prayers. [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Response:
. It centers around whether a Pope can be a heretic in his private opinion, or if he jeopardizes his position only by an act of formal heresy. St. Alphonsus writes: "If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into
heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate."
Response:
I’ve never seen any other Doctor or Father say such, and this is the first I’ve heard of it from St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. Do you know of any other? And what book/essay are you quoting from?
It from his "Oeuvres Completes" Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states "Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notorious and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to accepted opinion, lose his office ispo facto."
Response:
‘New order’ is clearly not the work of God, The Holy Spirit. It is an unholy substitute liturgy, from the ‘workshop’ of disaffected Prots, masons and librals, at odds with the very documents of Vatican II, and designed to water down the Faith, and rob Catholics of The Eucharist, in hopes that ecumenism might succeed.
Could you please elaborate on this? I have seen this position referred to several times, but I have yet to see a detailed explanation of it.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Traditionalist, rather, are simply Catholics. Traditionalists are the Catholics described in the book, cited below in the sig. Traditionalists are Aquinas, and Pius V, and Borromeo, St. Francis, John Vianney, and so on. What are sedevacantists?: Sedevacantists believe the See is vacant. They do not accept Pope John Paul II as the real Pope. This wrong thinking of theirs, cuts them off from the Catholic Church. If they persist in their error, they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The idea that the Pope the whole world recognizes as the Pope, is not the true Pope, constitutes secret knowledge. The Catholic Faith is not based on any secret knowledge, but on Public Revelation. The ’secret knowledge’ refers to ‘hidden revelation’, not to whether or not the papacy is held by an imposter. That’s not secret, it’s merely debatable. I don’t think the case has been made. It centers around whether a Pope can be a heretic in his private opinion, or if he jeopardizes his position only by an act of formal heresy. One of the great fears of those who defend JP II and Paul VI is that if they were false Popes, and as they’ve held the papacy together for 40 years (a Biblical sort of number, btw), if there is a _real_ Pope unrecognized out there somewhere, could he still be alive? would Apostolic succession, itself, be placed in jeopardy – and so this sort would never even consider the possibility of false Popes, out of anxiety and fear, and a mistrust of God. But the sede, on the other hand, has to confess unholy Popes in the past. He has to confess that not all Popes have been orthodox in their private opinion or actions. And he has to somehow find the argument that the heresies expressed in private audiences were not the fault of translation, and the same for public speeches, and that if heresies they were, that these are sufficient to say that the Pope – isn’t Catholic. It’s a leap between pointing out JP II’s suggestions of heresy, such as at Assisi, or his refusal to offer The Holy Mass, and concluding that, therefore, he is simply not the Pope.
It’s never been clear to me what is the best answer to error or change in Papal words or decisions outside those _ex cathedra_. Do you say that if the Pope makes human errors in areas not bound in infallibility, those also can contribute to a declaration of vacancy in the See by some who claim any error denotes an invalid Papacy? Also, why was this all being cross-posted to alt.bible.prophecy? [I've cancelled that in this reply.] Michael Ward http://www.hidden-knowledge.com/magnificat for information on Chelsea Quinn Yarbro’s new digital book "Magnificat". Read the first three chapters on-line, free, in HTML and PDF. "What if the Pope -weren’t- Catholic? What if she never -had- been?"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The ’secret knowledge’ refers to ‘hidden revelation’, not to whether or not the papacy is held by an imposter. That’s not secret, it’s merely debatable. I don’t think the case has been made. It centers around whether a Pope can be a heretic in his private opinion, or if he jeopardizes his position only by an act of formal heresy. One of the great fears of those who defend JP II and Paul VI is that if they were false Popes, and as they’ve held the papacy together for 40 years (a Biblical sort of number, btw), if there is a _real_ Pope unrecognized out there somewhere, could he still be alive? would Apostolic succession, itself, be placed in jeopardy – and so this sort would never even consider the possibility of false Popes, out of anxiety and fear, and a mistrust of God. But the sede, on the other hand, has to confess unholy Popes in the past. He has to confess that not all Popes have been orthodox in their private opinion or actions. And he has to somehow find the argument that the heresies expressed in private audiences were not the fault of translation, and the same for public speeches, and that if heresies they were, that these are sufficient to say that the Pope – isn’t Catholic. It’s a leap between pointing out JP II’s suggestions of heresy, such as at Assisi, or his refusal to offer The Holy Mass, and concluding that, therefore, he is simply not the Pope. It’s never been clear to me what is the best answer to error or change in Papal words or decisions outside those _ex cathedra_. Do you say that if the Pope makes human errors in areas not bound in infallibility, those also can contribute to a declaration of vacancy in the See by some who claim any error denotes an invalid Papacy?
Popes have said and done many nutty things in the past. But none has formally declared something at odds with – what Catholics believe. I think it takes such a formal declaration. Also, why was this all being cross-posted to alt.bible.prophecy?
Prob. that’s how the thread started? I don’t know. Peace, Happy New Year. * When one finds nothing more to say to God, * but just knows He is there — * that, in itself, is the best of prayers. [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Response:
. It centers around whether a Pope can be a heretic in his private opinion, or if he jeopardizes his position only by an act of formal heresy. St. Alphonsus writes: "If ever a Pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the Pontificate."
I’ve never seen any other Doctor or Father say such, and this is the first I’ve heard of it from St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. Do you know of any other? And what book/essay are you quoting from? Peace.
