1999 Missal v. 1955 Missal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kristopher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kristopher

Guest
Dear Readers:

Originally this was posted in the sub-forum “Culture of Death”, which led me to post it here at the request of a senior member, Lisa. Perhaps a number of you will find it of interest; though, a good number of you might be familiar already with these realities, and better informed about them than myself as I am not a “Cradle Catholic” as some are called, but a “Convert”.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Dear Lisa4Catholics:

I agree. What are your comments about the topic of overpopulation as an element in The Culture of Death? However, since you mention the Church and those who thumb their nose to Rome. What comments have you about the difference between The Canon of The Mass given in the “New…Saint Joseph Sunday Missal” 1999 complete ed. in accordance with Vat. II with Patrick J. Sheridan, D.D., Vicar General, Archdiocese of NY, page 30 where it is written: “…Take this, all of you , and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood,…shed…for all so that sins may be forgiven…” contrasted against the “Saint Joseph Daily Missal” of 1955 with the Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of NY, page 679 where it is written: “…this is the Chalice of my Blood…;…shed…for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”? You do see, I trust, the difference: Suddenly in the new mass the word “many” of The Canon is replaced by the word “all” in Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. Do you grasp the meaning of this?

I have no doubt at all that Neither Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, nor any other power of Hell shall prevail against The Roman Catholic Church. I understand, too, The Church shall be all but destroyed, not left alone to the extent that for the sake of righteousness no one is persecuted.

I read a poignant, to the point poem, which I think satisfies a particular need of importance now given indifference as much today as in the time it was written, and it stimulates me to gratitude that I in my lifetime witness The Crucifixion of The Holy Roman Catholic Church. Please read it.

The following is the bibliographic info. as a citation of the poem’s location: Sheen, Fulton. “Life Is Worth Living”. NY: McGraw, 1953 on pages 267-268

Indifference

When Jesus came to Golgotha,/ They hanged Him on a tree,/ They drove great nails through hands and feet,/ And made a Calvary;/ They crowned Him with a crown of thorns,/ Red were His wounds and deep,/ For those were crude and cruel days,/ And human flesh was cheap./ When Jesus came to Birmingham/ They simply passed Him by,/ They never hurt a hair of Him,/ They only let Him die;/ For men had grown more tender,/ And they would not give Him pain,/ They only just passed down the street/ And left Him in the rain./ Still Jesus cried, “Forgive them/ For they know not what they do,”/ And still it rained the winter rain/ That drenched Him through and through;/ The crowds went home and left the streets/ Without a soul to see/ And Jesus crouched against a wall,/ And cried for Calvary.

Written by an English Episcopalian minister, G. Studdert Kennedy during World War I (WWI).

I hope to God that you cry too, Lisa, in longing for Calvary II as we now witness The Crucifixion of The Roman Catholic Church. Tell me: With what indifference did you read the contrast between the word “many” and the word “all”, if any at all?

I am not crying, but fighting. Thank you Jesus, I say, you came not for all, but for many that we might see without confusion those whom Lucifer will bring to Hell without one of us to fight for The Salvation your Father as a gift will bestow in faith to those who repent, and is the kingdom of Heaven at hand, once again as it was 2,000 yrs. ago?

I think that The Rosary is a fitful end to overpopulation; though, fifteen instead of twenty mysteries brings the indulgences, and twenty none according to the Imprimi Potest Rev. William J. Levada, D.D., Archbishop of Portland, OR. “Praying The Rosary Without Distractions”. OR; Dominican Fathers, 1994. page 5: “…why, of all the incidents in our Lord’s life, the Rosary considers only these particular fifteen…the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary in one day, reflects on the whole liturgical cycle that the Church commemorates during the course of each year…some of the popes have referred to the Rosary as a compendium of the Gospel. One cannot change the mysteries of the Rosary without losing the indulgences that the Church grants for the recitation of the Rosary.”

What infallibility is there in terms of faith and of morals in contrast between two words “many” and “all”? Overpopulation has been rendered by abcdefg to be a lie, end of discussion.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
I should make it clear: The two words “all” and “many” are taken from the Mass involving the consecration of the wine, the blood of Jesus.
 
