Different spiritualities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter carl36
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not saying your Mass is invalid, the Church as far as I know has never said that. I believe the words in the Core of the Canon are Christ’s words in the Traditional Mass. I believe Christ put it on the tongue.
Really? Why?

Mark 14:22

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body.

Why would He need to tell them to “take” if He had already put it on the tongue? They would have already received it!
 
I want you to know I went by the site you say is not leftist again…Here is some of what they had to say…ROTFL

Without permission, Lefebvre established his first seminary in Econe, Switzerland. Also known is that:

at one of the Society schools, girls were told that it was a mortal sin to have any lace on their underwear

in a sermon, people were told not to vote in elections and that it was wrong for women to drive cars

a student at the Society high school in St. Mary’s, Kansas, was kicked out of school simply because he had the picture of a girl, also a student, in his wallet although the two had only written to each other;

about 1987 the Society began to openly display an anti-American attitude - condemning the nature and form of our government;

children are told, without distinction, to always obey priests and nuns even if it conflicts with the proper wishes of their parents;

To further show the anti-Catholic nature of the Society, one example should suffice

What a bunch of “hogwash” And this is where you get your info at regarding the Traditional Mass? Talk about wacky! LOL!!!

;
Where’s the hogwash? This man was SSPX for many years. Are you? You can “lol” all you want but you have yet to prove why you think Bill Grossklas is leftist. He’s definitely not fond of the SSPX’s mentality. This makes him a leftist? Please.

If I said that the SSPX doesn’t believe that women should be in the choir, would you tell me I’m a leftist?
 
The one disciple explicitly described as touching the bread was the one who betrayed Him.
This was not the consecrated bread, though. this was during the Passover meal, when the disciples were asking Him who would betray Him. We know this because Jesus dipped the bread in the sop before handing it to him. Also, Judas, as “a devil” was excused before the consecration. this is why those who are not believers are not admitted to communion.
 
I have heard that. I also heard that WW I was the “war to end all wars”. Did that make it so?
What exactly are you saying? The Tridentine Mass is just a lie, it won’t be said for all ages, it will be banished, the gates of hell will prevail in ending it?
 
What exactly are you saying? The Tridentine Mass is just a lie, it won’t be said for all ages, it will be banished, the gates of hell will prevail in ending it?
Actually, it’s already a misnomer because the Tridentine Mass format wasn’t used in the early Church so it can’t be the Mass for ALL ages. It was THE Mass. Besides that, you’re overreacting. guanophore never said it was a lie nor that the gates of hell have prevailed anywhere. You’re reading things into it. Did someone say along the way that if the Tridentine Mass wasn’t said always that the gates of hell would have prevailed? I haven’t seen it. It certainly doesn’t say it in Quo Primum. In fact, hell isn’t even mentioned. While I doubt the Tridentine will be revoked and hope it’s not, the Tridentine and gates of hell aren’t usually mentioned in Church teaching together.
 
Well, your guess would be wrong. It wasn’t the Tridentine or the Novus Ordo in format. If you read my very first post I said:

What axe does he have to grind. His goal is to prevent someone from falling into the SSPX schism. This is a bad thing? Please.

Who, besides you, calls the Last Supper the Traditional Mass? The TLM is often referred to as the Traditional Mass, not the Last Supper. We asked you if you were speaking of the TLM or THE Mass and you didn’t answer before you went on the attack.

And please, provide some quotes from me where I said that the Novus Ordo was the Mass at the Last Supper but the Tridentine wasn’t? Neither* format *was at the Last Supper. As you have managed to correctly state, the core of the Canon is in all of the Roman rite. Where did I say otherwise? You seem to want us to be pit one Mass against another which we wouldn’t do.
When did I call it the Last Supper? I said it was instituted by Christ AT THE LAST SUPPER. Can you speak for yourself, I clearly understand what others have posted. I think I responded to your statement the Mass of All Ages. Kirk knew what Mass I was referring to again. That is an attack??..I know than what you have against the Tridentine Mass…I take it as an attack against Christ, His Church for you to say…that the Traditional/Traditional Mass was not instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, that is where it all began… The Mass is referred to as the Sacrament, the Sacrifice. I don’t understand all this separation from the Core of the Cannon unless you think it was devised by man and not God. You practically had a heart heart when you saw the words Tridentine Mass…geesh

Sorry I think you are pitting.
 
Really? Why?

Mark 14:22

22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body.

Why would He need to tell them to “take” if He had already put it on the tongue? They would have already received it!
He could of said Take This and put it on their tongue. A mother gives her child a spoon full of cough syrup and what does she…take this.

