I just watched this video. Im torn on the one hand by the priests courageous sermon -- what a speaker!, but always get worried when I hear a priest openly wonder about the popes approach, critizing the Novos Ordo Mass. Anybody else see this vid? Any opinions?
There was a negative thread on a secular forum about Pope Francis' video. In the thread title it said, here we go, One World Religion. Frustrating, the misunderstanding. Any non-Catholic who watched the video and those Evangelicals at the conference may recall how loving Pope Francis was in speaking to them, when the Warning happens. Private revelation on my head, Pope Francis knows about the prophesied divine events so ahead of time, his words are a help.
Hi, Torrentum,..I noticed no one responded to request for an opinion, so I thought you might find this helpful & would encourage you to do a little research on Fr.Bugnini. The two examples of offering sacrifice is clearly spelled out in the old testament beginning with Cain and Abel, "in the course of time" brought offerings to the Lord (Genesis 4:3). Without doubt, they were doing this because God had revealed it to them. Some question, “How were Cain and Abel supposed to know what to sacrifice?” The answer is that God must have instructed them. It is clear that the offering was to be a substitutionary atonement, because we read inHebrews 11:4, "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did." When Abel came for worship, it was by faith that he brought his offering, the "fat portions from some of the first-born of his flock" (Genesis 4:4). The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, and it was accepted. His brother Cain brought "some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord" (Genesis 4:3). But on Cain and his offering the Lord did not look with favor. We do not know how He expressed His rejection, but it was evident. In Jude’s epistle, verse 11, we read, "They have taken the way of Cain," referring to lawless men. This may mean that they, like Cain, disobediently devised their own ways of worship; they did not come by faith. Cain’s offering, while acceptable in his own eyes, was not acceptable to the Lord. The result was that Cain became very angry, and later, in the field, he killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). also Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which he had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Jehovah, and devoured them and they died before Jehovah (Leviticus 10:1-2). The key to understanding the account, of course, is found in the fact that they offered “strange fire” that God “had not commanded.” Aaron’s two sons suffered a horrible, painful death because they ignored Jehovah’s specific commands relating to how He was to be worshiped.
I feel uncomfortable even asking this, but is he a catholic priest or an Anglican priest? and does it even matter?
In the video, there was nothing but great concern for Pope Francis and a plea to pray and fast for him,..is there not? There is a good reason he is critical of the Novus Ordo Mass,..here is a brief explanation.. Differences between the Traditional Mass and New Mass Catholics always believed that the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed on the altar at the Holy Mass. By means of the sacrificing priest, the bread and wine is changed into the very Body and Blood of Our Lord at the moment of the Consecration. The words that the priest says at this moment constitute the Transubstantiation, a change of substance. Above, the Cathedral of St. Louis fits perfectly with the grandiose Sacrifice which is renewed at the Mass. Below, in the Abbey of St. Anne (Kergonan, France), a cold emptiness in worship is the result of the conciliar reformers' intention to please Protestants Quite different from this elevated notion of the Mass, the New Mass represents a shocking liturgical revolution similar to the Pseudo-Reformation of Luther and other Protestants. Here are some keynotes of the New Mass that give it a Protestant tone: • The abolition of the sacrificial character of the Mass – We have a man-made liturgy in which mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been insistently removed, as well as any sacrificial tone, and only the notions of praise and thanksgiving retained. Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to emphasize the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice. • An emphasis on the memorial supper – According to this new conception, the Mass is principally a Communion service – a memorial of the Lord’s supper, a Protestant thesis emphasized by Luther in the 16th century. As Luther clearly stated, “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.” (2) • The priesthood of the faithful – The so-called priesthood of the faithful was over-emphasized and causes confusion with the sacramental priesthood. Catholic teaching is that it is the priest, and the priest alone, who is necessary for the Mass to be effective. To the contrary, the New Mass promotes the idea that the priest is a mere delegate of the assembly, and the people are an essential part of the “celebration.” In fact, the General Instruction on theNovus Ordo states that the “people of God” celebrates the rite with the “priest-presider.” This equality between the priest and the faithful is what the Protestant leaders taught when they defended that the celebration of the “Lord’s supper” is realized jointly by the priest and the people. What is the main difference, then, between the Traditional Mass and the New Mass? The traditional Latin Mass is the clear expression of Catholic teaching, which understands the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The New Mass was made to please