C
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
my friend i am not going to address point by point. i am just going to say this to you. the reason we are here arguing Catholics against Catholics is because we are no longer one in the mind, we no longer believe the same as it was once, we no longer are tought the same. we are divided. open your eyes. i refuse to be tought by modernists who deny the Truth of the Bible and the Church. those who love changes and hate the Church of all times. the new church have showed disgust for the holy Church of always and wants to get with the times. you are taking everything as a personal thing. this is not direct at you but to those who have the desire to see the Church go down. this is not about you. this about God and His Church.
you are confusing charity with nicy. these are too different thing. again this is not about you. modernists think that we should all be nice to each other. they have forgot the cause of our Lord and shift the attention to them. all they care is that we all be nice to each other.
Jesus calls calls people hypocrite, blind guiders, brood of vipers, whitening sepulcher, how can anyone escape damnation. but some people today, want to be better than Jesus by commanded others to be just nice. do you still think that Jesus could be more chatible?
you accuse me of dividing. dividing what? do you want me to agree with your beliefs so we wont be divided? i will stick with the Holy Church of all times.
C
CWBetts
Guest
This is little more than an emotional rant. Who is causing division: those who accept the teaching of the Church, or those who claim that their form of worship (and theirs alone) is legitimate and all others are inferior, even though the Church says otherwise. Unity comes from submission to the authority of the Church, not from engaging on a personal crusade to make sure that everyone meets your standard of what is and is not genuinely Catholic.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
We are not divided. As Catholics we may disagree about the way the Mass is conducted but it is still the Mass. It is still the celebration of the Last Supper. It doesn’t matter one whit if you go to a Latin Mass and I go to one in English, with all the minor differences between them. They are both still the Mass and that is what is important. As far as I know Jesus told us to consume Him in memory of Him. That is done in both types of Mass.
When people are really divided one group splits off and forms a new church.
We should be nice to each other. That is part of treating your neighbor as yourself. It is also part of treating even the least of Christ’s brethren as Christ. Every time you present yourself as hostile you are being hostile to Jesus. There is no reason that a discussion like the present one cannot be maintained in a nice and charitable manner. Many posters here, including the OP, are trying very hard to do so.
Statements like “the new church have showed disgust for the holy Church of always and wants to get with the times” are unnecessary and untrue. You are speaking about the bride of Christ. What you refer to as “the new church” does not show disgust for the Church “of always.” Individual people may, but not the Church.
The part of your post regarding people wanting to be better than Jesus is difficult to read but I think you are saying that we are commanding people to be nice. We all know we can’t be better than Jesus. Jesus called his followers his flock, his sheep, his lambs, his baby chicks, the fruit of the vine. He wanted to protect us and does. He gave His life for us - all of us, not just those who insist the Latin Mass is better or those who insist the English Mass is better. He made that supreme sacrifice for every last one of us.
Falsely agreeing with another’s beliefs is not being nice or charitable and it actually is a sin. But one can present one’s ideas without resorting to insults. It’s not that difficult.
Really.
BTW, what does “tought” mean?
Please don’t stare at my clothes during Mass. We are here to attend to Christ the Lord, not my attire.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
We actually agree here, Carl. Well said!!
Please don’t stare at my clothes during Mass. We are here to attend to Christ the Lord, not my attire.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Very good points.
P
ProVobis
Guest
What’s the reason for this, if I may ask?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
thank you. some people just dont seem to get it. we are not attacking one another, we are discussion mostly about the horrible enterpretation of the Council which most people are following without questioning. the Chant, the Altar, the Latin, and many other things taking out of the Church was never the intention of the council but some just continue to go with and fight for these errors, even though the holy father continuously speak against these changes. modernism dont want anything to do with God but with themselves only. it is all about them.
C
CWBetts
Guest
For a useful dialog, you need to stop making blanket accusations, and also support your claims.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
what accusations? what kind of support do you need?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
To be clear – Floresco wanted a discussion about how to discuss – statements like “do you want me to agree with your beliefs so we wont be divided? i will stick with the Holy Church of all times” are generally unproductive and amount to an accusation. You are saying, “We disagree, but I, unlike you, am on the side of the Holy Church of all times.” To this the naturally-felt consequence is, “… so, if you persist, you are against the Holy Church of all times.” Like I said, it’s not very productive.
F
floresco
Guest
As I said, the OF does not deny that the Mass is a sacrifice. But it is clearer in the EF what it means for the Mass to be be a sacrifice. For example, the prayer I quoted above says that it is offered for our sins and offences and and that it brings us to salvation. These ideas are not explicit in the OF. And they are important because they make clearer the Church teaching that the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Cross made present.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Read the text of the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the NO. It is quite clear that the Mass is a Sacrifice, that it is the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice of Calvary, and that it is the very Boody and Blood of Christ. To say that these are not affirmed in the NO tells me that you have not read it carefully enough, no offense intended.
C
CDNowak
Guest
Might have something to do with that shiny armor
actually I think that is par of his sig.