I’m not saying that is the case though…I’ve should of said, my mind is not really made up on the matter…again I said Kirk made valid points.
 
Are we playing a game of “if I say it often enough it’ll be true”? You keep talking about something I have against the Tridentine. Would you mind telling me what it is? It might be nice if I knew.:whacky: BTW, if you read back, I didn’t say you called it the Last Supper. I said you called it the Traditional Mass. Maybe it would be a little clearer to you if I said "Who else besides you calls the Mass instituted at the Last Supper the Traditional Mass? It was THE Mass.
 
Actually, it’s already a misnomer because the Tridentine Mass format wasn’t used in the early Church so it can’t be the Mass for ALL ages. It was THE Mass. Besides that, you’re overreacting. guanophore never said it was a lie nor that the gates of hell have prevailed anywhere. You’re reading things into it. Did someone say along the way that if the Tridentine Mass wasn’t said always that the gates of hell would have prevailed? I haven’t seen it. It certainly doesn’t say it in Quo Primum. In fact, hell isn’t even mentioned. While I doubt the Tridentine will be revoked and hope it’s not, the Tridentine and gates of hell aren’t usually mentioned in Church teaching together.
What do you think Christ was talking about? This is even meantioned in the Old Testament about the Daily Sacrifice. I think Hell would try and stop the Daily Sacrifice, nothing else. This is at the heart of our beliefs and the Church. And you can already see this in the N.O parishes that are being sold in the US and Europe. The only Mass that is not being stopped is the Tridentine Mass it is exploding…people are in a waiting line to get into their semanaries…
 
Are we playing a game of “if I say it often enough it’ll be true”? You keep talking about something I have against the Tridentine. Would you mind telling me what it is? It might be nice if I knew.:whacky: BTW, if you read back, I didn’t say you called it the Last Supper. I said you called it the Traditional Mass. Maybe it would be a little clearer to you if I said "Who else besides you calls the Mass instituted at the Last Supper the Traditional Mass? It was THE Mass.
Why the separation of the word Traditional… certainly not modern because Christ instituted this sacrament and it was passed down…
 
The language would almost certainly have been Hebrew, certainly we know that Psalms were sung and these would not have been in Aramaic, which was the vernacular (we think). Jesus would have used a Jewish kiddush cup, which was elaborate and made of precious metals. Depending on their financial resources, either silver or gold. I strongly suspect that bread and wine were not the only food present. The Last Supper would have been a ritual evening meal. Modern Jews traditionally start with soup. I could quite possibly have been a Passover meal, in which case there would have been eggs and bitter herbs and the other elements of the meal. So the bread would have been consumed as the staple. However we don’t know that for sure.
I think you are right about the ritual meal. Here are the elements in the gospel:

Matt 26:17-35

17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?” 18 He said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.’” 19 And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover.

20 When it was evening, he sat at table with the twelve disciples; 21 and as they were eating,…

"He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me, will betray me. …Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Is it I, Master?” He said to him, “You have said so.”

26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

30 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. "

In Luke’s account:

Luke 22:7-23

7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed.

14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I** have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer**; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

Interesting here he gives them the bread and says “divide it among yourselves”. That would be hard to do if it was already on the tongue!

John 13:2-4
2 And during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4 rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel.

John is the only one that includes to washing of the feet. Did Jesus get up from the meal? Or, since it was a ritual meal, after they had eaten, did he wash the feet?
 
What do you think Christ was talking about? This is even meantioned in the Old Testament about the Daily Sacrifice. I think Hell would try and stop the Daily Sacrifice, nothing else. This is at the heart of our beliefs and the Church. And you can already see this in the N.O parishes that are being sold in the US and Europe. The only Mass that is not being stopped is the Tridentine Mass it is exploding…people are in a waiting line to get into their semanaries…
So basically it’s not I who is against the Tridentine. It’s you who is against the Novus Ordo. We have a Daily Sacrifice. If we don’t have one in a certain area then there is neither a Tridentine or a Novus Ordo or there would be. Right?

And, I don’t think that Our Lord was talking about the Tridentine Mass when he said:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 
Why the separation of the word Traditional… certainly not modern because Christ instituted this sacrament and it was passed down…
All Masses are Traditional. The Mass is a Tradition/Truth of our Church. What I asked is who calls the Mass at the Last Supper the Traditional Mass? What just about every one here has said is that we Catholics don’t say that Christ instituted the “Traditional Mass”. We say that He instituted THE Mass. Got it?
 
So basically it’s not I who is against the Tridentine. It’s you who is against the Novus Ordo. We have a Daily Sacrifice. If we don’t have one in a certain area then there is neither a Tridentine or a Novus Ordo or there would be. Right?