Protestants, and for this purpose:1. suppressed the sacrificial character of the Mass, denied by Protestants, 2. emphasized the Mass as a memorial and a banquet, as preached by Protestants, 3. stressed the role of the people as essential to the “celebration of the Eucharist,” also defended by Protestants.The makers of the New Mass definitively wanted to favor Protestantism There is the false notion many Catholics have that the New Order Mass is just a simple translation of the traditional Latin rite, with a few small changes here and there. This is not true. It is a re-write, and quite substantial one, undertaken by a commission set up by Paul VI to implement the Council’s teaching on the liturgy. (3) The commission was headed by the Progressivist Fr. Anibale Bugnini and included six Protestants. Therefore, the commission that threw overboard the ancient Latin rite and centuries of accumulated Catholic tradition, and made up a brand new one, was headed by a Progressivist and included Protestants. Fr. Bugnini, the principal designer of the New Mass Their intentions? Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.” (4) A clear design to destroy the Mass The designers of the New Mass have boasted endlessly on the novelty and revolutionary nature of their creation, and you can find many examples. I will only site one: Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, one of the Catholic experts involved in its formulation, stated: “This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." (5) The critics have said essentially the same thing. Again, I will just cite one. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who served as head of the Holy Office under three Popes, wrote that "the Novus Ordo Missae .... represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in the Council of Trent,” and that there are “implicit denials of Christ’s Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation.” (6) Based on these testimonies, as well as on the fact that the religious authorities have imposed that this New Mass be said everywhere, is it any wonder that so many Catholics today do not believe in the Real Presence? 1. August 24, 2003. 2. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 202. 3. The ambiguous language of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, the official document of Vatican II that deals with liturgy, is set out in Atila S. Guimarães’ In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, pp. 229-31. 4. L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965. 5. Joseph Gelineau, S.J., Demain la liturgie (Paris: Ed. du Cerf, 1979), p.10. 6. Modern History Sourcebook: The Ottaviani Intervention, 1969, online edition.
Absolutely a Catholic Priest in every sense of the word,..we need more like him,..listen for yourself http://www.courageouspriest.com/category/fr-michael-rodriguez Fr. Michael Rodriguez Interviewed at City Council 1-31-12 Interview with Fr. Michael Rodriguez 7-31-11
I would loved to have experienced the traditional mass but im too young (born1979). I first began learning about the old Mass about 15 years ago and always wondered why on earth it was changed. My parents prefer the old Mass. My local shopkeeper prefers the latin Mass, he usdd to tell me that during his annual holiday in Portugal (he went there every year for summmer holidays) that he could understand the Mass in a foreign country. Privately, Ive thought of the huge falling away from faith in the last half century and wondered if the Vat II changes contributed to it. But if I remember rightly did the council not state that latin should, to some extent, be retained? Why did the popes not speak up when the vernacular became the Mass 100%.??
This is one of my favorite priests. He is on my local catholic radio station M-F from 11 to 12 and sometimes I catch him and always love what he has to say. There is not a lot of him on youtube but I did find this video on him about The Mass:
Why has a thread which was about Pope Francis' unity greeting to the Pentecostals been turned into a discussion on the traditional versus the new Mass? I think it is appropriate to quote from Verne's messages here: Those who disagree with the Holy Father on how the church should be run, whether on the extreme traditional side or the liberal side, need to repent and do penance, for you are causing division and schism in my house. You must be in union with the Holy Father, bishops and priests who follow me. If you are not, you are not in union with me.
Do you believe then that the gross sin and failures of some within the institutional Church is an indicator that its official teaching is therefore somehow deficient or incorrect? If not, what is the relevance of this? I don't know of anyone who says that Catholics are better people than others. We have the fullness of truth, they do not surely it was obvious that this was the point being made and certainly not any claims to personal moral superiority?
I was not talking bad or good in terms of teaching, for the Church has the fulness of the truth, but in terms of behavior Steve. Someone had mentioned that several Pentecostal Pastors lived lavish lifestyles, which of course is true. I know of one, Benny Hinn, who on being accused of having a private jet replied that he had it, 'To do Jesus's work quicker. Pope Francis on the other hand has warned prelates to tone down their own life style which is also very rich. cf: http://www.christianpost.com/news/n...home-despite-pope-wanting-poor-church-114794/
Mark Mallett writes about Christian unity today. Imagine how much Satan will be crushed by Christian Unity true unity guided by the Holy Spirit. http://www.markmallett.com/blog/community-must-be-ecclesial/#more-14984
