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

Bonnie

Super Member
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.
Thank you. This is general. I would like to know the content of the prayers and the homily, as well as the name of the hymns.

I think church services should be done in the language of the people in the church. Which explains why, around Christmas 1961, when I and my family spent Christmas with my very Polish grandparents in Pennsylvania, I did not understand a word at their church we went to on one of the Sundays while we were there--it was all in Polish and Latin! :p
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
W
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.
Where did Jesus say either of these things?
"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."
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
Where did Jesus say either of these things?

Matthew 26:28. Douay Rheims

26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice he gave thanks: and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
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.
Then how are these Eucharistic miracles still happening if the consecrations aren't happening?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
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.
You know, the fact that you won't explain what is wrong with it is suggestive.
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.
Let's be real here: you follow Pope Michael--and or other right-wing radicals having nothing to do with Catholicism.
It's not an altar, it's a supper table.
No, its an altar.
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
Well, since we still offer the sacrifice of Christ, I would suggest that this Fr. Annibale guy---didn't get what he wanted.
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”
This strikes me as conspiracy theory nonsense.

Calvinist Mass? That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
Then how are these Eucharistic miracles still happening if the consecrations aren't happening?
False apostles are deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
Your heretic man made religion didn't exist for over 1500 years until after the foundation of the Catholic Church and the sacrifice of the Mass, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
Well this is false from start to finish! First, the only reason your church called Luther a "heretic" is because he wouldn't kowtow to the Pope. Instead, Luther obeyed God rather than a mere man, and stood up for the truth of Scripture. Peter told the powers that be during his time that it is "better to obey God than man" when the Sanhedrin told him and the others to stop preaching about Jesus Christ.

What my church teaches is far, far closer to what Jesus and the Apostles taught than your church could ever hope to be! Because we do NOT teach any of the following and neither did Jesus or the Apostles:

1. Mariolatry in all its forms
2. Praying to saints dead in the Lord for help, succor, intercession--especially to Mary
3. Purgatory--Jesus paid for the guilt of our sins on the cross, but not the punishment for them; hence, why the saved must first suffer for an unspecified length of time in Purgatory, before being allowed to go to heaven, if they don't suffer enough while alive upon the earth.
4. Celibate, unmarried clergy--When Paul said elders and bishops must be the husband of one wife, and have well-run households and respectful children. Plus, he called forbidding marriage a "doctrine of demons."
5. Popes ruling out of Rome, who must be obeyed in order to be saved
6. Salvation by grace through faith plus our works, PLUS believing in the 4 Marian Dogmas

Our church has zero of these things. Ergo, it isn't man-made and is far closer to what the early church believed, taught, and confessed. It taught salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and not by our works. So do we.

If Luther is such a rotten heretic then why are two of his hymns in the Catholic hymnal, including what some have called the "Battle Hymn of the Reformation", A Mighty Fortress Is Our God"??? (The Christmas hymn From Heaven Above is also in the hymnal)
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Of course you are. You follow all the tenets of Protestantism.
1.Sola Scriptura

Which is Biblical. Some Catholics don't even understand what this truly means.
2.Sola fidei

Which is biblical.
3. The right of individual interpretation of scripture.

The Bereans were able to read and interpret Scripture for themselves, when they tested what Paul had taught them--USING SCRIPTURE. Why do you suppose they were able to do so?

The Wilders read the NT for themselves, when they had questions about the LDS church that they belonged to. The reread the NT at their youngest son's insistence, so they would know why he left the LDS church. His parents did--and the HS opened their eyes to the truth of God's holy word and they saw that what they had believed as Mormons was all a lie. One big, fat, lie. NO ONE person had to "officially" interpret the word of God for them. They read it for themselves, as if reading it for the first time, thirsty for the truth. The HS granted their request to understand God's holy word, and since they wanted the truth more than anything, they no longer fought the HS, but allowed Him to open their hearts and minds to the truth they found in the NT. That enabled them to leave their false church and become true Christians. No "pope" had to explain it to them. Not trying to go off topic here, but just using this as a modern example of what reading the actual word of God can do for people, when they honestly and earnestly want the truth.

From what I have seen of Catholic beliefs, many individuals understand the Scriptures far better than the Pope and his Magisterium! As Jesus says in Matthew 11:

The Father Revealed in the Son​

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

Little children can often understand biblical truths better than the Pope and his magisterium can.
These are the 3 tenets of Protestantism begun by the heretic Luther. You follow them, therefore you are a Protestant.

Since these three things are biblical, practiced in the early church, does that mean the early church was Protestant?

