Posted on 01/28/2005 11:07:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
To him, and to others like him, worship is a personal experience. It is all about us. A personal "worship experience" is for him is the purpose of the Mass to begin with.
..is not Catholic theology or terminology. It is yet another explanation why the post-conciliar creation has produced no great saints or mystics. No horizontal focus can.
"It is yet another explanation why the post-conciliar creation has produced no great saints or mystics. No horizontal focus can."
Exaggerations that are not fully factual do not aid the Traditional movement or cause. How about some nuance and accuracy?
There have been NONE? And it is directly and only caused by the new liturgy? Silliness. Do you believe the new Mass is valid, in most cases, or invalid?
Do you understand grace?
I haven't exaggerated one bit. There have been no great saints or mystics formed by the Novus Ordo. No Padre Pios, no Thereses, no John of the Crosses and no Teresa of Avilas.
The New Mass may or may not be valid but it does not pull down the graces from heaven that the Traditional Mass does due to the former's horizontal nature. When man is celebrated, vertical progress is stalled.
"There have been no great saints or mystics formed by the Novus Ordo."
First of all, the Novus Ordo has only been around for less than 40 years. Most people live longer than that. This provides NO PROOF since most Catholics haven't died yet since the birth of the Novus Ordo. Silliness.
"No Padre Pios, no Thereses, no John of the Crosses and no Teresa of Avilas."
Same as above.
"The New Mass may or may not be valid"
I asked you a specific question. The Church has officially and authoritatively promulgated this Novus Ordo rite of Mass. Do you believe that it is, according to the mind of the Church, invalid? Answer the question. It is a simple one.
"but it does not pull down the graces from heaven that the Traditional Mass does due to the former's horizontal nature."
I would say this is subjective depending upon the person's tastes, theolgical understandings and a host of other things. I would agree that the Traditional Latin Mass provides the opportunity for more grace--whether the people on the receiving end recognize it and receive it, however, is another factor.
I can't say for certain if the Novus Ordo is valid or not. My answer would be probably, but that is beyond my job description. My spiritual director believes it is valid, but just barely, as I believe many traditional priests do. I believe the term has been used "50% is better than nothing." Essentially its implementation has been harmful to the Faith. That much is obvious to anyone willing to take an honest look at the state of the Church today.
I see you were unable to name any great saints or mystics of the past 40 years. As I suspected. It doesn't take that long to find one. God creates them at will. What further complicates matters is the fact the position of devil's advocate has been removed (a major alteration of form), the number of miracles has been reduced and some in the Vatican want miracles removed all together.
The lack of grace in the Church today has nothing to do with my personal opinion. The Holy Ghost has rendered His verdict.
I'll add one possibility. Sister Lucia of Fatima is a likely candidate for sainthood when she dies. Problem is, her formation was from Heaven itself and the Traditional Mass, and we have no idea what liturgy is performed at her convent today. So again, we are back at square one.
Valid, barely? Come now, either it is or it isn't.
What did I just say? This whole point has been covered in a previous post.
Beyond that, there are plenty of Novus Ordo laity and even priests who no longer believe in transubstantiation. Validity is irrelevant to them.
I know of laity who don't believe in transubstantion.
"The Church has officially and authoritatively promulgated this Novus Ordo rite of Mass."
Not true. The Church never "officially and authoritatively" promulgate the Novus Ordo. It is widely believed that it did--but, in fact, no official document ever was signed by the Pontiff promulgating the Novus Ordo. What we have are these:
1. An official-sounding 1969 decree, signed by a Curia cardinal and Msgr. Bugnini, making the New Mass obligatory. But it WAS NOT signed by Paul VI.
2. An Apostolic Constitution in 1970 which permits usage of the Novus Ordo, but which did not abrogate the Old Mass. Its only decrees were changes to the Eucharistic Prayer. This WAS signed by Paul VI.
3. A follow-up explanation to the Apostolic Constitution was later published. It declared the Novus Ordo was obligatory--but it WAS NOT signed by the Pope.
This is extremely peculiar. What we have is a de facto imposition of a new rite but without corresponding official documents making it obligatory. It was actually only PERMITTED, not made obligatory in any way.
It is true that Paul VI later made speeches in which he declared his intention of making the new Mass obligatory. But these were never promulgated to the whole Church and are neither infallible nor official.
A Mass may be valid but deficient.
We agree
"I know of laity who don't believe in transubstantion."
That's not good! :(
No it isnt!!!! :(
No, it's not!
Of course it's like visiting a new country. The Novus Ordo reflects a new religion. It is a strange hybrid--a Liturgy that is minimally valid but yet expresses a Protestant theology while disguising its Catholic elements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.