Attending Novus ordo under parental order

[Arun]

ialsop, some of these links might be helpful to you;

http://sspx.org/en/must-catholics-attend-new-mass

http://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-wrong-novus-ordo-missae-1987

You shouldn't participate though because it isn't a Catholic Mass. You shouldn't make a show about not participating.

(my emphasis)

Seeing as a Pope promulgated that Mass, and given that liturgical discipline and Divine Worship fall under the disciplinary infalliblity of the Catholic Church, how can you possibly claim that the Mass is not Catholic, and imply that it is morally illicit to participate?

taken from my second link above:

Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic?

No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin Rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae:

was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law; cf., [vi] above),
the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said (principle 19),
and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.*
*Let us remember that a pope engages his infallibility not only when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf. Vatican I [Denzinger §1839]. But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (November 19, 1969) that:

...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."

[Gardener]

The Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary
The Sorrowful Mysteries focus on the Passion aka Calvary, generally
The method of unification of the soul to Christ in the Mass is primarily prayer (hence, actual participation, not active)
Therefore, praying the Sorrowful Mysteries during Mass is an acceptable form of  participating.

This is entirely acceptable in Pre-Vatican 2 texts.

Where some get confused is when Pope Pius X said to follow with what the priest says, prays, does, and to do those as much as possible is the highest form of praying the Mass. Frankly, many people, myself included, cannot do this.

[Francisco Suárez]

Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic?

No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin Rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae:

was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law; cf., [vi] above),
the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said (principle 19),
and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.*
*Let us remember that a pope engages his infallibility not only when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf. Vatican I [Denzinger §1839]. But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (November 19, 1969) that:

...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."

[/quote]

They're just desperately looking for loopholes to avoid logically concluding what should, according to the Church, be impossible.

Basically the Pope, in his official capacity, promulgated a new rite of Mass. This was accepted as fact by all observers at the time. Various reactionary elements in the Church came to see the new rite, over time, as "modernist" and defective. But of course it's impossible to say that if it was properly promulgated by a legitimate authority of the Church. The idea that the Catholic Church can promulgate defective rites or change liturgical and disciplinary laws in an evil direction (making them less Catholic) is ridiculous. There is a reason why the concept of disciplinary infallibility came about, because without it, there's absolutely no guarantee that the Church can properly fulfill its mission. 

This is where the various loopholes come in:

A) it wasn't promulgated "properly". It needed certain "language", or needed to be "explicit" in various ways. Of course these standards, where they are actually objective (the language argument opens a can of worms as language in itself is subjective and evolves over time, affecting meanings in grammar, syntax etc), were never considered essential in history in either secular or canon law. Implicity was acceptable, especially if everyone accepted that that's what it intended. If a previous law said "the penalty of breaking a church window is 10 years gaol", and a new law was promulgated "the penalty of breaking a church window is 15 years gaol", it is assumed that the latter supersedes the former. The two cannot logically exist at the same time. No two Roman Rites can exist at the same time, there is only one. To suggest that the new law is "invalid" because it didn't explicitly abolish the former is ridiculous and looks desperate.

B) the supposed Pope had actually lost his office due to earlier heresy. Essentially sedevacantism. The implications of this position, that there must be some unidentified Bishop still around from Pius XII's reign with ordinary jurisdiction (as without jurisdiction the Church ceases to exist), is also ridiculous, and makes the Church's claim of "visibility" laughable, and prospect of continuity nonexistent.

From memory there are a few others, but I frankly can't be bothered trying to remember them or explain how they work.

But basically, it is impossible to "prove" these things. If you show the logical ridiculousness of a particular argument, they can just retreat further and further into increasingly complex loopholes that protect them from explicit refutation. People can spend their whole lives doing this sort of nonsense. I can't be bothered anymore.

[Kaesekopf]

What is the point of an apostate posting on a trad forum?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Francisco Suárez]

What is the point of an apostate posting on a trad forum?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

This bait is in poor taste, especially coming from an admin.

[Kaesekopf]

What is the point of an apostate posting on a trad forum?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

This bait is in poor taste, especially coming from an admin.

It's no bait.

Why are you, an apostate, stirring the pot in a Catholic forum? 

To post with an antiCatholic agenda is against the rules here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Francisco Suárez]

What is the point of an apostate posting on a trad forum?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

This bait is in poor taste, especially coming from an admin.

It's no bait.

Why are you, an apostate, stirring the pot in a Catholic forum? 

To post with an antiCatholic agenda is against the rules here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Firstly, it wasn't obvious as using the term "apostate" is both inflammatory and inaccurate. No where have I said that I've repudiated Christianity. And secondly, I don't know how broadly you define "stirring the pot", as I've said nothing that's irreconcilable with the Catholic religion in its contemporary existence. Perhaps, in your opinion, defending the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo is in itself "antiCatholic", but nowhere does it say that in the rules.

[Kaesekopf]

You say you're a former Catholic in your profile. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Gardener]

You say you're a former Catholic in your profile. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

We should always try to be as charitable as possible right?

So perhaps calling him an apostate is too harsh.

Heretic seems properly fitting.

[Arun]

What is the point of an apostate posting on a trad forum?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

This bait is in poor taste, especially coming from an admin.

It's no bait.

Why are you, an apostate, stirring the pot in a Catholic forum? 

To post with an antiCatholic agenda is against the rules here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Firstly, it wasn't obvious as using the term "apostate" is both inflammatory and inaccurate. No where have I said that I've repudiated Christianity. And secondly, I don't know how broadly you define "stirring the pot", as I've said nothing that's irreconcilable with the Catholic religion in its contemporary existence. Perhaps, in your opinion, defending the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo is in itself "antiCatholic", but nowhere does it say that in the rules.

its a traditional Catholic forum; your defending/promoting modernism. you also said two Roman Rites cannot exist at the same time, when your saying the NO is the legit Mass, so your denying the legitimacy of the True Mass too aren't you?

why not state your piece and clear it all up, if what we're all seeing is not correct?

[Kaesekopf]

You say you're a former Catholic in your profile. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

We should always try to be as charitable as possible right?

So perhaps calling him an apostate is too harsh.

Heretic seems properly fitting.

I thought it was possible to use "apostate" to denote a rejection of Catholicism. 

I guess I was wrong.

Either way, one wonders why he'd waste his time.

[Kaesekopf]

why not state your piece and clear it all up, if what we're all seeing is not correct?

Because he thinks he's educated and thinks he has something worthwhile to say.

[Arun]

lol

[Francisco Suárez]

its a traditional Catholic forum; your defending/promoting modernism. you also said two Roman Rites cannot exist at the same time, when your saying the NO is the legit Mass, so your denying the legitimacy of the True Mass too aren't you?

why not state your piece and clear it all up, if what we're all seeing is not correct?

Modernism according to you. The FSSP and its supporters certainly don't think the N.O. is "modernist". Unlike some others here it seems, I'm not scared of following the logic of an argument because I don't like the possible conclusions.

I would lean in the direction of the legitimacy of the N.O. because I think most of the evidence points in this direction. Does that mean the traditional Mass isn't legitimate? I don't know. Superseded, sure. That's the position that Rome took until it came up with a new theory of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the Latin Rite. Even then, I'm not sure if the current Pope holds to this latter theory.

[Francisco Suárez]

why not state your piece and clear it all up, if what we're all seeing is not correct?

Because he thinks he's educated and thinks he has something worthwhile to say.

I realise you have never liked me, and you've held a grudge against me for some years now, but there comes a time where one has to just move on. I have never made cheap shots against you personally, so I'd ask if you could return the favour. Why not be more charitable?