Replies

My point exactly--it's salus, not solis--even the Wikipedia (which is an utterly untrustworthy, stupid resource--why do you use it? Anyone can post any junk in it--it's often viciously anti-Catholic) has salus. You still don't get it.

As for your rejection of the Novus Ordo (I agree it needs revision and should never have been promulgated and should have made much more modest changes but none of those things changes it's validity) as the product of homosexuals, well, that is nothing but Protestant schismatic bile. Abuse does not remove use. The term "novus ordo" is meaningless by itself--the vernacularization was indeed carried out in a mannter that results in doctrinally false texts, but the Novus Ordo Latin text, while ill-advised in some places, contains nothing heretical or doctrinally erroneous. The deemphasis of the sacrificial character in the Offertory prayers was ill-advised, but only in the verncualar translations is the theology of sacrifice systematically stripped out. The translations are mendacious and false but the Latin text is in conformity with the Latin Catholic faith.

Go ahead, vent your Protestant bile. The mark of a Catholic is to adhere to Peter even when the reforms are slow or the bishops govern unjustly or err in discipline. As much as I prefer the 1962 Missal, I will defend the validity of the Novus Ordo in Latin. I have studied it in detail, know both 1962 and 1970 Ordinaries in Latin by heart and have compared most of the Novus Ordo propers word for word in Latin and English. Whereas relatively minor revisions to the Latin text need to be made (particularly in the Offertory, restoring the Placeat Tibi at the end etc.), in contrast the ICEL translations are total junk. Rantings against the Novus Ordo that fail to distinguish between the mendacious translations and the Latin text itself don't deserve serious consideration. e