I have a request for two Catholics on here....

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
well, thx for telling us your true view of His church, which was alive and growing long before the rcc was invented!
There is no history of Protestantism in the early Church or before Luther.

There were no Protestant churches, leaders or writings.

The best you can do is try to cherry pick writings of the ecf to try to make them all look like Southern Baptists.
 

Blessings8

Active member
Romish and Mysterium Fidei. If you would be willing, could you put down on here the order of service from one of your church bulletins from a Sunday--the liturgy sung, the names of the hymns, the subject of the homily; the Bible readings for that day. I would be interested in comparing the two, since one of you is post Vatican II and the other Pre-Vatican II. That is, if either of you feels inclined to do so. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank

Romish and Mysterium Fidei. If you would be willing, could you put down on here the order of service from one of your church bulletins from a Sunday--the liturgy sung, the names of the hymns, the subject of the homily; the Bible readings for that day. I would be interested in comparing the two, since one of you is post Vatican II and the other Pre-Vatican II. That is, if either of you feels inclined to do so. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)
the bulletin has nothing to do with it. the basic elements of the mass exist in both. It is the abuse after Vatican 2 that some have issue with. But the mass itself is the same.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
the bulletin has nothing to do with it. the basic elements of the mass exist in both. It is the abuse after Vatican 2 that some have issue with. But the mass itself is the same.
No, the Novus Ordo "mass" is not the same. The Novus Ordo is not merely a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Latin Mass. It was created with the input of 6 Protestant ministers with the express purpose of making a mass that would be ecumenical and more acceptable to Protestants.

The universal language, Latin, had to be dumped for the vernacular. The altar was replaced by a table, degrading the sacrificial character of the Mass. The priest faces the people instead of our Lord in the tabernacle. Communion is given in the hand while standing instead of on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail.

Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice

The New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest, which is against Catholic theology!

Just as Luther did away with the Offertory, so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

The prayers of the Propers of the New Mass have been systematically de-Catholicized. Gone are such Catholic concepts as sacrifice, reparation, Hell, etc.

When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci and other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it. What they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the “most pure” version of the New Mass. Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

This is what they said about the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae. This was before the vernacular, guitars, drums, banjoes, balloons, clowns, eucharistic lunch ladies and liturgical dancing girls.
 

Blessings8

Active member
No, the Novus Ordo "mass" is not the same. The Novus Ordo is not merely a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Latin Mass. It was created with the input of 6 Protestant ministers with the express purpose of making a mass that would be ecumenical and more acceptable to Protestants.

The universal language, Latin, had to be dumped for the vernacular. The altar was replaced by a table, degrading the sacrificial character of the Mass. The priest faces the people instead of our Lord in the tabernacle. Communion is given in the hand while standing instead of on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail.

Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice

The New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest, which is against Catholic theology!

Just as Luther did away with the Offertory, so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.

The prayers of the Propers of the New Mass have been systematically de-Catholicized. Gone are such Catholic concepts as sacrifice, reparation, Hell, etc.

When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci and other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it. What they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the “most pure” version of the New Mass. Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

This is what they said about the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae. This was before the vernacular, guitars, drums, banjoes, balloons, clowns, eucharistic lunch ladies and liturgical dancing girls.
the basic elements of the mass are exactly the same.
 

Blessings8

Active member
You might think your cult has replaced Jesus but of course you are wrong. FYI, your cult did not begin until 325-350 ad.
let me guess, the old attack that Constantine started the CC.

Instead, he ended the bloody persecution of Christians and made it a state religion. Chech your history.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
let me guess, the old attack that Constantine started the CC.

Instead, he ended the bloody persecution of Christians and made it a state religion. Chech your history.
If you check I believe it’s called history minus the RCC spin and revised history. Constantine introduced paganism and idolatry into the church and the RCC was begun in idolatry and paganism.
 

mica

Well-known member
Bonnie said:
Romish and Mysterium Fidei. If you would be willing, could you put down on here the order of service from one of your church bulletins from a Sunday--the liturgy sung, the names of the hymns, the subject of the homily; the Bible readings for that day. I would be interested in comparing the two, since one of you is post Vatican II and the other Pre-Vatican II. That is, if either of you feels inclined to do so. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
the bulletin has nothing to do with it. the basic elements of the mass exist in both. It is the abuse after Vatican 2 that some have issue with. But the mass itself is the same.
so they always have the same hymns, the same homily and same readings at every Mass?
 