Response:
For the traditionalist, to whom the absolute purity of faith is dear, the following two statements previously made by me, stand: 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship. Prot worship, perhaps.
That is the first part of the formal heresy, that The New Mass (Novus Ordo) is Protestant. In fact, it is the Catholic Mass. 2) The True Mass holds a special place as the center of Catholic devotion. But not so, ‘new order’. There’s a difference.
And that is the second part of the heresy, that the Old Mass (Tridentine) and the New Mass (Novus Ordo) are essentially different. In fact, they are each the True Mass. Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me, not anyone!
No Pope can ever lead the Church astray. The present Pope, John Paul II, celbrates the New Mass everywhere. He teaches the faithful it is the True Body and Blood of Christ he is giving them. If it is not, then he is leading the whole world (not only the Church) into idolatry. I do not say it needs to be called Illegitimatism, that is just a name I have coined for the heresy I said I did not know how to name, which I would be guilty of for denying the Novus Ordo.
Response:
No Pope can ever lead the Church astray.
Are you sure? There have been numerious writing about what happens if a pope is a heretic. You might want to look at the history of Pope Honorius I (625-638). The present Pope, John Paul II, celbrates the New Mass everywhere. He teaches the faithful it is the True Body and Blood of Christ he is giving them. If it is not, then he is leading the whole world (not only the Church) into idolatry.
Again, I remind you that the Latin Mass of St. Pope Pius V (Quo Primum) is the only valid Mass of the Church…all other Masses are invalid at best. Even if the new mass was valid then still there is no Consecration takes place due to the invalid words that are spoken (the Church does not have the right to change the words of Christ). In the new mass, what is thought of and honored as the Body and Blood of Christ is nothing more than the honoring of a piece of bread (this is indeed idol worshiping). The promotion of this mass is heresy because Vatican 2 is promoting a false belief. ___ "The duty of every Catholic is to unquestionably and religiously fulfill, firmly safeguard and profess without timidity, both in private and in public life, the principles of Christian truths taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church…..error is approved by non-resistance, and truth is suffocated by not defending Her."–St. Pope Pius X
Response:
"Illegitimatist" ? Honestly – duuude. Just read some stuff on Catholicism. You go off with a superficial understanding of things. You can do better than that. 1) The Novus Ordo Missae is a valid expression of true Christian worship. Prot worship, perhaps. That is the first part of the formal heresy, that The New Mass (Novus Ordo) is Protestant. In fact, it is the Catholic Mass.
In fact, it’s Prot. It was designed to be so – BY Prots, and freemasons. It’s just the unholy history. It literally was DESIGNED to be a clean break with holy tradition. That itself, is unholy. The Mass as we knew it – is dead. _I_ didn’t say those words. One of the innovators did, in describing the substitute – ‘new order’. 2) The True Mass holds a special place as the center of Catholic devotion. But not so, ‘new order’. There’s a difference. And that is the second part of the heresy, that the Old Mass (Tridentine) and the New Mass (Novus Ordo) are essentially different. In fact, they are each the True Mass.
They contradict each other. Both can’t be true. One is. One is not. Open your eyes. Please do not add anything at all to those words, and no one will have to stumble, not you, not me, not anyone! No Pope can ever lead the Church astray.
Oh, it can be done. The present Pope, John Paul II, celbrates the New Mass everywhere. He teaches the faithful it is the True Body and Blood of Christ he is giving them. If it is not, then he is leading the whole world (not only the Church) into idolatry.
That could be true. But it would have started with Paul VI, not JP II. One could explain his failure to lead based on ‘collegiality’ and a failure to exercise the prerogatives of his unique office. I don’t know. But you seem one unwilling to consider any evidence. Cover your eyes. Close your ears. Make noises and run in circles so no one can settle you down. When you’re ready to consider that there might be something amiss with ‘new order’, check out http://www.geocities.com/~ymjcath/MassNote.htm . I do not say it needs to be called Illegitimatism, that is just a name I have coined for the heresy I said I did not know how to name, which I would be guilty of for denying the Novus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo is not a tenet of the Catholic Faith. You’re very confused. Peace. * When one finds nothing more to say to God, * but just knows He is there — * that, in itself, is the best of prayers. [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Response:
I’ve never seen any other Doctor or Father say such, and this is the first I’ve heard of it from St. Alphonsus de Ligouri. Do you know of any other? And what book/essay are you quoting from? It from his "Oeuvres Completes" Canon 194 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states "Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notorious and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to accepted opinion, lose his office ispo facto."
So then it merely follows that one make the case for JP II’s personal opinions, and actions – such as Assisi – are heretical? Assisi – 27th of October, 1986 The chief organizer was Roger Cardinal Etchegaray, . . . aided by the United Nations World Conference on Religion and Peace. One hundred fifty-five religious leaders participated from twelve major religions
Catholics do not hold their faith in things, as you would suggest. That’s wrong, plain and simple. Our faith is in God, in Jesus as our creator and savior. Do people pray to saints and to Mary? Certainly, but not as gods because we know they are not. Prayer is our communication. Our God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jefferey, your only misconception is that you think prayer is akin to worship. We pray to whom we worship, but it does not necessarily work the other way around. When you realize this, you might come to understand that we Catholics are more faithful than you give us credit for.