Help tradionalist/conservative friend

[Guest jw colorado]

Please help my friend who is 'so far to the right, he is now on the left.'

1. Norvus Ordo- He claims it is illicit if not invalid. He takes the ‘Tridentine Mass cannot be changed and is the only valid form’ argument. He carries the dissident party line discussed in the [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea4.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea4.asp[/url] article. His dissent includes points about Anglican Orders, wording of consecration of wine (many of you vs. all men), changing which fingers are consecrated for holding the host and cup. His dissent goes so deep, he questions the validity of ordinations after approx 1968. My friend also believes the Norvus Ordo and GIRM was written by six Protestants under the supervision of a Cardinal who was a Mason (and all Masons take an oath to serve the devil in subverting the true church). He trusts nothing out of the post-Vatican II church that is not ‘100% orthodox’ as he calls it, not even popes JPII or BXVI (co-conspirators), the magisterium, or the CCC. He accepts nothing newer than the Baltimore Catechism. I responded with “gates of hell shall…” to explain that such an error is not possible. He retorted that the gates are being protected as long as there is at least one validly ordained priest celebrating a valid mass, not that the gates will protect the magisterium from grave error. He would convert to SSPX, but he feels SSPX is disobedient. Did not even Archbishop Lefebvre affirm the Norvus Ordo is valid?

2. Ecumenicism- He opposes Vatican II in part for its over-endorsement of Ecumenicism. He feels “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma and it means that only those who are Roman Catholic and in communion with the pope have a chance to go to heaven. I tried explaining that “outside of the …” means that there is no salvation to be obtained by Buddha, Mohammed...etc for their followers. But, he did not agree. He continues to howl about the ‘abuses’ in the “Spirit of Assisi.”

3. Vatican II- He claims Vatican II is a pastoral council and therefore, non-binding. So, Catholics may ignore it completely.

I care about my friend. I fear he has been liturgically crippled by exposure to abuses. He seems to enjoy lamenting over liturgical abuses he has witnessed to include; clowns juggling at mass, reserve sacrament being fed to animals by celebrators, priests stating “call me Larry not Fr. Larry, and that which you confessed is not a sin. The real sin is the social injustice committed against the third world poor…” during Reconciliation. He believes all this happened when the church tampers with the only liturgy. I hope he can be turned.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='jw colorado' date='Feb 12 2006, 09:58 AM']Please help my friend who is 'so far to the right, he is now on the left.' 

1. Norvus Ordo- He claims it is illicit if not invalid.  He takes the ‘Tridentine Mass cannot be changed and is the only valid form’ argument.  He carries the dissident party line discussed in the  [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea4.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea4.asp[/url] article.  His dissent includes points about Anglican Orders, wording of consecration of wine (many of you vs. all men), changing which fingers are consecrated for holding the host and cup.  His dissent goes so deep, he questions the validity of ordinations after approx 1968.  My friend also believes the Norvus Ordo and GIRM was written by six Protestants under the supervision of a Cardinal who was a Mason (and all Masons take an oath to serve the devil in subverting the true church).  He trusts nothing out of the post-Vatican II church that is not ‘100% orthodox’ as he calls it, not even popes JPII or BXVI (co-conspirators), the magisterium, or the CCC.  He accepts nothing newer than the Baltimore Catechism.  I responded with “gates of hell shall…” to explain that such an error is not possible.  He retorted that the gates are being protected as long as there is at least one validly ordained priest celebrating a valid mass, not that the gates will protect the magisterium from grave error.  He would convert to SSPX, but he feels SSPX is disobedient.  Did not even Archbishop Lefebvre affirm the Norvus Ordo is valid? 
[/quote]If the SSPX is disobedient then why is he opposing the magesterium on the NO? Seriously, he calls others disobedient, yet almost takes their spot in opposition. Anyway...the many vs. all dispute is a non-point because both are valid translations. They simply emphasis different points of the same theological thought which cannot be expressed in a matter of one word. That is while God "desires" all to be saved, only many will be saved due to the radical possibity of rejecting God due to free will. Christ offered Himself for all, but only some will accept that gift. To argue that Christ did not die for everyone would be to say that God only loves some people, or rather have a double predestination view, which is heretical. So in short, one can say either one because they are two sides of the same coin (Christ died for all but only many will be saved). I am sure that others can help you with the linguistic part of it.

Also what ever happened to the Spirit guarding the Church in Truth? Point him to Jn 16:13 and speaking with Christ's own voice (Lk 10:16). I suppose Christ meant up to 1968 right? Well I can tell you that Christ is always with the CHurch (Mt 28:20) for it is His body. Christ did not mean up until 1968 will it be protected in Truth. No, the Church still speaks with the voice of Christ, even in matters of liturgy.

[quote]2.  Ecumenicism-  He opposes Vatican II in part for its over-endorsement of Ecumenicism.  He feels “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” is a dogma and it means that only those who are Roman Catholic and in communion with the pope have a chance to go to heaven.  I tried explaining that “outside of the …” means that there is no salvation to be obtained by Buddha, Mohammed...etc for their followers.  But, he did not agree.  He continues to howl about the ‘abuses’ in the “Spirit of Assisi.”
[/quote]You are correct that his understanding is flawed about Extra Ecclisiam Nullus Salum (sp?). Have you explained Baptism of desire? Also there are two types of heretics: formal, which means the know the Catholic docrtine and reject it, and material, meaning that they are heretics in ignorance basically.

[quote]3.  Vatican II-  He claims Vatican II is a pastoral council and therefore, non-binding. So, Catholics may ignore it completely.
[/quote] That is why they are called "The Dogmatic Constitution on ," and so forth. Even if it was merely a pastoral council that would not mean the we could ignore it. No, there are several dogmatic elements in it.

