Skip to comments.NOVUS ORDO CHURCH at it yet again......!!!
Posted on 10/11/2004 12:49:30 AM PDT by vetus vulpes
From: Fr. Depressed.
Here we go again. You participants will be interested to know that the Church of the New Order has decided that a study must take place on how to "get" unbaptized babies into heaven. It is the "Politically Correct" thing to do, of course, since there is a need for everything to fit into the Newchurch teaching of Universal Salvation. After all, the Sacrament of Baptism isn't important is it? "We all worship the same god," so who cares? One wonders why the Church of the New Order and the New Vatican don't just close up shop and put a sign in the window:"Go somewhere else. We don't have anything the others don't."
Councils of the Church have several times treated of the matter of the necessity of baptism for infants. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church, including the Church's Principal Theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, have taught that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately not into "Hell" as such, but to the edge, or limbus, as it were, where they exist in a state of natural bliss.
This wasn't sufficient for the New Order Revolutionaries, so first they simply dropped this constant teaching from the Modernist Catechism of the Catholic Church, even though the question of unbaptized infants was treated by the Sixteenth Oecumenical Council at Constance and Pope Martin V.
Look at the pope's statement to this kangaroo commission: "After the Second Vatican Council, Catholic theology has sought answers that are in accord with the mercy of God the Father.... It corresponds to you to scrutinize the nexus among all these mysteries to offer a theological synthesis that might serve as an aid for a more consistent and enlightened pastoral practice."
In other words, because the Church of the New Order doesn't like the Catholic doctrine, it has a commission change the doctrine. Isn't that reminiscent of what the Anglicans do? You want the king to head the Church, have a committee vote it in. You want divorce, vote it in. You want homosexuality, vote it in. Don't listen to the Fathers of the Church, don't listen to the Doctors of the Church, don't listen to 1500 years of Church teaching. Make up a New Religion that is more to modern taste.
Isn't this exactly what Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Pope John XXIII condemned as the Heresy of Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies? Well, if you're a phenomenologist pope, everything is relative, so why bother? Why not just give up the ghost and tell the Novus Ordinarians that they can make up any religion they want.Then if they want the Wizard of Oz as their god,so be it.
If it isn't a new religion already, it soon will be.
This new religion is being taught to the youngsters in "Catholic schools" with the full approval of our ecumaniac current pope...
God help us all.
Another dose of Incrementalism .......
Leaving these children to the mercy of God, as the Catechism suggests, is a wise thing and, indeed, the only thing we can do.
The church has never put forth a doctrine on what happens when babies die before their Christian parents have the opportunity to have them baptized. This is not a commission to change a church doctrine, but rather one to investigate an issue which has been considered problemmatic to the Catholic Church for centuries. St. Thomas' teachings, while deferred to in recognition of his holiness and wisdom do not represent the entirety of church Tradition. Nor do those teaching reflect with the Pope's statement to the commission, "Catholic theology has sought answers that are in accord with the mercy of God the Father."
Absolutely nothing in thsi incindiary article presents a conflict between the Pope and St. Aquinas on this issue.
It appears they've pretty much burned up all their Sikh days.
I agree with you, except it's not the only thing we 'can' do, it's the only thing we 'should' do. In the past we would have said "it's a mystery", and left it at that.
But, TPTB have decided it needs further defining in order to fit their niche. Is there any doubt how this will turn out? Said souls will be depicted surrounding the throne of God.
It is rather the parents and society who are responsible for this situation that should be coming under scrutiny and investigation, and leave the final dispositon of the innocents to God.
If the babies are denied Baptism, and even life, by 'so-called' Christians, then it is they that the Church should make a pronouncement on. They certainly cannot be allowed into Heaven if they have denied entrance of another soul. I hope those lost souls are there to accuse them at the Judgement.
The Church should be making judgement on the living, not the dead. But we won't be hearing much about that will we?
I agree that its supposed to be a commision to investigate an issue which has been considered problemmatic to the Catholic Church for centuries - but what are the chances of a clear unambiguous answer thats not 30 pages long, has one correct sentence then contradicts itself to the point of getting nowhere.
Next to zero. But the initial author's claim that this demonstrates the triumph of a modernism akin to blessing homosexuality is beyond the pale. This is a serious attempt to consider an unresolved question of Christian morality, or to perhaps arrive at stronger support for a speculative answer. In all honesty, Aquinas and the Pope seem of one mind.
I can say this: any suggestion of this commission cannot (by simple nature of the inquiry) be worded in the same wording of Aquinas, and will be taken by the author as proof of the evil nature of the commission.
(Why must the commission differ from Aquinas? Because aquinas was asserting speculation. The Papal commission likely cannot do that.)
>>Said souls will be depicted surrounding the throne of God. <<
Criticize the commission when they say something that stupid. Don't you see the logical circle?