Misfit

Well-known member
the basic elements of the mass are exactly the same.
I think he made some good points, though I question however his veracity in saying that the New Mass had input from Protestants. I am very familiar with the Latin Mass as I was a child in the early 1960's when that was the norm, but readily accepted the New Mass, especially with the use of the local language.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
And yours some 1200 plus years after that.
False. What my church believes aligns closely with what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Very closely. Nowhere did either teach:

1. Mariolatry and all it entails
2. Purgatory
3. Popes
4. Obeying said popes is necessary for salvation
5. Salvation by grace through faith plus our works
6. Unmarried clergy
7. Praying to saints dead in the Lord
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Romish and Mysterium Fidei. If you would be willing, could you put down on here the order of service from one of your church bulletins from a Sunday--the liturgy sung, the names of the hymns, the subject of the homily; the Bible readings for that day. I would be interested in comparing the two, since one of you is post Vatican II and the other Pre-Vatican II. That is, if either of you feels inclined to do so. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)

From start to finish:

Liturgy of the Word:

1) Entrance Rite: Priest and servers process in to the altar, congregation sings a hymn.

2) Greeting: "In the name of the Father and of the Son...."

3) Penitential Rite:

4) Gloria:

5) Opening Prayer:

6) First Reading:

7) Psalm:

8) Second Reading:

9) Gospel Acclamation:

10) Gospel:

11) Homily:

12) Creed:

13) General Intercessions:

Liturgy of the Eucharist:

1) Offertory Hymn: during this time the offering is taken, the altar prepared, and the gifts of bread and wine brought forth.

2) Prayer over the offerings:

3) Eucharistic Prayer: includes the preface, the Holy, Holy, Holy, Consecration, acclamation, second half of the prayer, and the Doxology

5) Lord's Prayer:

6) Sign of Peace:

7) Lamb of God:

8) Communion: A hymn is sung during this time

9) Purification of vessels:

10) Prayer after Communion:

11) Blessing and dismissal:

12) Closing hymn:

Note that all of the above elements were present in the pre-Vatican II Mass. The Mass just took on a different form. Mysterium Fide and critics of the new Mass are correct in their assertion that the Mass of today looks more Protestant. But that does not bother me. What matters to me is that the Sacrifice of Christ takes place. It does not matter to me whether we pray in Latin, chant, etc. Actually it does--in the sense that I have no desire to do Mass that way. I never grew up with the old Mass. I am happy with the Mass as it is.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No, the Novus Ordo "mass" is not the same. The Novus Ordo is not merely a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Latin Mass. It was created with the input of 6 Protestant ministers with the express purpose of making a mass that would be ecumenical and more acceptable to Protestants.
This is a bad thing why? If we want Protestants to see the Catholic Faith as a good thing, if we want to attempt to reestablish unity, why should we not attempt to reach out to them and present the Mass in such a way as they might see it for what it is?

What is wrong with making the Mass more accessible to people?
The universal language, Latin, had to be dumped for the vernacular.
And this is bad, why?
The altar was replaced by a table, degrading the sacrificial character of the Mass.
Most churches I have been in have an obvious altar. Though it is true that Vatican II attempted to recover and balance the meal aspect of the Mass with the sacrificial aspect. I see the sacrificial aspect of the Mass as primary, but there is also a meal/banquet feast aspect to the Mass.
The priest faces the people instead of our Lord in the tabernacle.
The tabernacle is not the focus of the Mass. The purpose of the tabernacle is to reserve the Sacrament for the sick and for personal prayer and devotion. The focus of the Mass is the altar--hence why they moved the altar and made it central.

I will agree, however, that the priest facing the people--is not the greatest idea.
Communion is given in the hand while standing instead of on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail.
So? People may still receive on the tongue if they wish. As I tell people--if you like to receive Communion on the tongue--go for it. No one stops people who like to receive on the tongue from doing so.
Because the narrative manner of the Consecration in the New Mass infers that it is only a memorial and not a true sacrifice.
Right--but the priest muttering in Latin when people could not hear him and when they could barely see what he was doing---truly conveys the sacrificial character of the Mass. People praying rosaries while the Mass is going on--becasue they can barely see or hear the priest and what he is doing--right--that really conveys the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. :rolleyes:
The New Mass gives us to understand that the people concelebrate with the priest, which is against Catholic theology!
No it isn't. The priest offers the Mass, yes, but we unite our spiritual sacrifices to that of the priest and it becomes our Mass. There is a sense in which the people celebrate with the priest.
Just as Luther did away with the Offertory, so also the inventors of the New Mass did away with it, reducing it to a simple Preparation of the Gifts.
I can't speak to this. I have no idea what you are talking about.
The prayers of the Propers of the New Mass have been systematically de-Catholicized. Gone are such Catholic concepts as sacrifice, reparation, Hell, etc.
Yes, that was true in the disastrous ICEL translation of the 70's. The 2011 translation is far superior and recovered a lot of that.
When the New Mass came out in 1969, Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci and other theologians wrote to Paul VI about it. What they said about the New Mass concerns the Latin Version, the “most pure” version of the New Mass. Their study is popularly known as The Ottaviani Intervention. It states:

“The Novus Ordo [the New Order of Mass] represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”
And after Humane Vita was released, theologians objected for much of the same reasons. Shall we allow for contraception becasue a bunch of theologians made objections?