I do not know if you know this but I am a convert too.🙂 The all and many,(this is my reflection)He died for all but all do not care:nope: Some reject Him who died for us:crying: But the Lord who went through so much to save us did not wish the death of the sinner but conversion.But,He respected our will, knows that we all will not cooperate:nope: So not all will accept but all were included.
 
40.png
Kristopher:
I should make it clear: The two words “all” and “many” are taken from the Mass involving the consecration of the wine, the blood of Jesus.
Click to expand...
The wording of the Last Supper in the Gospel of Luke differs from the wording of Matthew and Mark. Luke’s account does not use the word “many.” Luke simply says, “which is poured out for you.”

There are some folks who believe Jesus did not intend to limit his statement to the Apostles who happened to be in the room at the time, but that these words apply to everyone (Romans 5:18).
 
Dear Lisa and David:

I think that it makes no sense in any interpretation to use the word “all”. Jesus never to my understanding ever said during his life that he came for all. He came only for those “chosen”, or for those that his Father gave to him. Aside from this, he had to have known not all, but many would repent of their sins and therefore, seek confession.

Baltimore Catechism No. 4, which has questions corresponding with Baltimore Catechisms No. 1, and No. 2. reads very clearly in Q. either 121, or 122: Few outside The Catholic Church are saved.

Additionally, these are the words used during Communion, during the consecration of the wine–The Sacrament of Communion can never be intended to be taken by “all”. It is absurd, because it destroys The Catholic Church, which means: It destroys the, let us say, “universality” of The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is universal in theory, and between a portion of the 1500’s to 1962 it was largely in practice, universal, because you knew with little doubt that the person next to you at The Communion Rail, which should by all traditions of The Catholic Church, still exist, however, you could expect from the person next to you the same belief that in fact during Communion–The Real Presence of Jesus Christ–was on your toungue; you knew that each of you had been given God at Communion.

This is destroyed by the 1999 Missal. It falsely conveys the teaching that we may now open Communion to everyone, irregardless of tradition(s) of The Catholic Church.

Jesus never died for all in any case, he knew this while he lived that is the reason he never, to my understanding, ever said, he came for all; only for those whom the Father had given him. There are well over 40,000,000 abortuses in America, which have been disposed in garbage cans, and in laboratories as failed “cure-alls” in fetal stem-cell research.

None of these souls of each aborted baby neither go to Heaven, nor to Hell according to Baltimore Catechism No. 4 at the same question given earlier, No. 121, or No. 122. Such souls go to a “Natural State of Happiness”, because frankly, such souls never were alive long enough to know either Heaven, or Hell, only “The Silent Scream” Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson observed with ultrasound in his documentary of an abortus titled of course, “The Silent Scream”.

This is the horror of abortion, souls being denied by Lucifer the ability to exist that they might come to know God, and to be given a choice to enter Heaven, or Hell–certainly the opportunity for a “Natural State of Happiness” has become less of an opportunity with the knowledge others possess that there is a God.

This is how parents condemn their progeny through abortion. This is the horror of abortion, this is the horror of the Nuvos Ordo Mass–it denies people what has been declared infallible, unchangeable, and not to be taken away from–especially with respect to the most holy Sacrament The Church has to give.

There is a world of difference between the words “many” and “all” and the infallibility of the mass as it was canonized against Modernism, the Modernism of Benjamin Creme, and of Alice Bailey the advocates of Lord Maitreya, by Saint Pope Pius V, and by Saint Pope Pius X. The Nuvos Ordo Mass in America denies the traditions of the Catholic Church that are its most sacred, most holy forms of reparation for sin. It is a very sick Church today.

David, the word “you” in the verse of a Gospel you have in mind is not an element of the word “all”, but an element of the word “many” as evidenced in The Gospel of John as Jesus said, I am the bread come down from Heaven, if you will not mind the paraphrase, but many turned away–they no longer believed, because it is a hard saying. Communion is not for all, but for those baptised, and willing to confess to an ordained priest, one validly ordained in The Catholic Church…

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
Dear Lisa and David:

I think that it makes no sense in any interpretation to use the word “all”. Jesus never to my understanding ever said during his life that he came for all. He came only for those “chosen”, or for those that his Father gave to him. Aside from this, he had to have known not all, but many would repent of their sins and therefore, seek confession.

