The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.

[abc123]

left the Faith for the Novus Ordo.

 

My thoughts exactly. It's a painful time for the family, so I haven't inquired for specifics yet. I have a hunch that the family didn't educate their kids on all the stuff that converts are aware of experts on.

No, you misunderstood me completely. I do not think going to the NO is leaving the Faith. I know lots of NO people who try very very hard to love God and are wonderful Catholics. They are not getting what they should be getting from their bishops, nor are they participating in the highest form of thanksgiving and worship...but they have not left the faith.

You just need to learn to communicate with words, not emoticons.  Novus Ordites are a completely different breed. Do you not know about the abominable New Mass? Read Fr. Cekada's book called Work of Human Hands. For other mockeries of the real sacraments, read this: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/new-sacraments/ The fact is that people cease to be Catholic if they are heretics. Almost without exception, Novus Ordites are heretics. That is a completely reasonable assumption based on how every "Pope" they have followed since 1958 has spread heresy and even apostasy. The Novus Ordo is a Counter-Church, a Frankenchurch, and nothing about its substance is Catholic. It is Catholic In Name Only. Just because they took over the buildings doesn't mean that they are legitimate. You are duty-bound to advise the Novus Ordite that their souls are in danger for it doesn't matter how devout one is to a false religion.

I have nothing in common with people who believe that all souls go to Heaven, who believe that we are all God, and who kiss Korans. Why do you?

You sound young. Do you have kids?

For what it's worth I have found that raising children to love God, pray, be constantly in the Scripture, praying as a family, being humble and practicing virtuous living as a father are of much more value than raising children to be constantly critical and condemnatory of others....especially your co-religionists. Pointing out the lack of purity in "those people" leads to either pride or disillusionment.

Do not take this as me saying that you should not warn your children of falsehood or keep them from spiritually dangerous situations. What I perceive in your tone however seems to go beyond that.

Feel free to dismiss me out of hand. But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

You sound young. Do you have kids?

For what it's worth I have found that raising children to love God, pray, be constantly in the Scripture, praying as a family, being humble and practicing virtuous living as a father are of much more value than raising children to be constantly critical and condemnatory of others....especially your co-religionists. Pointing out the lack of purity in "those people" leads to either pride or disillusionment.

Do not take this as me saying that you should not warn your children of falsehood or keep them from spiritually dangerous situations. What I perceive in your tone however seems to go beyond that.

Feel free to dismiss me out of hand. But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly. 

[Miriam_M]

Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune. 

[Daniel]

Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune.

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)

[mikemac]

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)

Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.  Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

[GiftOfGod]

But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.  Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.

 
The Novus Ordo "Mass" is more similar to a Protestant service than the TLM. In my ecumenical NO days, I went to a Methodist service and even it was more traditional (and similar to the TLM, in form) than the NO. Your average lay sedes are infinitely more Catholic than the loose bowel movements that get shat out of NO seminaries annually.

It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

Do you think that the aforementioned "Popes" were/are heretics?

[Daniel]

Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.

Well I don't entirely disagree. To clarify, when I said "them" I was referring to all those who hold to false religious beliefs, and only to those who hold to false religious beliefs, regardless of whether they call themselves "Catholic". I'm thinking of the NO crowd as more of a mixed bag. Some are Catholic; others only think they are or pretend to be Catholic.

Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

This point I do disagree on. I don't know if the sedevacantists are right or not. I myself am not a sedevacantist--at least not at the moment. But the Church has always taught that heretics are not Catholic. And theologians in good standing such as St. Robert Bellarmine have held that non-Catholics cannot be pope. So if John XXIII et al. are in fact heretics (which seems to be the case), it does seem to be possible (even probable) that they aren't popes. The ontological reality (of whether or not they are pope) cannot change, regardless of whether or not any authority declares them to be anti-pope. Such a declaration by the Church would only be an infallible recognition that they are anti-popes. Sedevacantists, even if wrong, don't seem to be departing from Church teaching as far as I can tell.

[abc123]

But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

Thanks for confirming both your inexperienced youth AND your extreme immaturity.

BTW bud, not sure if this was directed at both of us but I'm most certainly a man. Though as a heretic please feel free to ignore my advice as well.

A kid in your position will only learn by experience. Hopefully you don't do too much damage or burn too many bridges in the process.

[mikemac]

Catholics that attend the NO Mass are Catholic.

Well I don't entirely disagree. To clarify, when I said "them" I was referring to all those who hold to false religious beliefs, and only to those who hold to false religious beliefs, regardless of whether they call themselves "Catholic". I'm thinking of the NO crowd as more of a mixed bag. Some are Catholic; others only think they are or pretend to be Catholic.

Sedes are not by their own volition.  GOG has it completely backwards.  He should be saying what he is saying in front of a mirror.  It is not an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to believe that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes.  It is an act of heresy to be of the opinion that they are not/were not popes.  In the future Francis or some of the others may be declared anti-popes.  Until then they are popes.

