Bonnie
Super Member
Good point.Can you show where the Bereans had communion like the rcc. No church services in those days were agape feasts.
Good point.Can you show where the Bereans had communion like the rcc. No church services in those days were agape feasts.
Sry but you are very mistaken. Nothing you stated constitutes an invalid mass.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.
Right, you know more about sacramental theology than St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Pope Pius VSry but you are very mistaken. Nothing you stated constitutes an invalid mass.
But your solution is entirely backwards! True unity is rooted in truth, not some more Roman Catholic literature about their man-made ritual performance called the "Mass." Is it any wonder why Jesus prayed: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?
OR Hail Holy Queen OR Ave MariaThose things aren't online.
Hymns could be anything--from Amazing Grace, Praise to the Lord, to Here I am Lord or Be Not Afraid.
The "Ave Maria" tends to be sung at funerals and weddings--at the request of the family.OR Hail Holy Queen OR Ave Maria
Just because the rcc destroyed all evidence of Christianity prior to Luther does in no way, shape, or form mean that there is no history there.There is no history of Protestantism in the early Church or before Luther.
I prefer to believe that the rcc burned them all down, murdered them, and destroyed any trace of them.There were no Protestant churches, leaders or writings.
Actually, you are the one that makes the ecf's teaching infallible and yet you cannot explain why they disagree with one another over various points of rcc'ism.The best you can do is try to cherry pick writings of the ecf to try to make them all look like Southern Baptists.
No, it isn't a good point. Not in the slightest--at least for you as a Lutheran.Good point.
Seriously? Just when I thought I heard it all.Just because the rcc destroyed all evidence of Christianity prior to Luther does in no way, shape, or form mean that there is no history there.
Just like that thing that crashed in Roswell NM was no weather balloon--but some kind of alien device?I prefer to believe that the rcc burned them all down, murdered them, and destroyed any trace of them.
Why do you think infallibility means Catholics aren't allowed to disagree with each other, or means there will never be disagreement?Actually, you are the one that makes the ecf's teaching infallible and yet you cannot explain why they disagree with one another over various points of rcc'ism.
And you know more about the Catholic Faith than Pope Francis....Right, you know more about sacramental theology than St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Pope Pius V
In the Tridentine Latin Mass the communicant receives our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity from the consecrated hands of a priest on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail, while a paten is held under the chin in case the host should fall.You know, the fact that you won't explain what is wrong with it is suggestive.
No, I never followed David Bawden, "Pope" Michael." Did you know he recently passed away?Let's be real here: you follow Pope Michael--and or other right-wing radicals having nothing to do with Catholicism.
It's a supper table to share a meal on. Here's the definition of the "mass" in the General Instruction of Roman MIssal 1969:No, its an altar.
He got exactly what he wanted. A communal meal shared on a supper table as a memorial.Well, since we still offer the sacrifice of Christ, I would suggest that this Fr. Annibale guy---didn't get what he wanted.
That's what I thought, because it is so incredible. What Guitton said is verifiable. It originated from an interview on December 19, 1993 in Lumiere 101’s broadcast on Radio-Courtoisie. The interview was in French. Later the same month, an article in Apropos magazine which quoted Guitton.This strikes me as conspiracy theory nonsense.
Ironically a 16th century Calvinist "mass" is probably more Catholic than your Novus Ordo Supper service.Calvinist Mass? That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Oh the humanities!In the Tridentine Latin Mass the communicant receives our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity from the consecrated hands of a priest on the tongue while kneeling at an altar rail, while a paten is held under the chin in case the host should fall.
In the Novus Ordo Supper service, what is purported to be our Lord Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is received in the hand while standing in line from the lady that checked out your groceries at Walmart earlier in the week.
Really? Cause---Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden both would have grown up under the Old Rite and Mass you speak of. The Tridentine Mass didn't help them much, did it?That you don't understand that one of these things is objectively more reverent, respectful and lends one to a greater belief in the real presence is suggestive.
No, but thanks for telling me. That makes me sad. I never met him, but I could have seen myself as a friend of his if I knew him. May he rest in peace. He wasn't all that old I do not think. I did enjoy listening to him--even though I thought he was a bit crazy. Despite my references to him on this site, I did have a bit of respect for him. I will donate a Mass intention for the repose of his soul. Maybe I will meet him in heaven one day..No, I never followed David Bawden, "Pope" Michael." Did you know he recently passed away?
Actually I wanted to email him and ask him whether he thought priests could ordain. I never did. Apparently in history there are accounts of priests (abbots) ordaining with permission from the pope. I cannot seem to get a simple straight answer from anyone on this question. What is your opinion on that?I will say this about the man, he did seem to be very pious and humble. Of course I never regarded him as a pope and probably not even as a validly ordained priest or bishop, but he did seem to hold the Catholic Faith, although misguided. More than I can say about your "pope", Pachamama Jorge.
The GIRM says that? So disinfect it!It's a supper table to share a meal on. Here's the definition of the "mass" in the General Instruction of Roman MIssal 1969:
"The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst”
That does not entail Vatican II is outright DENYING the sacrificial aspect.No mention of the mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary offered by a priest in an unbloody manner. Rather, it was now merely a liturgical meal (“Lord’s Supper”!) held by the congregation, over which a priest merely presided. It's sharing a meal at a supper table.