Baltimore Catechism No. 4, which has questions corresponding with Baltimore Catechisms No. 1, and No. 2. reads very clearly in Q. either 121, or 122: Few outside The Catholic Church are saved.

Additionally, these are the words used during Communion, during the consecration of the wine–The Sacrament of Communion can never be intended to be taken by “all”. It is absurd, because it destroys The Catholic Church, which means: It destroys the, let us say, “universality” of The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is universal in theory, and between a portion of the 1500’s to 1962 it was largely in practice, universal, because you knew with little doubt that the person next to you at The Communion Rail, which should by all traditions of The Catholic Church, still exist, however, you could expect from the person next to you the same belief that in fact during Communion–The Real Presence of Jesus Christ–was on your tongue; you knew that each of you had been given the body and the blood of God at Communion–those who wish to differ: Please leave; join the Protestants.

This is destroyed by the 1999 Missal. It falsely conveys the teaching that we may now open Communion to everyone, irregardless of tradition(s) of The Catholic Church.

Jesus never died for all in any case, he knew this while he lived that is the reason he never, to my understanding, ever said, he came for all; only for those whom the Father had given him. There are well over 40,000,000 abortuses in America, which have been disposed in garbage cans, and in laboratories as failed “cure-alls” in fetal stem-cell research.

Unbaptised abortuses, aborted babies, neither go to Heaven, nor to Hell according to Baltimore Catechism No. 4 at the same question given earlier, No. 121, or No. 122. Such souls go to a “Natural State of Happiness”, because frankly, such souls never were alive long enough to know either Heaven, or Hell, only “The Silent Scream” Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson observed with ultrasound in his documentary of an abortus titled of course, “The Silent Scream”.

This is the horror of abortion, souls being denied by Lucifer the ability to exist that they might come to know God, and to be given a choice to enter Heaven, or Hell–certainly the opportunity for a “Natural State of Happiness” has become less of an opportunity with the knowledge others possess that there is a God.

This is how parents condemn their progeny through abortion. This is the horror of abortion, this is the horror of the Nuvos Ordo Mass–it denies people what has been declared infallible, unchangeable, and not to be taken away from–especially with respect to the most holy Sacrament The Church has to give.

There is a world of difference between the words “many” and “all” and the infallibility of the mass as it was canonized against Modernism, the Modernism of Benjamin Creme, and of Alice Bailey the advocates of Lord Maitreya, by Saint Pope Pius V, and by Saint Pope Pius X. The Nuvos Ordo Mass in America denies the traditions of the Catholic Church that are its most sacred, most holy forms of reparation for sin. It is a very sick Church today.

David, the word “you” in the verse of a Gospel you have in mind is not an element of the word “all”, but an element of the word “many” as evidenced in The Gospel of John as Jesus said, I am the bread come down from Heaven, if you will not mind the paraphrase, but many turned away–they no longer believed, because it is a hard saying. Communion is not for all, but for those baptised, and willing to confess to an ordained priest, one validly ordained in The Catholic Church…

Most sincerely,

Kristopher
 
Sorry for the double post, I tried escaping from the one to correct it.
 
