IS THE THEOLOGY OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS NEO-PELAGIAN AND NEO GNOSTIC AS WELL AS NEO ARIAN, AT LEAST IN PART?

Thursday, March 22, 2018

IS THE THEOLOGY OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS NEO-PELAGIAN AND NEO GNOSTIC [AS WELL AS NEO ARIAN – AQ moderator Tom], AT LEAST IN PART?

 

I am glad the CDF and Pope Francis have drawn our attention to the new Gnostics and Pelagians in the Church today.

It has helped many to understand that some of the theology of the modern liturgists since the new liturgical movement of the 20th century were both. I would say Bishop Bugnini and his cohorts were the preeminent ones imbued with a new gnosticism and Pelagianism.

Why is that, you may ask?

Think about the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II that didn’t exactly follow what Vatican II actually suggested. The first ideology was to make the Mass more ecumenically pleasing to Protestants. Aren’t they the Gnostics of the Reformation period? Aren’t they the ones who did away with all the inspirational aspects of the liturgy and in fact did away with the sacraments? Aren’t they the ones who insisted on comprehensibility, the Word as information more important than the mystical aspects of the Liturgy?   Didn’t they have new insights as to what the Church should be hidden from the pope and bishops in union with him at the time?

Thus, if you couldn’t understand the Mass (gnosis) and it wasn’t comprehensible, (gnosis) and it was too mystical (no gnosis)  and if it was too physical, sacraments and signs, (Gnostic) and you weren’t the one doing all the work to attain an salvation, (Pelegianism) then the elements of hocus pocus had to be eliminated because these implied that you didn’t did need to use your mind and your body to be able to comprehend and assimilate on your own what you needed to know to experience God’s grace. It wasn’t up to you, but up to God and that had to be corrected by the Protestant reformers and the post-Vatican II reformers in cahoots with them.

Thus the revised Mass, more ecumenical and allowing for more gnosis and Pelagianism, became more cerebral so that each participant could understand otherwise they couldn’t receive the graces because their understanding of things is what allowed them the graces. It was up to them to understand and if they couldn’t no grace was there.

For example, there are some in the Ordinary Form who think a deaf and dumb person who is blind receives no graces from simply being at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they can’t comprehend one single thing that takes place. No comprehension, no grace!

Of course that is balderdash! In the EF Mass, with its high Christology, mystical experiences, Latin language, silent Canon and the priest duplicating genuflections and Signs of the Cross all over the place, it isn’t the cerebral (Gnosticism) or the Pelagianism, (I transform myself by my understanding and assimilation of the things that I understand).

Thus a return to the theology of the EF Mass is the sure and certain way to over come the new Gnosticism and Palegianism of the Ordinary Form of the Mass pseudo-theology.

And thus an astute commenter on another post unwittingly uncovered for us the theology of the new gnostics and Pelagians in the introduction to the Penitential Act of the Ordinary Form:

Brethren (brothers and sisters), let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.  (NEO-Pelagian) no?

EF theology applied to an OF innovation:

Brethren (brothers and sisters), by the grace of God and His purifying love, may our sins be made known to us and imbued with the grace of sorrow, let us ask God to further prepare us to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/03/22/is-the-theology-of-the-ordinary-form-of-the-mass-neo-pelagian-and-neo-gnostic-at-least-in-part/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

Leave a Reply