And you are basing your opinion on that article/broadcast?That's what I thought, because it is so incredible. What Guitton said is verifiable. It originated from an interview on December 19, 1993 in Lumiere 101’s broadcast on Radio-Courtoisie. The interview was in French. Later the same month, an article in Apropos magazine which quoted Guitton.
In October 1994, an article appeared in Christian Order which also quoted Guitton. Cardinal Stickler refers to Guitton's statement in a 1995 article of Latin Mass Magazine.
Ironically a 16th century Calvinist "mass" is probably more Catholic than your Novus Ordo Supper service.
OOOHH?! That's what you call it........Why do you think infallibility means Catholics aren't allowed to disagree with each other, or means there will never be disagreement?
The ECF didn't get everything right--and we never maintained they did get everything right. But here is the thing: 1) someone can't be condemned as a heretic before a teaching is clarified. 2) The ECF were in union with the larger Church and with the Bishop of Rome--something Protestants are not.You're best buds with the ecfs when you agree with them on one subject, and you will throw them under the bus when you do not agree on another then you will pick them up and dust them off when you are in agreement again.
The ECF didn't get everything right--and we never maintained they did get everything right. But here is the thing: 1) someone can't be condemned as a heretic before a teaching is clarified. 2) The ECF were in union with the larger Church and with the Bishop of Rome--something Protestants are not.
However, on the things where there seems to be universal consensus--either positively (most of the fathers taught and believe it) or negatively (most of the fathers didn't object or condemn it) that is taken as an indication that it is Tradition/revealed Truth.
Example: infant Baptism. I am not aware that the ECF as a whole largely objected to the practice of infant Baptism. By the time of Augustine, the practice was widespread and there were no major controversies over it. That is suggestive. Now, are there one or two individual ECF who might have objected? Perhaps. I am not aware of any, but I wouldn't be surprised if you found a few obscure quotes from ECF that might have objected to the practice. The point is not one or two or a smattering of individual ECF, but the ECF taken as a collective whole.
The ECF didn't get everything right
As determined by whom or what mechanism? Who judges whether what they taught aligned with the Bible in your system? Who makes that determination?No they sure didn't. They also aren't our standard, scripture is. What they taught, if it aligns with the bible then fine.
You want to compare the Church to the USA? Apples and chairs!If they don't then we don't. Just because that after the time of Augustine the majority believed in infant baptism (and i'm not saying they did) but again no offense but who cares? Thats 400 years after the birth of the church. Whats the usa gonna look like in another 200 years? Its falling apart now. Are people in the future (and i believe we'll be gone by then), are they going to look back and say well 400 years after the the birth of the usa that a dictatorship was fine?
I would say that Scripture may not explicitly teach certain things, but that is not the same thing as saying Scripture does not teach them.Scripture simply doesn't have the teachings the rcc wants so it appeals to the ecfs as its guide. We don't do that.
Not more classic hymns, like "Crown Him with Many Crowns" or "Holy Holy Holy"?Those things aren't online.
Hymns could be anything--from Amazing Grace, Praise to the Lord, to Here I am Lord or Be Not Afraid.
We used to sing 'ave maria' a lot I still remember the words.The "Ave Maria" tends to be sung at funerals and weddings--at the request of the family.
Hail Holy Queen and other Marian hymns are usually sung maybe on Mother's Day---or during the month of May--which is considered a Marian month because of Mother's Day. October is also considered a Marian month-but I am not sure why.
The point is that outside specific times or days, usually Marian hymns aren't sung. The hymn selections usually reflect the cycle of readings. The Lutherans, Methodist and Anglicans follow a very similar cycle to the one we use when it comes to the readings. What can I say? Imitation is the best form of flattery.
Depends on the Church.Not more classic hymns, like "Crown Him with Many Crowns" or "Holy Holy Holy"?
As determined by whom or what mechanism? Who judges whether what they taught aligned with the Bible in your system? Who makes that determination?
You want to compare the Church to the USA? Apples and chairs!
The USA is a country founded by human beings, run by human beings with a human authority. The Constitution is a human document authored by human beings that is changeable by human beings.
The Church is a divine institution because it was founded by one who is divine. The Constitution of the Church (if you will) is the Bible---itself divine because it was written by one who is divine. The Bible cannot be changed by the Church. What it teaches was true in the First Century and it is true now.
I would say that Scripture may not explicitly teach certain things, but that is not the same thing as saying Scripture does not teach them.
It is true to say that the ECF may have made certain teachings of Scripture more explicit as time passes and generations reflected on the Scriptures.
As determined by whom or what mechanism? Who judges whether what they taught aligned with the Bible in your system? Who makes that determination?
You want to compare the Church to the USA? Apples and chairs!
If you have to employ eisegesis in scripture to get to you teaching, then yes, its not only not implicit but its not explicit either.I would say that Scripture may not explicitly teach certain things, but that is not the same thing as saying Scripture does not teach them.
It is true to say that the ECF may have made certain teachings of Scripture more explicit as time passes and generations reflected on the Scriptures.