Since these three things are biblical,, then I guess the early church was Protestant, huh? :)
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
I remember in the past, the priest had a choice of readings he could use on a particular day. Also there were slight differences in format he could use.
We have the pericope readings--something from the OT, from an Epistle, then the Gospel reading. They are usually connected in some way. The sermon is usually based upon one of these readings, though there are alternate readings as well. The sermon contains both Law and Gospel--but ALWAYS the Gospel message. It is of paramount importance to us, as is God's word. Our church services are saturated with it! I wonder how much Catholic church services are....
 
Last edited:

pilgrim

Well-known member
The Bereans were able to read and interpret Scripture for themselves, when they tested what Paul had taught them--USING SCRIPTURE. Why do you suppose they were able to do so?
Do you think the Bereans believed in the Real Presence exactly as Lutherans do just by searching the Scriptures for themselves?
 

balshan

Well-known member
We have the pericope readings--something from the OT, from an Epistle, then the Gospel reading. They are usually connected in some way. The sermon is usually based upon one of these readings, though there are alternate readings as well. The sermon contains both Law and Gospel--but ALWAYS the Gospel message. It is of paramount importance to us, as is God's word. Our church services are saturated with it! I wonder how much Catholic church services are....
That sounds very RC but the priests has a choice on the readings. There is not really an in depth sermon at all. Maybe 5 or 10 mins.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Do you think the Bereans believed in the Real Presence exactly as Lutherans do just by searching the Scriptures for themselves?
I don't know--but this question about the Real Presence is just a diversionary tactic, since the Bereans were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught them about the Gospel message was true. Did they take the Scriptures to some authority or other to have it "officially" interpreted for them? Yes or no? Remember what Acts 22 says?

Paul at Berea​

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, [j]and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, [k]for they received the word with [l]great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, [m]along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. [.quote]

What "word" did they receive with eagerness? Earlier in this chapter we read:

2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 [a]explaining and giving evidence that the [c]Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the [d]Christ.”


Paul and Silas were preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bereans double-checked with Scriptures to see if what Paul had taught them was true. The Bereans themselves did this. So can we.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
That sounds very RC but the priests has a choice on the readings. There is not really an in depth sermon at all. Maybe 5 or 10 mins.
Our church sermons are 15-20 minutes long. The Liturgy we sing is mostly Bible verses put to music, but many of them proclailm the Gospel message, and so do our hymns.

I remember back in 1998 visiting my Polish grandmother in a nursing home outside Pittsburg, PA. Our 18 year old granddaughter went with us to meet her great-grandma for the first and last time. We attended a short church service with Grandma while we were there; it was on a weekday. We did not partake of Communion, since we are not in pulpit fellowship with Catholics. Everything was in English, from what I remember. We were able to pray a couple of the prayers to God, but one was to Mary, so we did NOT bow our heads and pray along with everyone else. One of the hymns was a paen of praise to Mary, but we refused to sing that. I don't remember anything else.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Our church sermons are 15-20 minutes long. The Liturgy we sing is mostly Bible verses put to music, but many of them proclailm the Gospel message, and so do our hymns.

I remember back in 1998 visiting my Polish grandmother in a nursing home outside Pittsburg, PA. Our 18 year old granddaughter went with us to meet her great-grandma for the first and last time. We attended a short church service with Grandma while we were there; it was on a weekday. We did not partake of Communion, since we are not in pulpit fellowship with Catholics. Everything was in English, from what I remember. We were able to pray a couple of the prayers to God, but one was to Mary, so we did NOT bow our heads and pray along with everyone else. One of the hymns was a paen of praise to Mary, but we refused to sing that. I don't remember anything else.
Mary is part of the RCC in every area of RC life.
 

Southsider071

Well-known member
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.

There have been bible-believing Christians all along. Have you ever read the "Trail of Blood" published about 100 years ago?

Remember this too, that before Gutenberg, it was a lot easier to destroy knowledge. There is no doubt that the RCC controlled most of the governments throughout the middle ages, and getting rid of the Bible and records of non-Catholic churches was just a lot easier. So all we know about some of the groups was what the RCC said about them.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
I don't know--but this question about the Real Presence is just a diversionary tactic, since the Bereans were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught them about the Gospel message was true. Did they take the Scriptures to some authority or other to have it "officially" interpreted for them? Yes or no? Remember what Acts 22 says?
No it isn't. Clearly different people study Scripture and come to different conclusions as to it's meaning. You see Real Presence and others do not. Why is it not obvious to them as it is to you?
 
Top