J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Please get back on topic, folks, or I will close the thread. Thank you! 
- Status
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
Much adieu about nothing. Stay on Topic
Easy and I agree both are correct. But you, and other members have failed to address query concerning the words of Christ+ (MANY) and the Novus Ordo ( ALL). ARE THEY THE SAME?
St. Matthew, one of 12 apostles, who was called by our Saviour+ to the Apostleship present during the institution of The Eucharist .( he wrote about 6 years after our Lord’s+ Ascension). St. Luke: convert and disciple to St. Paul (wrote about 24 years after our Lord’s+ Ascension). I see nothing, St Lk 22:20, indicating ALL, and logically do you honestly think it means all? THAT IS NOT what St. Mt 26:28 reads, because then YOU state They Are In Contradiction. Elaborate
This is not an assumption as you should realize. It is from St Mt 26:28. Again, and I reiterate, MANY does NOT EQUAL ALL. Prove it otherwise because I cannot.
***Your are INCORRECT, Chalice is found in what you cited St. LUKE 22:20!!! As well as New Testament! Look It Up!
Mystery of Faith:
Pope Innocent III and the Canon of the Mass also tell us that the words “mysterium fidei” were given by Jesus Christ Himself.
Pope Innocent III, Cum Marthae circa, Nov. 29, 1202, in response to a question about the form of the Eucharist and the inclusion of ‘mysterium fidei’: "You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed… In the Canon of the Mass that expression, ‘mysterium fidei,’ is found interposed among His words… Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as they are found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors
from them."(Denzinger 414-415.)
The words “the mystery of faith” in the consecration are a clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These words were also removed by the heretic Thomas Cranmer in his
1549 Anglican Prayer book because of their clear reference to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order, p. 306.)
*Are you in agreement with Michael Davies the heretic?
*
Another falsified presumption on your part. I read and reference what I say, not use websites. I am Only Citing VATICAN references, papal addresses. Benedics books, etc. NOT MY LOGIC. Your logic is twisted if you think these are false. LOOK THEM UP YOURSELF then talk.
It just this mentality that separates catholics. I have not fallen victim, I admit I do not know everything and have been transparent and presented the references I cited. Neither you nor the other members have backed up your argument with any sort of documented evidences, as I have. I am open to anything you have to offer. Please submit your proofs for this thread, it is your duty. Remember your proofs are against the cited references I have used and nothing to do with my logic. You must assert yourself, and address the issues I have listed in the posts and the theme of this thread. Do not answer questions with questions.
God+ Bless
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
No I do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.
This thread has posed the Question: A new Catholic Religion?
Benedict XVI and the Vatican approved , in 2001, a document with the Assyrian Schismatic Church of the East, that states members of the Vatican II Church can go to the schismatic church and receive Communion and vice versa. What is discerning with this is, irrespective that Assyrian schismatics are not Catholics, that their schismatic liturgy has no words of consecration, that is, no “institution narrative.” Benedict XVI cited this precise dilemma in his book Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith:
Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, 2002, p. 232: “…This case needed special
studies to be made, because the Anaphora of Addai and Mari most commonly in use
by the Assyrians does not include an institution narrative. But these difficulties were
able to be overcome…” (Benedict XVI, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 232.)
Benedict XVI, by his own admission, states that this schismatic liturgy has no “institution narrative,” which is the words of consecration. YET he still approved receiving Communion at this schismatic liturgy.
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…we are witnesses today of anew integralism [read: traditionalism] that may seem to support what is strictly Catholic but in reality corrupts it to the core. It produces a passion of suspicions, the animosity of which is far from the spirit of the gospel. There is an obsession with the letter that
regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church…” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 377.)
This is a total rejection of Catholic sacramental teaching. This is a New Catholic Religion.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: “All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the
minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.”( Denzinger 695. )
This is validation of the fact that Benedict XVI performs Masses without any words of consecration . This is not Catholic Faith and is against the Church’s sacramental teaching which is heresy.
This is a new Catholic Religion.
F
Friend_Of_Rome
Guest
Things such as this usually get me down, but lately, I’ve found a way of getting over my feelings of helplessness.*** I*** still have my faith. I still have my Church. As long as my faith upholds me, I can help others, or at least try to.
When I first came here, i recounted my past experiences in the Water Cooler area. For those of you who don’t know my story here it is: For the past year, i was a volunteer on a “Catholic” website, leading evening vespers every monday and Friday. I had the good will of the moderators in the forum and the chat room. All was well. UNTIL I QUOTED THE CATECHISM. That day, I decided to do Vespers in teh traditional Latin rather than Latin, because the Church supports the use of Latin in international gatherings (which this was.) I quoted the pope, the Bible, and the Catechism about this topuic and about prayer in general. I led my prayer group, but that night I was banned. When i asked why, I was told that my ideas were heretical, that i was subversive to the Church, that i was a member of the SSPX, and that i was lying to various members of the community. Well, I never knew that using the lnguage of the Church was subversive.
i always laugh at myself for actually going there of my own will. the last wek i was on, they banned any discussion on the following:abortion, vocations, the papacy, death penalty, Latin, the GIRM, the Catechism, and other things such as these.