My point? Theologians aren't the teachers of the Faith. Their role is to present arguments for or against a position. The role of the bishops is to judge between the evidence, the arguments, etc, then render a decision.
This is what they said about the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae. This was before the vernacular, guitars, drums, banjoes, balloons, clowns, eucharistic lunch ladies and liturgical dancing girls.
But you are referring to abuses of the New Rite never intended by Vatican II.

Your argument is that the New Rite is bad--becasue there are abuses?
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
the basic elements of the mass are exactly the same.
No they are not. They literally changed the consecration formula of the wine. The new "mass" changed the words of Christ.

"This blood is to be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven."

The original was: "for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins."

"Many" and "all" do not mean the same thing. This is a substantial change of meaning and a subversion of sacramental theology. It renders the sacrament invalid.

St. Alphonsus writes, "The words Pro vobis et pro multis ("For you and for many") are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who co-operate with grace.

Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the new wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. This is the teaching of St. Pope Pius V in his bull De Defectibus.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
I think he made some good points, though I question however his veracity in saying that the New Mass had input from Protestants. I am very familiar with the Latin Mass as I was a child in the early 1960's when that was the norm, but readily accepted the New Mass, especially with the use of the local language.
The six Protestant Ministers who helped design the New Mass were: Drs. George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian. They had no voting power but acted in a consulting role and took part in many conversations on the creation of the new "mass." There are photographs online of them all posing with anti-pope Montini.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
This is a bad thing why? If we want Protestants to see the Catholic Faith as a good thing, if we want to attempt to reestablish unity, why should we not attempt to reach out to them and present the Mass in such a way as they might see it for what it is?

What is wrong with making the Mass more accessible to people?

And this is bad, why?
You know, the fact that you don't see anything wrong with this just shows how far you are removed from Catholicism. Then again, you do participate in Protestant services and you identify as a Protestant, so I guess that should not be surprising.

We follow two different religions, that is obvious. I follow Catholicism as it was practiced for 1960 years. You follow the new ecumenical, Universalist man centered religion, headed by your pagan buffoon "pope." Religiously we share nothing in common.

Most churches I have been in have an obvious altar. Though it is true that Vatican II attempted to recover and balance the meal aspect of the Mass with the sacrificial aspect. I see the sacrificial aspect of the Mass as primary, but there is also a meal/banquet feast aspect to the Mass.

The tabernacle is not the focus of the Mass. The purpose of the tabernacle is to reserve the Sacrament for the sick and for personal prayer and devotion. The focus of the Mass is the altar--hence why they moved the altar and made it central.
It's not an altar, it's a supper table.

I will agree, however, that the priest facing the people--is not the greatest idea.

So? People may still receive on the tongue if they wish. As I tell people--if you like to receive Communion on the tongue--go for it. No one stops people who like to receive on the tongue from doing so.

Right--but the priest muttering in Latin when people could not hear him and when they could barely see what he was doing---truly conveys the sacrificial character of the Mass. People praying rosaries while the Mass is going on--becasue they can barely see or hear the priest and what he is doing--right--that really conveys the sacrificial aspect of the Mass. :rolleyes:

No it isn't. The priest offers the Mass, yes, but we unite our spiritual sacrifices to that of the priest and it becomes our Mass. There is a sense in which the people celebrate with the priest.

I can't speak to this. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, that was true in the disastrous ICEL translation of the 70's. The 2011 translation is far superior and recovered a lot of that.

And after Humane Vita was released, theologians objected for much of the same reasons. Shall we allow for contraception becasue a bunch of theologians made objections?

My point? Theologians aren't the teachers of the Faith. Their role is to present arguments for or against a position. The role of the bishops is to judge between the evidence, the arguments, etc, then render a decision.

But you are referring to abuses of the New Rite never intended by Vatican II.

Your argument is that the New Rite is bad--becasue there are abuses?
No, my argument is that the New Rite is not a Catholic rite.

Fr. Annibale Bugnini, creator of the Novus Ordo "mass" said: "We must 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." - L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965

A close confidant of Pope Paul VI, Jean Guitton said in a radio interview in the 90's: "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass”
 
Top