C
carl36
Guest
Just my point.
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
And this fact is soooooooooooooooooo often missed. I have yet to attend even a liberal Mass that believes that the Mass should ONLY be celebrated in the vernacular. They may exist but I haven’t seen 'em.
B
bear06
Guest
Now come on RWL, you should know by now that we’re only supposed to look at some canons of Trent! Actually, after reading this thread, I think we’re actually only supposed to see some of the words. For instance, “only” is a no-no.
It seems to me that some actually spend more time reading commentaries on the Council of Trent from dubious sources with an agenda than they do actually reading them. :hypno:
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
I agree, and this is what has been cited to you.
What is wrong with his exact words? ELABORATE. Why his words were not clear enough in St Matthew 26:28 that they needed to be altered! You make it sound so minor and insignificant! This is tampering with the words of Christ+ and is heresy.
.
And I think you and JKingLVNV are missing the words of Christ+. St. Matthew 26:28 is absolutely clear and perfect. Are they not? Elaborate.
St.Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.”
This is how Jesus+ himself instituted the Most Holy Eucharist! You cannot change what he said! It is for ALL TIMES!
Hence ‘MANY’ should not be replaced with ‘ALL’. The dictionary definitions of these two words is unequivocally different, hence so are the words of consecration. If anyone is saying that these two words are the exact same, prove it to this thread and to all.
Do you honestly believe that what you have quoted here? By your Standard, What need we of Holy Scripture, Let the Pope Depart from it??? This would be Blasphemous and heretical.
After review of the wording of the Novus Ordo consecration, are you saying that** ‘MANY’** (Christ’s+ Words) and** ‘ALL’** (Not Christ’s+ words) are the same? Were the words of Jesus+ inadequate and needed change? I greatly would appreciate elaboration.
.
So you think it justified and use the of Eastern Rites modalities to substantiate your cause. Means to an end I say. Again, this can be interpreted as heresy.
Why do continue with Magesterium and Pope? I simply asked of St. Matthew 26:28 and why you and your colleague JKirkLVNV think the alteration of words of Christ+, who is GOD+, is valid (concerning the Consecration). Please forgive the Redundancy but I ask again of YOU, to VERIFY for this thread, a propos the words of Consecration, is it correct to change the words of Christ+ from MANY to ALL in St. Matthew 26:28? Were they not correct coming from the mouth Of Jesus+ the Christ+ who is GOD+?
You must conclude that the words of the Novus Ordo Consecration differ from the words in St. Matthew 26:28 in which Christ Himself Instituted the Most Holy Eucharist.
And so again we can ask, A new Catholic Religion?
Respectfully and God+ Bless.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Being a Catholic, I can only refer you to what the Holy See, the final judge of such matters, said:
adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html
I
Island_Oak
Guest
[Edited by Moderator] I thought at the heart of Catholicism–the very meaning of our name–was to be a universal church–a welcoming body to everyone. I’m not sure, if I weren’t already a member, I’d be enticed to join into this ugly family squabble.
W
Writer
Guest
While I don’t like your priest’s response either, works are simply a reflection of the grace, I’d suggest. Our salvation is indeed by and through grace alone; our works don’t earn salvation, but “faith without works is dead”. You can’t have a flame without light, for example. If you read the CCC regarding grace, you will find the same mystery expressed. It’s not faith or works, but should be faith and works…Gratia et Pax Vobiscum,
The Protestants have won!
After Mass last Sunday (3rd Sunday of Lent) I noticed a Deacon deliver a Homily which contradicted the readings and approached the Parish Priest with my concerns. He quickly told me that ‘we’ do not adhere to a “Works-Based Salvation” and place our trust in the Grace won for ‘us’ by Christ. After which I asked him if “it was okay to sin” and he quickly and with a big smile said “Yes” and added ‘My God’ is a loving God and does not Punish. Looking into his eyes and the eyes of many standing around me I walked out with a heavy heart.
The Protestants have won… There simply is no Catholic Church anymore.
Pax vobiscum.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Well, the problem with that is that we’re NOT that inclusive.
You cannot be a Catholic and say that abortion is okay (that’s heresy). You cannot be a Catholic and say that artificial birth control is okay (also heresy). Likewise, you cannot be a Catholic and say that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid (heresy) or that the Post-conciliar Church is a “new” religion (also a heresy).