1. The Novus Ordo church is evil.
2. Hence, any issue the Novus Ordo church considers, it must consider in an evil way
3. Hence, any decision by the Novus Ordo must be evil.
4. Hence, the Novus Ordo will promulgate an evil doctrine.
5. The promulgation of such an evil doctrine proves that the Novus Ordo church is evil.
You would deny heaven to the mother of a stillborn baby?
O I forgot:
4a. Since any statement which is produced must be evil, evil must be read into any ambiguity or open question remaining.
When the current crop of theologians set about clarifying something, they are likely to make it less clear than before, while at the same time undermining centuries of analysis and teaching.
We live in Bad Times. Not coincidentally, we are told to celebrate ourselves and expect Heaven, no matter
what. Isn't God like Dr. Phil?
There is more justification to seeing the road as growing steadily narrower.
What exactly is "Novus Ordo"? Does the phrase equate to the current Catholic practices under Pope John Paul II? Or is it a phrase that points to a fringe/extremist movement that goes beyond JPII's leadership?
I know what an SSPXer/Trad is, but the term "Novus Ordo" remains fuzzy for me.
Novus Ordo specifically refers to the New Order of Mass as decreed by Pope Paul VI in 1969. Used to describe the Church, it refers to mainstream, post Vatican II Catholicism.
There is no such thing as a "Novus Ordo Church", but only the Catholic Church, like the Christ who founded her, the same yesterday, today and forever. Limbo was never something dogmatically defined, nor something that has always and everywhere been taught in the Church explicitly or implicitly from the Apostles. It is thus open to speculation. Not every word of St. Thomas Aquinas necessarily represents the Deposit of Faith. He didn't support the Immaculate Conception, for example.
A. Sinkspur is at it again to come to the rescue of the post concilliar church.
B. The best catechisms are that of the Council of Trent, Baltimore, and Pope St. Pius X, not the one recently issued by the Vatican.
Yes, but even aquinas admitted he had only learned a "drop in the barrel" of what Catholicism is. And Novus Ordo could be a way to describe the current Church when comparing it to say, the SSPX for example.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Following Vatican II, a new liturgy was created for the Latin Rite, which is by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church. The new liturgy was called Novus Ordo, or New Order. Traditionalists and schismatics use "Novus Ordo" as if it were a new sect, blaming all the ills of the Catholic Church on "N.O." Really its comparable to the 1911 Missal of the Anglican Church vs. the 1973 Missal. (Not being Anglican, I probably screwed up those dates.) Except since it also changed from Latin to the vernacular, the changes seem all the more drastic.
The Roman Catholic Church had had for many, many decades a huge problem combatting modernism. Naturally, all the modernist heretics saw the changes as an opportunity to slip all their demands into Vatican II, and many bad practices became falsely associated with the Novus Ordo. Of course, none of the were traditionalists, but the traditionalists portray all the Novus Ordo clergy as if they were all heretics.
A fantastic example of why this is false is the homosexual crisis. I get flamed every time I point this out, but there were more REPORTED cases dating from 1963, before Vatican II, than in 1990. By reported, I do not mean that they were reported in 1963, but that they were eventually reported, probably in the last decade. God knows how many went unreported, because the accused in now dead. In any event, the mass being in Latin did not protect anyone from the evils of pedophilia.
The liturgy of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (Anglican) was in English (not Latin) and it is thanks to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo that the Episcopal Church in the US rewrote the Book of Common Prayer in 1979 as a near carbon copy of the N.O. (much to the dismay of MANY traditionalist/orthodox Anglicans). This, in addition to women's ordination, is what led to the immediate exodus from ECUSA of nearly 100,000 Episcopalians in 1979 and the subsequent decline of that catholic church ever since. You may not see anything wrong with the Novus Ordo (or the '79 BCP) liturgy, but I don't think it's just coincidence that both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Catholic churches have been in steady decline since the advent of both these dramatic revisions in the liturgy. Why? Just my opinion, but I see it as the turning point in both churches...away from God-centered worship and toward a form of religious ritual and entertainment crafted to delight "man". I just don't think either one of these new liturgies fosters a real reverence or a sense of duty to humble ourselves before God. Gone forever is the prayer of humble access..."We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own rightousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy..." Heaven forbid (say the revisionists) that anyone should think themselves sinful, unrighteous, or unworthy. This simply does not fit with the Prosperity Gospel of the "Novus Ekklesia."
Like I said, it's just my opinion, but I don't see the N.O. or the '79 BCP as having borne good fruit for either of our churches.
I know, and largely agree with much of what you said... other than the correct dates of the missals.
...but I would emphasize again that most of what has been so wretched about the Novus Ordo has been abuses and not the authorized changes.
"There is no such thing as a "Novus Ordo Church", but only the Catholic Church, like the Christ who founded her, the same yesterday, today and forever."
There is the Church and there is Newchurch (aka Conciliar church, Amchurch, etc). The former is the church of my grandparents, parents ... and myself (where I can find it). The latter is man-made, corrupt, alien, banal, worthless ....
Thank you for demonstrating your schismatic views.