When I first came here, i recounted my past experiences in the Water Cooler area. For those of you who don’t know my story here it is: For the past year, i was a volunteer on a “Catholic” website, leading evening vespers every monday and Friday. I had the good will of the moderators in the forum and the chat room. All was well. UNTIL I QUOTED THE CATECHISM. That day, I decided to do Vespers in teh traditional Latin rather than Latin, because the Church supports the use of Latin in international gatherings (which this was.) I quoted the pope, the Bible, and the Catechism about this topuic and about prayer in general. I led my prayer group, but that night I was banned. When i asked why, I was told that my ideas were heretical, that i was subversive to the Church, that i was a member of the SSPX, and that i was lying to various members of the community. Well, I never knew that using the lnguage of the Church was subversive.
i always laugh at myself for actually going there of my own will. the last wek i was on, they banned any discussion on the following:abortion, vocations, the papacy, death penalty, Latin, the GIRM, the Catechism, and other things such as these.
R
Rykell
Guest
Dear ThereCBO1,
It is beyond debate, for you are not listening to what the Church teaches. My words fell on deaf ears, sad to say, as have the words of Bear and JKirk, and your dismissal of others’ teachings as you declined to search old threads.
I repeat once again, that the Church has declared that the words 'for many" EVEN THOUGH they were not found in scripture, do effect the consecration. These were APPROVED for the NO missae. You may argue till you run out of breath that Mt.'s scripture must mandate that the Church follow it, but as I stated and will reaffirm, the Church is the interpreter of Scripture and exercises authority with regard to what words are used in the liturgy. She has approved previously “for all” even though you do not accept this.
I rather expected a staunch argument from you that insists on proof after proof, but I did at least give you the benefit of my doubt. You indicated that you have read the documents of the Church … how is it that you failed to find the one which indicates exactly what was affirmed above? and how is it that you are unable to search it out and prove it to yourself?
At this point, I leave you to your own musings.
It is beyond debate, for you are not listening to what the Church teaches. My words fell on deaf ears, sad to say, as have the words of Bear and JKirk, and your dismissal of others’ teachings as you declined to search old threads.
I repeat once again, that the Church has declared that the words 'for many" EVEN THOUGH they were not found in scripture, do effect the consecration. These were APPROVED for the NO missae. You may argue till you run out of breath that Mt.'s scripture must mandate that the Church follow it, but as I stated and will reaffirm, the Church is the interpreter of Scripture and exercises authority with regard to what words are used in the liturgy. She has approved previously “for all” even though you do not accept this.
I rather expected a staunch argument from you that insists on proof after proof, but I did at least give you the benefit of my doubt. You indicated that you have read the documents of the Church … how is it that you failed to find the one which indicates exactly what was affirmed above? and how is it that you are unable to search it out and prove it to yourself?
At this point, I leave you to your own musings.
F
Friend_Of_Rome
Guest
To ThereCanBeOnly1-
I think you have to keep in mind that you are speaking to people, not computers. Type with kindness and understanding. I’m not judging you by far, but just passing along what i have learned through experience.
I think you have to keep in mind that you are speaking to people, not computers. Type with kindness and understanding. I’m not judging you by far, but just passing along what i have learned through experience.
F
Friend_Of_Rome
Guest
Oh, one more thing TCBO1
Who are we to dispute the pope? the Church? if you don’t like things, perhaps someone here should remind you of Papal Infallibility.
I don’t mean to sound harsh. But I don’t want you to go too far and alienate yourself.
Who are we to dispute the pope? the Church? if you don’t like things, perhaps someone here should remind you of Papal Infallibility.
I don’t mean to sound harsh. But I don’t want you to go too far and alienate yourself.
F
Friend_Of_Rome
Guest
I keep paging up to read more, and every time I do, TCBO1, your ways really disconcert me!
I fear that perhaps you are taking too much emphasis on Word and Letter of the Law than the Spirit of it? Didn’t Christ remind us of that via the Pharisees?
I fear that perhaps you are taking too much emphasis on Word and Letter of the Law than the Spirit of it? Didn’t Christ remind us of that via the Pharisees?
P
pig_boy
Guest
I have a quick question for TCBO1. I am honestly curious about this. Do you believe Benedict XVI is the valid Pope?
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.
- Status