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

Blessings8

Active 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.
Sry but you are very mistaken. Nothing you stated constitutes an invalid mass.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known 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?
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:

"Consecrate them by the truth, Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world, and for their sake I now consecrate myself, that they too may be consecrated by the truth.
But it is not for these alone that I pray, but for those also who through their words put their faith in me. . . For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one." ...................(John 17: 17-21)
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
OR Hail Holy Queen OR Ave Maria
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.
 

leonard03782

Well-known member
There is no history of Protestantism in the early Church or before Luther.
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 were no Protestant churches, leaders or writings.
I prefer to believe that the rcc burned them all down, murdered them, and destroyed any trace of them.

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

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Good point.
No, it isn't a good point. Not in the slightest--at least for you as a Lutheran.

"Think McFly, THINK!" (Back to the Future movie reference.)

For starters, once again, the poster's point proves too much. If this disproves the Catholic Eucharist, it also disproves your Eucharist.

You see, dear Bonnie, both of us agree that there is a real and true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We disagree on the precise NATURE of this presence, but we agree that Christ is really and truly present. The person posting to you does not agree with either the Catholic or Lutheran concept of the Eucharist. Hence, if the poster's point works to refute us, it also refutes YOU.

I get on these boards the enemy of my enemy is my friend--but---Lutheran's and Catholics are similar. Arguments that refute us----can also be turned against you.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
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.
Seriously? Just when I thought I heard it all.

Do you think the Moon landing was faked too?
I prefer to believe that the rcc burned them all down, murdered them, and destroyed any trace of them.
Just like that thing that crashed in Roswell NM was no weather balloon--but some kind of alien device?
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.
Why do you think infallibility means Catholics aren't allowed to disagree with each other, or means there will never be disagreement?
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
You know, the fact that you won't explain what is wrong with it is suggestive.
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.

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.
Let's be real here: you follow Pope Michael--and or other right-wing radicals having nothing to do with Catholicism.
No, I never followed David Bawden, "Pope" Michael." Did you know he recently passed away?

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.

Anyway, I do pray for his soul.

No, its an altar.
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”

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.

Well, since we still offer the sacrifice of Christ, I would suggest that this Fr. Annibale guy---didn't get what he wanted.
He got exactly what he wanted. A communal meal shared on a supper table as a memorial.
This strikes me as conspiracy theory nonsense.
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.

Calvinist Mass? That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
Ironically a 16th century Calvinist "mass" is probably more Catholic than your Novus Ordo Supper service.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
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.
Oh the humanities!

Yes, how terrible. Communion in the hand is a crime against humanity that calls out to heaven for vengeance. If only we only went back to the way it was in 1950--why all would be right with the world, cancer would be cured, and everyone would live happily ever after.

Do not misunderstand: there nothing wrong with respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I am not suggesting that the Blessed Sacrament is only bread--or that--we can treat it like Protestants treat their version of Communion. I am suggesting that I do not see how reception of Communion on the tongue is any more "holy" and "reverent" than reception on the hand. I am also suggesting that I do not see why a lay person cannot assist with distribution of Holy Communion. How is that somehow unreverent?

If God deigns to come to us under the form of bread and wine in the first place, it is sort of hard to understand why He would have a problem with a lay person assisting with the distribution of Communion, or reception on the hand. Why is the notion of creating a throne with your hands for the Blessed Sacrament, then placing the Sacrament on your tongue someone less reverent than reception directly on the tongue?
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.
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?

I just do not think it is that simple. I believe the new Mass and trappings of Catholicism can be just as reverent when celebrated according to the true intentions of Vatican II.

See---you Rad Trad types seem to present this as a choice between the Tridentine Mass----and------the Archdiocese of Chicago. Has it ever occurred to you that there are many parishes that have reverent "Novus Ordo" Masses?
.No, I never followed David Bawden, "Pope" Michael." Did you know he recently passed away?
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.
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.
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?

But yes---as misguided as he was---I will agree that he was probably more Catholic than Jorge.

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”
The GIRM says that? So disinfect it!

Vatican II did attempt to recover the meal aspect of the Mass. The Mass is the sacrifice of Christ, but it is also a sacred meal. It is the Banquet Feast of the Lamb.

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.
That does not entail Vatican II is outright DENYING the sacrificial aspect.
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.
And you are basing your opinion on that article/broadcast?
Ironically a 16th century Calvinist "mass" is probably more Catholic than your Novus Ordo Supper service.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

leonard03782

Well-known member
Why do you think infallibility means Catholics aren't allowed to disagree with each other, or means there will never be disagreement?
OOOHH?! That's what you call it........
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.

It lends truth to the credibility of the term buffet rc'ism
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
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.
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
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

No they sure didn't. They also aren't our standard, scripture is. What they taught, if it aligns with the bible then fine. 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?

Scripture simply doesn't have the teachings the rcc wants so it appeals to the ecfs as its guide. We don't do that.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No they sure didn't. They also aren't our standard, scripture is. What they taught, if it aligns with the bible then fine.
As determined by whom or what mechanism? Who judges whether what they taught aligned with the Bible in your system? Who makes that determination?
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?
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.
Scripture simply doesn't have the teachings the rcc wants so it appeals to the ecfs as its guide. We don't do that.
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.
 

balshan

Well-known member
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.
We used to sing 'ave maria' a lot I still remember the words.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Not more classic hymns, like "Crown Him with Many Crowns" or "Holy Holy Holy"?
Depends on the Church.

If the Church is into more contemporary music (which I do not like) then they will be singing contemporary music--like Here I am, Eagles Wings---you know---music that is maudlin sap. They will be using contemporary instruments--Pianos, guitars, etc.

If the Church likes traditional music, then yes. We do at my Church. Then again--I do not call myself Romishpopishorganist because I play the Piano!
 

Nondenom40

Well-known member
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?

Its comments like these that make me wonder how catholics get through their every day lives. You apparently can't see a blatant contradiction when one appears. Do you really have to be told what to do every single second of the day? Or do you possess the mental capabilities to function on your own? Its called context. There is also something called discernment. Which catholics struggle with here on a daily basis.

You want to compare the Church to the USA? Apples and chairs!

Hmm, did i say 'the usa is the church'? No, i simply meant that after 200 years a lot has changed in the usa. What'll it look like in another 200? Your argument is after Augustine things were pretty set as far as infant baptism. Thats 400 years after the birth of the church. A lot has changed in church history. Who cares if infant baptism was the majority? It wasn't in the first century or the bible.

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.
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.

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.

So in your view something that is implicit in the bible can after time become explicit? I don't buy that at all. Youre saying for instance; The bible says a lot about prayer and no one in the bible prays to anyone other than God. But wait a second, hundreds or even thousands of years later BAM prayer to the dead is explicit! Is that how it works?
 
Top