40.png
Kristopher:
I think that it makes no sense in any interpretation to use the word “all”. Jesus never to my understanding ever said during his life that he came for all. He came only for those “chosen”, or for those that his Father gave to him. Aside from this, he had to have known not all, but many would repent of their sins and therefore, seek confession.
Click to expand...
Of course. But you confuse “redemption” with “salvation.” Every single human being is redeemed through Our Lord’s Blood, but not all participate in their redemption and thus not all are saved. But Our Lord’s Blood was shed for EVERYONE.
40.png
Kristopher:
Baltimore Catechism No. 4…, reads very clearly in Q. either 121, or 122: Few outside The Catholic Church are saved.
Click to expand...
This is the opinion of the authors of that particular Catechism. They may be right, or they may be wrong. No catechism (not even the much-more-official CCC) may be construed to faithfully represent Catholic doctrine. ANYONE can publish a “Catechism” (as the Baltimore Plenary Council once did). The BC is particularly faulty (which is why it is rarely used today - it talks about “linbo” and all sorts of other foolish ideas which were NEVER doctrines of the Church). The BC, BTW, was written for a third-grade audience and is not theologically rigerous (we also tell third-graders that you cannot subtract five from four, because they are not yet ready to comprehend advanced concepts such as negative numbers).
Additionally, these are the words used during Communion, during the consecration of the wine–The Sacrament of Communion can never be intended to be taken by “all”.
Click to expand...
Well, Matthew 26:27 says, “Take this, ALL OF YOU, and drink it.” This does not imply open Communion. Non-Catholics are not permitted to receive. If you find a missal that does not make this clear, please let me know!
40.png
Kristopher:
abortion, etc, etc
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
I don’t think there is anything theologically incorrect with what is said in the 1999 missal, but I do think they should translate it accurately with the Latin. If it says “pro multis” in the Latin, it should be translated “for many”, no matter whether “for all” is correct.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I don’t think there is anything theologically incorrect with what is said in the 1999 missal, but I do think they should translate it accurately with the Latin. If it says “pro multis” in the Latin, it should be translated “for many”, no matter whether “for all” is correct.
Click to expand...
Dear Jimmy:

it says, “pro multis”.

Theologically it is an error in my opinion. This is the Sacrament of Communion, this is the theology being presented to the Church. This is not the theology concerning whom Jesus died for on the cross at Calvary, but The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which never is to be for all, but only for many. It can never be for all: Too many already have gone to Hell and therefore, well, you know–they can no longer be afforded the opportunity for Communion.

People with this question have been terribly confused about the theology being discussed; they think that it is Calvary, but it is the Eucharist done for the forgiveness of sins, in memory of Christ.

It is an egregious, flagrantly wrong, error in my opinion.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. Incidentally, the new missals used in a local parish here of some 2,000 families no longer show the Imprimatur.
 
40.png
Kristopher:
This is not the theology concerning whom Jesus died for on the cross at Calvary, but The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which never is to be for all, but only for many. It can never be for all…
P.S. Incidentally, the new missals used in a local parish here of some 2,000 families no longer show the Imprimatur.
Click to expand...
Kristopher - I want to make sure I understand the point you are trying to make. I would appreciate your clear and specific answer to these two questions:


  1. *]Is the Blood in the Cup the SAME as the Blood shed at Calvary?
    *]Does the Missal used at your Parish OMIT a statement to the effect that non-Catholics are not permitted to receive at Mass? (and, if so, who is the publisher?)

    Thanks.
 
Dear David Filmer:

The evidence you need to reach your own conclusions has been provided to you, with a reference to where you need to look to furhter gain foresight abou the meaning of the words already quoted for you. The only additional support to add to the claim(s) already provided is for you to attend, yourself, a Protestant mass.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

P.S. This is my last post for this thread.
 
40.png
Kristopher:
The evidence you need to reach your own conclusions has been provided to you…
Click to expand...
Well, since you have kindly given me unrestrained and unchallenged license to reach my own conclusions about the answers to my two questions, the least I can do is post them here:


  1. *]Of course the Blood in the Cup is the *same *Blood as that shed at Calvary. And everyone knows that Jesus offered His Blood on Calvary for EVERYONE. The Blood in the Cup is a re-presentation of that same Sacrifice, with the same scope (offered for everyone). Of course, not everyone participates in the Sacrifice, so not everyone may partake.
    *]Of course your Sunday Missal specifically forbids all non-Catholics from receiving Communion. They all do. Even though Our Lord specifically said, “Drink this, all of you,” we understand (and proclaim) that this does not literally mean every person on earth (or even everyone who happens to be in the room at the time).

    BTW, I trust you will let me know if you find any Missal (with or without a completely meaningless imprimatur) which does NOT clearly and specifically forbid non-Catholics from receiving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top