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
You have not addressed your point nor answered a simple question concerning changing the word of Christ+(MANY) in St Matthew 26:28 to ALL. Ask yourself if MANY and ALL are the same. Silence must not be your answer to us, you must conclude that the Words Of Christ+ who is GOD+ have been changed, CORRECT? By the way the FINAL JUDGE IS GOD+ and he has spoken in ST. Matthew 26:28.
A new Catholic Religion?
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
I think you are on the wrong thread. We are sharing information here and granted, yes it may get heated sometimes, but we are all brethren here. We respect each other and love each other as Christ+ who is God+ instructed. We may get angry as families do but we do not stray from Christ+. Please do not use absurdities here such as arrogant or ugly family, this is not the forum for that. That is not Christ+ Like.
May God+ Bless you.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I think I have, to the best of my ability. I’m not the apologist Itsjustdave is. I can only tell you this: Holy Mother Church cannot, is not capable of leading her children into error, on any point necessary to their salvation (like the Mass), or Christ Jesus has failed in His promise, which is impossible. The Church (per Trent) cannot propose to her children any rite that will lead them into impiety. So when you ask me about the consecration, I can only point you to the final arbitrator on these questions (unless you subscribe to the heresy of Sola Scriptura), because that’s who God, the Dread Judge, has vested with HIS authority to rule on these matters.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
I seem to remember that prostitutes and tax collectors along with all manner of other sinners were sought out by Jesus as the first members of this elite body we now refer to as our Church. They weren’t chosen because of their perfect adherence to the law of old, but because of their faith and effort to live it out with charity and perseverence. I have to wonder if His approach to the Pharisees–who smugly used their laws and codes to scorn the even Jesus himself for performing healings on the Sabbath–would be any different today than it was 2000 years ago.
R
Rykell
Guest
Dear ThereCBO1,
As a new member, you have not been exposed to the many threads and posts that have already expounded your argument. Are you familiar with the forum’s search feature? It would be difficult to capsulize a summary here that would completely satisfy you. But I’ll try, going on memory.
One of the problems I think you are encountering is the exactitude of scripture, which borders on fundamentalism such as other faiths fall victim to. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, being guided always by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. It is not the other way around, that scripture dictates what the Church must align Herself with. After all, the Church is the one who set up the canon of scripture.
That being said, it is a matter of faith, that we trust what the Church teaches concerning the most sacred of all her obligations, the Holy Mass. We have heard many times that the Mass is valid using the words “for all” … therefore, we must assent to this if we call ourselves Catholic, since the Church gave official approval to use this wording in the first place.
Also problematic is the verse in Luke 22:20, where the scriptures record a different version from a different evangelist. So who was correct? or incorrect, for that matter? Neither. The Church is entrusted with the power from Christ to declare what the specific the words of consecration should be, provided the essential form is “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Anything added to this basic form does not render the consecration void.
I refer you to the classic latin version which was used for many years: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Using your assumption that when the words are changed, the consecration is invalid, then it would have been invalid all throughout the past centuries, and even now, for some rites still use this wording, none of which is found in any of the scriptures. “chalice” … “new and everlasting testament”…“mystery of faith”] Therefore, since none of these words were used in St. Matthew’s scripture, were these consecrations invalid? Do understand the false assumption made in your argument?
The gravely serious problem that earnest traditionists face is frequenting websites which are programmed to destroy your faith by instilling these doubts, using sophistries and arguments that weaken it. Since many souls have enough faith to trust the guidance of the Church, yes they even work to destroy THAT, using false and twisted logic that we do not have a valid Pope.
It seems to me you have fallen victim to their trappings and it will take a lot of trust to bring you back to orthodoxy and faith. This bothers the very hearts and souls of many of us, for many misguided traditionists put more trust in these websites than in the Church and succomb to the lie … and if pride reigns in clinging to fundamentalist theories, it is almost impossible to overcome.
As a new member, you have not been exposed to the many threads and posts that have already expounded your argument. Are you familiar with the forum’s search feature? It would be difficult to capsulize a summary here that would completely satisfy you. But I’ll try, going on memory.
One of the problems I think you are encountering is the exactitude of scripture, which borders on fundamentalism such as other faiths fall victim to. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, being guided always by the Holy Spirit through the Magisterium. It is not the other way around, that scripture dictates what the Church must align Herself with. After all, the Church is the one who set up the canon of scripture.
That being said, it is a matter of faith, that we trust what the Church teaches concerning the most sacred of all her obligations, the Holy Mass. We have heard many times that the Mass is valid using the words “for all” … therefore, we must assent to this if we call ourselves Catholic, since the Church gave official approval to use this wording in the first place.