F
floresco
Guest
Throwing around terms like “modernist” and “new church” is neither charitable nor presenting the truth. If we wish to speak truth, we must speak clearly. This kind of language brings no clarity. It does not increase understanding. It creates anger and ill feeling and is an obstacle to understanding. Being careful about the way we speak is something we owe to truth, not something we do to be “nice.”
F
floresco
Guest
Have you read through the two Masses side by side? If not, please do so and tell me which one you think is clearer in its presentation of these doctrines.
F
floresco
Guest
I need to go and won’t be able to get back until tomorrow or later. My absence is not a commentary on the discussion. 
M
MarkThompson
Guest
You know, Floresco, I was thinking about your points a bit last night. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re entirely right, and that some of the prayers in the EF do a better job than the OF of expressing certain theological truths about the Eucharist. Okay, fine. On the other hand, someone might say that the OF does a better job of communicating some of the truths of Holy Scripture in the Bible, since the OF generally has more readings and the modern lectionary covers substantially more of Scripture than the sum total of readings in the EF.
Is a person entitled to say that he sees the difference between the forms in the amount of Scriptural teaching as more important to him than the difference in content between the prayers which you have described, and that therefore he considers the OF as coming out on top in that liturgical contest? If so, doesn’t that point to the fact that even among (what we accept for argument’s sake to be) objective characteristics, it is the subjective ranking of the importance of such criteria that can still make all the difference?
S
Student09
Guest
I don’t have the stamina to read this entire thread, but Floresco, your posts are excellent and I find it very refreshing to see someone using objective, rational arguments while also in line with the Church and seeking to be charitable about it all.
It is only our sadly emotional and relativistic society that supposes that objective arguments can be in themselves uncharitable - the same situation occurs with people who think it is uncharitable to say that homosexual acts are objectively immoral (I am not suggesting that those who attend the OF approve of homosexuality, - I also attend the OF - it is merely a comparison). “Charity” that denies the truth in order to protect others’ feelings is false charity. Similarly, non-Catholics often think it is arrogant of Catholics to claim that they possess the fullness of revelation and Truth, and that therefore they are lacking in humility. But if we know that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth - which we have received through the grace of God along with the responsibility that accompanies truth-, then we cannot deny that this is so without telling falsehood; it is not an issue of humility, but integrity. Actually, humility and truth cannot be separated. If we discard truth, humility is impossible.
In the case of the OF/EF forms, where as you said, the Church has not ruled that the EF is theologically superior, and those of us who think it is do not have the Church’s support for our opinion - unlike the other issues I mentioned by way of comparison - we can still make the argument, but cannot insist on it in the same way, as you said. Other Catholics should recognize that the principles of objectivity and truthfulness still apply here. Even if we are mistaken in our views, until it is objectively proven that we are mistaken - whether by rational argument or an infallible declaration of the Church - those who accuse us of being arrogant or uncharitable merely for setting forth those views are falling into the same trap as non-Catholics who make the accusations outlined above.
Disclaimer: I go to daily Mass and attend both forms of the rite and I acknowledge what Pope Benedict said as true - both forms are valid, both are sacred. I still think, based on a comparison of the prayers of the two forms, that the difference cannot be reduced to one of “preference.” I am one human being and could be wrong.
It is only our sadly emotional and relativistic society that supposes that objective arguments can be in themselves uncharitable - the same situation occurs with people who think it is uncharitable to say that homosexual acts are objectively immoral (I am not suggesting that those who attend the OF approve of homosexuality, - I also attend the OF - it is merely a comparison). “Charity” that denies the truth in order to protect others’ feelings is false charity. Similarly, non-Catholics often think it is arrogant of Catholics to claim that they possess the fullness of revelation and Truth, and that therefore they are lacking in humility. But if we know that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth - which we have received through the grace of God along with the responsibility that accompanies truth-, then we cannot deny that this is so without telling falsehood; it is not an issue of humility, but integrity. Actually, humility and truth cannot be separated. If we discard truth, humility is impossible.
In the case of the OF/EF forms, where as you said, the Church has not ruled that the EF is theologically superior, and those of us who think it is do not have the Church’s support for our opinion - unlike the other issues I mentioned by way of comparison - we can still make the argument, but cannot insist on it in the same way, as you said. Other Catholics should recognize that the principles of objectivity and truthfulness still apply here. Even if we are mistaken in our views, until it is objectively proven that we are mistaken - whether by rational argument or an infallible declaration of the Church - those who accuse us of being arrogant or uncharitable merely for setting forth those views are falling into the same trap as non-Catholics who make the accusations outlined above.
Disclaimer: I go to daily Mass and attend both forms of the rite and I acknowledge what Pope Benedict said as true - both forms are valid, both are sacred. I still think, based on a comparison of the prayers of the two forms, that the difference cannot be reduced to one of “preference.” I am one human being and could be wrong.
C
CWBetts
Guest
If I concede that the prayers of the Liturgy of the Eucharist are superior in form, in that they are more explicit, will you also concede that the Liturgy of the Word in the NO is superior, based on the inclusion of more of the Scriptures?
- Status