[jezic]

what is the Spirit of Assisi?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:54 PM']what is the Spirit of Assisi?
[right][snapback]885097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think that he is referring to the two ecummenical meetings that happened in Assisi. The spirit of Assisi here would be a deamening way of referring to ecummenicism with other religions.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Not trying to encourage this but the SSPX is more obedient than these doctrinal positions.

The history of Church statements on salvation outside the church can be read here:
[url="http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html[/url]

And what's this about Anglican Orders? The magisterium does not accept them. Anglican Use priests are re-ordained after their conversion.

[jswranch]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 12 2006, 06:54 PM']what is the Spirit of Assisi?
[right][snapback]885097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"Spirit of Assisi is " is a pseudo negative term used to describe the allegedly 'illicit' actions by some Catholics in Fatima in the shadow of JPII Assisi inter religous ceremonies. Some sources (conservative and Hindu) recount how Hindu groups were able to perform rites in the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima.

Traditionalist Catholic website:

[url="http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g08htHindusAtFatima_Vennari.html"]http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics...ma_Vennari.html[/url]

Notice the title at the top of the page: "more consequences of VII"

Another Catholic account:
[url="http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/0704desec.asp"]http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/0704desec.asp[/url]

For an incomplete list of traditionalist complaints of post-VII abuses (if not all of VII) see

[url="http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a00ConsequencesIndex.html"]http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics...encesIndex.html[/url]

Hindu News report:

[url="http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2004/6/15.shtml#6"]http://www.hinduismtoday.com/hpi/2004/6/15.shtml#6[/url]

[quote name='thedude' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:54 PM']And what's this about Anglican Orders?  The magisterium does not accept them.  Anglican Use priests are re-ordained after their conversion.
[right][snapback]885315[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My friend uses the ruling against Anglican Orders to show his concern for Norvus Ordo. Anglican Orders are invalid because they changed both the wording and intent of the ordinate. He says Norvus Ordo is invalid because it changed both the wording and intent of consecration of wine when the wording was changed from 'shed for many' to 'shed for all.'

I will try to show two things to him. First that the Traditional Mass, is not tradional. It might be historic, but the wording was new at some point. Second, I want him to look at the relevant scriptures for the consecration of the eucharist.

If I agreed with him on all his objections, I would not be asking for help from you guys.

[qfnol31]

Quickly, your friend has probably been influenced by Americans or English people because the wording is multus [many] in the Latin. Not inherent to the Novus Ordo, just to the English Mass.

I shall respond more in a little bit.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='jswranch' date='Feb 13 2006, 12:07 PM']My friend uses the ruling against Anglican Orders to show his concern for Norvus Ordo.  Anglican Orders are invalid because they changed both the wording and intent of the ordinate.  He says Norvus Ordo is invalid because it changed both the wording and intent of consecration of wine when the wording was changed from 'shed for many'  to 'shed for all.'  [right][snapback]885759[/snapback][/right][/quote]
your friend needs to read these articles:
[b]--[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=119"][i]Pro Multis[/i]: For "Many" or for "All"?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic-legate.com/qa/promultis.html"]For Many or for All?[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html"]Is "For All" a Valid Translation?[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html"]Jesus Died for All, Not Many: Schismatics Fall Into Calvinist Heresy[/url][/b]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Feb 13 2006, 07:29 PM']your friend needs to read these articles:
[b]--[url="http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=119"][i]Pro Multis[/i]: For "Many" or for "All"?[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic-legate.com/qa/promultis.html"]For Many or for All?[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html"]Is "For All" a Valid Translation?[/url]
--[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html"]Jesus Died for All, Not Many: Schismatics Fall Into Calvinist Heresy[/url][/b]
[right][snapback]886417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That last one is funny that you mention it. i was just thinking about that in class today, that ultra-traditionalists seem to be going the way of Calvin.

[Paphnutius]

Told you it was double predestination! Beware!

Sorry, I am in a weird mood tonight.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

I have yet to meet a single Catholic who prefers the words "for many" over "for all" and actually falls into the Calvinist heresy. That article is nothing more than a straw man argument.

[thessalonian]

[quote]He takes the ‘Tridentine Mass cannot be changed and is the only valid form’ argument. [/quote]

The funny thing is that the Pius V Mass which is supposed to be "in perpetuity", i.e. unchanging, according to them, was changed at the Council of Trent. They use these changes. The whole thing is foolish when you consider that the first mass was definitely not in latin. The language of the Mass is the language of God's love for us. Man's language is used to transmit it to us but the Mass is the universal. Some languages no doudt express it more fully but it cannot be limited to a single human language and even Pius V did not as he allowed the translations in the vernacular which were especially used in the Eastern Rite Churches that were 200 years old or older. The idea was that some modern translations of the time had gotten out of wack.

[thessalonian]

As far as books go, you might give him Patrick Madrid's "More Catholic Than the Pope". It hits the arguements pretty well. Read it yourself first.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Feb 14 2006, 08:16 AM']The funny thing is that the Pius V Mass which is supposed to be "in perpetuity", i.e. unchanging, according to them, was changed at the Council of Trent.  They use these changes.  The whole thing is foolish when you consider that the first mass was definitely not in latin.  The language of the Mass is the language of God's love for us.  Man's language is used to transmit it to us but the Mass is the universal.  Some languages no doudt express it more fully but it cannot be limited to a single human language and even Pius V did not as he allowed the translations in the vernacular which were especially used in the Eastern Rite Churches that were 200 years old or older.  The idea was that some modern translations of the time had gotten out of wack.
[right][snapback]886926[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep the mass was altered within 40 years of the disciplinary document.