Also problematic is the verse in Luke 22:20, where the scriptures record a different version from a different evangelist. So who was correct? or incorrect, for that matter? Neither. The Church is entrusted with the power from Christ to declare what the specific the words of consecration should be, provided the essential form is “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” Anything added to this basic form does not render the consecration void.
I refer you to the classic latin version which was used for many years: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Using your assumption that when the words are changed, the consecration is invalid, then it would have been invalid all throughout the past centuries, and even now, for some rites still use this wording, none of which is found in any of the scriptures. “chalice” … “new and everlasting testament”…“mystery of faith”] Therefore, since none of these words were used in St. Matthew’s scripture, were these consecrations invalid? Do understand the false assumption made in your argument?
The gravely serious problem that earnest traditionists face is frequenting websites which are programmed to destroy your faith by instilling these doubts, using sophistries and arguments that weaken it. Since many souls have enough faith to trust the guidance of the Church, yes they even work to destroy THAT, using false and twisted logic that we do not have a valid Pope.
It seems to me you have fallen victim to their trappings and it will take a lot of trust to bring you back to orthodoxy and faith. This bothers the very hearts and souls of many of us, for many misguided traditionists put more trust in these websites than in the Church and succomb to the lie … and if pride reigns in clinging to fundamentalist theories, it is almost impossible to overcome.
B
bear06
Guest
Whoa. Somebody might want to tell Luke!
That’s it. Pro multis isn’t even there.
drbo.org/chapter/49022.htm
You cannot change what he said! It is for ALL TIMES!
Hence ‘MANY’ should not be replaced with ‘ALL’. The dictionary definitions of these two words is unequivocally different, hence so are the words of consecration. If anyone is saying that these two words are the exact same, prove it to this thread and to all.
Apparently you didn’t bother to read the article Kirk posted.
B
bear06
Guest
TBCO1, I just have a simple question. Do you think the Mass is invalid with “for all”?
G
Genesis315
Guest
To answer the question of whether there is a new religion, go through Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic dogma, and pick out the dogmas that have been repudiated by the Magisterium and which the members of the Church are now forbidden from believing. Here’s a good online list:
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
I am sensible of what you say and I truly believe that we will be astonished as to where the mercy of God falls. When you speak of smugness, I can only pray that I am NOT smug. I believe, as the Church teaches, that all of it, salvation, peace, dogma, reconciliation, doctrine, all of it, is by GRACE. So I don’t really have anything about which to be smug, but I ask your pardon if I have appeared that way. It is, nonetheless, a part of the Church’s mandate and purpose to correct untruth and heresy, so that her children cannot be lead astray. When confronted with those things, the Catholic has to be prepared to give an answer (and I have admitted, I’m not the apologist others are, such as Itsjustdave and Bear06) and defend the Church Jesus founded and of which He is the Bridegroom.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, he does not. But he knows more of how to understand Trent than many in this forum. Specifically, whatever is inacted as Canon Law, at anytime, is canon law, not dogma. Canon Law is always amendable, that it is why it is canon law, not dogma or doctrine. All canon law become invalid and void when a new canon law is enacted.
When anyone quotes Canons from Trent, realize that it’s value is historical and aupportive, but that the law is no longer in effect. Anathema is no longer even a canonical penalty.
One must always remember the context of the Council of Trent. They were addressing the onset of Protestantism and the splintering of the Church.
I
Island_Oak
Guest
Thank you for this balanced answer–you raise very valid points about being informed in the faith, correcting error and avoiding being led astray.
I am more fearful–if that is the right word–about the lurking sentiment that I sometimes perceive here that those who do not dutifully accept, follow, proclaim, understand, or embrace every teaching of the Catholic Church are not truly Catholic. Some of our greatest saints went through great personal struggles with rebellion, doubt, ambivalence, etc. I think it is the journey…the commitment and the trial we all endure that should unite us, not separate us into different camps of Catholicism–or lead any of us to assume (and here’s where being “smug” comes into play)–that any of us is a better or more worthy Catholic than another.
For example: instead of saying someone who supports using artificial contraception is not Catholic or can’t be a Catholic, it seems far more appropriate and charitable to conclude that the person has not received proper formation in the faith or is improperly educated about facts, or lacks the ability, maturity or discipline to discern or apply the truth from among the many competing philosophies around them. It is preferable to encourage and educate such an individual within the guidance and community of the Church, than to ostracize them and/or only accept them when they achieve some intangible level of obedience or compliance.
- Status