And, I don’t think that Our Lord was talking about the Tridentine Mass when he said:
I’ve never said I was against the Novus Ordo.
 
Interesting here he gives them the bread and says “divide it among yourselves”. That would be hard to do if it was already on the tongue!
You really must go to the Greek before making that kind of point. I read it as referring to the cup, but in English we don’t normally use “divide” of a fluid. This is the sort of thing that gets confused in translation.
 
All Masses are Traditional. The Mass is a Tradition/Truth of our Church. What I asked is who calls the Mass at the Last Supper the Traditional Mass? What just about every one here has said is that we Catholics don’t say that Christ instituted the “Traditional Mass”. We say that He instituted THE Mass. Got it?
Sorry I’m not separating it…The Traditional Mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper composed of His very words and was handed down to us by the Apostles and their successors.
 
Ummm I’d very much like to know… Can someone PM me with a score card so I can know whats happeneing…
 
Ummm I’d very much like to know… Can someone PM me with a score card so I can know whats happeneing…
I know, this thread is a bit like watching a traffic accident, you know you shouldn’t look, but you just can’t turn away!

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

P.S.
Anyone want to go in on the “thread closing” pool?
 
The one disciple explicitly described as touching the bread was the one who betrayed Him.
Douay-Rheims Bible:

Matthews account, which takes place before the Institution of the Eucharist: 23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me

Mark’s account, which takes place before the Institution of the Eucharist. 19 But they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one by one: Is it I? 20 Who saith to them: One of the twelve, who dippeth with me his hand in the dish.

Luke’s account, which has the Institution narrative. Chist foretells that Judas will betray him, and the narrative follows. It isn’t not clear from this Gospel alone if Judas is present for the institution (he isn’t in Matthew and Mark)**: 21 But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

John’s Account, which has no account of the Institution of the Eucharist: "26 Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him."

First I should say that I receive on the tongue (I do it as an act of reparation for the divisions in the Church, not because I consider it to be more reverent).

From Matthew’s narrative, we could draw the conclusion that the disciples were dipping bread into a common dish, and Jesus meant the one who’s hand was in the dish at the same time as His. It doesn’t indicate that the Savior was dipping the bread in the dish and giving it to His Disciples. He COULD have been, since it was and is a sign of esteem in the Middle East for a host to feed his guest with his own hand, but we don’t know if that actually means inserting the food into the guest’s mouth or if it means that the host serves the food to the guest with his own hand. It isn’t clear if Judas remained for the Institution or whether this was simply bread or the Consecrated Host, but there is not indication in this or in the other narratives that Jesus dipped the Consecrated Host in anything.

From Mark’s account, we could draw the same conclusion as from Matthew’s, but we aren’t sure if Judas leaves before the Institution or not. Clearly, it still isn’t the Consecrated Host (as it’s before the Institution and there isn’t any indication that the Lord dipped the Consecrated Host into anything).

Luke’s account simply states that the hand of the betrayer is on the table with the Lord’s. It doesn’t mention the handing of the bread or of the Consecrated Host (to Judas, at any rate).

In John’s account, our Lord hands bread that HE has dipped to Judas, but there is no indication whether Judas took the bread in his hand or our Lord placed it into his mouth. There isn’t an institution narrative here at all, so we’ve no idea at what point in the chronology this occurs. It COULD be bread or it COULD be the Consecrated Host, but either way, there is not an indication whether Judas handled it or received it on the tongue.

There is nothing from the Gospel accounts that proves whether our Lord gave the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the Apostles or whether He fed them by placing it into their mouths. It is clear from the first two narratives that Jesus ISN’T talking about the Consecrated Host (the Institution follows and there is no dipping of the Consecrated Host, whether Judas is present or not). From the third narrative, no bread or dipping is mentioned, much less whether or not Judas took it into his hand or onto his tongue. The last narrative has no Institution and there is again no indication as to how Judas received it, when Our Lord proffered the bread or the Sacred Species, whichever it was.

Your argument would be a wholely novel one for anyone who self-identified as a traditionalist (I’m not saying that you do so identify yourself), as the standard argument is,“Of course, the Apostles received in the hand, they were bishops and priests, they were entitled to receive in the hand” (which begs the question as to why those same Apostles and their disciples allowed the faithful in presumeably the Apostolic, but certainly the Patristic Church to receive the Sacred Species with THEIR hands). There is no way of knowing from the Gospel narratives HOW the Apostles received, much less being able to indict reception in the hand because JUDAS received that way. There is no indication that he received that way at all, either the dipped bread or the Consecrated Host (I’m inclined to believe that Judas had departed, because I cannot imagine that he received the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood).

(continued)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top