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.
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.
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.