This point I do disagree on. I don't know if the sedevacantists are right or not. I myself am not a sedevacantist--at least not at the moment. But the Church has always taught that heretics are not Catholic. And theologians in good standing such as St. Robert Bellarmine have held that non-Catholics cannot be pope. So if John XXIII et al. are in fact heretics (which seems to be the case), it does seem to be possible (even probable) that they aren't popes. The ontological reality (of whether or not they are pope) cannot change, regardless of whether or not any authority declares them to be anti-pope. Such a declaration by the Church would only be an infallible recognition that they are anti-popes. Sedevacantists, even if wrong, don't seem to be departing from Church teaching as far as I can tell.

So, you are a sede?  No human is superior to the pope, so it has to be a future pope or a council to declare a pope an anti-pope.  When you refer to John XXIII do you mean Baldassarre Cossa (1410–1415), who was declared an antipope at the Council of Constance in 1415, or Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1958-1963)?  You know, think about that for a bit.

[Vetus Ordo]

Probably with the Luminous Mysteries, which "Saint John Paul the Great" (as Novus Ordite call him) added as a mockery of the design given by Our Lady. It just amazes me that he had the gall to do that but then I realized that "Pope Saint Paul VI" (as Novus Ordites call him) completely revised the Mass, in violation of dogma (Council of Trent). Dogma comes from God, so revising the Mass is changing what God decided.

The Dominican rosary evolved from the knotted prayer ropes that have been in use in Christianity since the time of the Desert Fathers. The organization and content of the mysteries to be meditated upon is not a matter of divine revelation but of Church tradition. It can be legitimately changed.

Revising the Roman rite is not a violation of dogma either. The Pope has in fact such power, as Pius XII teaches in Mediator Dei: "It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification."

[Kaesekopf]

But having raised/am raising 7 children I have discovered that an ounce of experience is worth a ton of theory.

As a mother of 9, I concur with this wholeheartedly.

Sorry, I no don't take religious advice from women (see St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians) and I shouldn't even be discussing important matters with such irrational beings. Don't you have diapers to change?

I don't quite get how a putative Catholic man would say something like that to a mother of nine.  Take a week off from posting. 

[Graham]

Well, I'm glad I didn't try to bet Christulsa about that, lol

[Kaesekopf]

Well, I'm glad I didn't try to bet Christulsa about that, lol

[Kaesekopf]

I know of one woman who was raised sede but left the Faith for the Novus Ordo. I don't know details of how she was raised but I don't think that her parents taught her how bad the Novus Order is, so she was sheltered in that respect. I have also read about similar problems online. I think some trads, sedes in particular, ignore how bad things are getting in the Novus Ordo. Sedes think that it's a false counter-church and that's all their kids need to know. R&Rs think that they should listen to their R&R priests/bishops only and ignore Francis. A problem arises when the kids grow up and see that "cool" and "normal" people are Novus Ordo Catholic. They see that NO Catholics are in bliss attending the New Mass, so they try it out and get suckered-in. I think everyone who converted to the traditional Catholic Faith did so out of pain, prayer, and lots of education. Cradle trads have no idea of the heresy and apostasy exhibited by so many (most?) Novus Ordo clergy. To me, it's the equivalent of some boy never hearing a word about drugs at home or homeschool and deciding to try a joint when it is offered to him by a neighbor kid.

I don't know if I am getting my thoughts across but I think that children should be catechized on the Novus Ordo, Second Vatican Council, Modernism, etc. To my knowledge, no such thing exists. Has anyone seen such problems with cradle trads? How have you educated your children on the Novus Ordo?

Teaching your kids outright that the Novus Ordo is bad is a recipe ripe for badness, because what seems to happen is those little sede/trad kids grow up into teenagers and young adults, then they go and see a 'reverent' Novus Ordo or even an average Novus Ordo and go "where are the clowns?", and things don't go well from there.

Better, rather, to teach them the Faith, and make sure they "know their stuff", as opposed to teaching them the ins and outs of the lacking of the NO.

[Daniel]

The Dominican rosary evolved from the knotted prayer ropes that have been in use in Christianity since the time of the Desert Fathers. The organization and content of the mysteries to be meditated upon is not a matter of divine revelation but of Church tradition. It can be legitimately changed.

Not so fast. For one thing, the word you're looking for is "grew", not "evolved". And even if the Rosary "grew"--which, I'll add, might not even be the case--it nevertheless is "revealed" insofar as it was confirmed by our Lady at Fatima, an apparition which at the very least seems to have been approved of by the Church. But I'll repeat, "growth" is not "evolution". The Davidic psalter only has 150 psalms, thus the Rosary (which, in some ways, was modeled after the psalter) can have no more than 15 decades. (After all, a human infant legitimately grows into a two-legged adult; he does not legitimately grow into a three-legged monster. Even if he eats some radioactive waste and starts growing a third leg or something, such growth is clearly not in accord with his unchanging nature.)

Revising the Roman rite is not a violation of dogma either. The Pope has in fact such power

Correct. But to raise a new point which I don't believe GoG brought up, it is a violation of dogma to "revise" the liturgy in such a way as to introduce heresies into the Mass. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know. But at least the SSPX says it did, and they're not even sedevacantists.