Different spiritualities?

[JKirkLVNV]

(continued)

I’ve no issue with how people receive, provided they receive reverently. As the Church allows a liberty to the faithfu to choose (where she allows it, most recently Pope Benedict extended the indult for reception in the hand to Poland), I don’t think we should beat our fellow Catholics up about how they receive. But regardless of how we receive or how we believe that we SHOULD receive, there is no way to prove how the Apostles received or that Judas was the only one, besides our Lord, to touch with his hand either the table bread or the Most Sacred Body.

 

[LilyM]

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.

And those very words - the Our Father, ‘take and eat’, ‘take and drink’, and the rest, are all there in the Pauline Mass too … or they were when I attended Daily Mass a mere two hours ago …

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

But, Uxor, that still begs the question: if that’s so, are we saying that the Latin west is the only one that got it right? Because the Eastern Churches in union with Rome also have liturgies that are reckoned (by the Latin Church, no less) to be Apostolic in origin. Peter, coming to Rome, was the only one who was paying attention at the Last Supper?

Maybe I’m reading you incorrectly, but when you say, “The Tradional Mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper,” it reads to some of us like you mean the Tridentine Mass, because that’s what is generally meant by the expression “Traditional Mass.”

 

[bear06]

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?

My pick was yesterday. Unfortunately that means we all lose.

That said, I’m sure at least the leftists have lost because they’re going to be none to happy when they find out that someone equates Bill Grossklas with one of them.

 

[Uxor]

And those very words - the Our Father, ‘take and eat’, ‘take and drink’, and the rest, are all there in the Pauline Mass too … or they were when I attended Daily Mass a mere two hours ago …

I’m not saying they are not…

 

[bear06]

And those very words - the Our Father, ‘take and eat’, ‘take and drink’, and the rest, are all there in the Pauline Mass too … or they were when I attended Daily Mass a mere two hours ago …

Good luck, Lily. I don’t think Uxor realizes that when she says “Traditional Mass” that 99% of us (at least) think Traditional Latin Mass. She apparently is insistent about applying it to more than just that one so confusion will be the order of the day.

 

[LilyM]

Good luck, Lily. I don’t think Uxor realizes that when she says “Traditional Mass” that 99% of us (at least) think Traditional Latin Mass. She apparently is insistent about applying it to more than just that one so confusion will be the order of the day.

I think so - Uxor, you cannot possibly be as ignorant of the common significance of the term ‘traditional mass’ as you appear to be.

And Alice in Wonderland notwithstanding, a word does not mean just what you want it to mean. It means what 99% of people think it means. It is a fact (and I’m telling you as if it hadn’t already been stated a dozen times already) that 99% of Catholics, if you say “traditional mass” to them, think TLM, nothing more, nothing less.

If you deliberately want to confuse people - as you now know you are doing - by insisting on attaching some other meaning, then be my guest - expect them to rightly get angry at you if you try it.

 

[guanophore]

Douay-Rheims Bible:

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."

Is this not a description of how middle eastern people ate? did they not recline at table, and use the bread as a utensil, to dip into a commom dish of food?

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).

This is VERY cool.

but there is not indication in this or in the other narratives that Jesus dipped the Consecrated Host in anything.

This is why I assumed the reference was to the consumption of the passover meal.

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. /
QUOTE]

This begs the question, why would Jesus allow someone to particpate in consecrated elements that was not in communion with Himself?
JKirkLVNV;2036027:

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).

Do we know that the early church received in the hand?

 

[Uxor]

But, Uxor, that still begs the question: if that’s so, are we saying that the Latin west is the only one that got it right? Because the Eastern Churches in union with Rome also have liturgies that are reckoned (by the Latin Church, no less) to be Apostolic in origin. Peter, coming to Rome, was the only one who was paying attention at the Last Supper?

Maybe I’m reading you incorrectly, but when you say, “The Tradional Mass was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper,” it reads to some of us like you mean the Tridentine Mass, because that’s what is generally meant by the expression “Traditional Mass.”

I’m not excluding the Eastern Rites…but I find it amazing that when speaking regarding this topic, people point to eastern rites, 3rd century and scripture and avoid talking about the Roman liturgy…why is that? And I don’t understand how anyone can say that the Tridentine Mass as a Sacrament (unless you think it is a meal?) was not instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. I meantioned the Canon Core essentials. Yes it was organically grown, but it is still the same Sacarament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Do we know that the early church received in the hand?

We know that at least some did, as per St. Cyril of Jerusalem. We don’t know how widespread OR how restricted it was. We simply don’t know. Here’s a read that I believe is balanced. Keep in mind that the Church cannot permit or propose a discipline that will lead the faithful into impiety (that is a negative infallibilty), though some of the “faithful” can certainly do something impious with something sacred:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[guanophore]

I’m not excluding the Eastern Rites…but I find it amazing that when speaking regarding this topic, people point to eastern rites, 3rd century and scripture and avoid talking about the Roman liturgy…why is that? And I don’t understand how anyone can say that the Tridentine Mass as a Sacrament (unless you think it is a meal?) was not instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. I meantioned the Canon Core essentials. Yes it was organically grown, but it is still the same Sacarament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
.

I guess that I can chalk this up to ignorance, Uxor. If you try attending these other Liturgies, you will maybe have a better understanding that there are a variety of Divine Liturgies, all based upon the Mass instituted by Christ. They all have the Canon Core essentials, but only a small minority of them are Tridentine.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not excluding the Eastern Rites…but I find it amazing that when speaking regarding this topic, people point to eastern rites, 3rd century and scripture and avoid talking about the Roman liturgy…why is that? And I don’t understand how anyone can say that the Tridentine Mass as a Sacrament (unless you think it is a meal?) was not instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. I meantioned the Canon Core essentials. Yes it was organically grown, but it is still the same Sacarament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
.

Well, we mention the Eastern Rites, the 3rd Century, and Scripture because they are relevant to the argument. And I don’t think anyone is avoiding talking about the Roman liturgy. The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper, as do the Divine Liturgies, as does the Pauline Mass, as does the Anglican Use Mass. NONE of them are precisely the same Mass that our Lord celebrated that night, however.

 

[Uxor]

I guess that I can chalk this up to ignorance, Uxor. If you try attending these other Liturgies, you will maybe have a better understanding that there are a variety of Divine Liturgies, all based upon the Mass instituted by Christ. They all have the Canon Core essentials, but only a small minority of them are Tridentine.

When did I say they didn’t?

 

[Uxor]

Well, we mention the Eastern Rites, the 3rd Century, and Scripture because they are relevant to the argument. And I don’t think anyone is avoiding talking about the Roman liturgy. The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper, as do the Divine Liturgies, as does the Pauline Mass, as does the Anglican Use Mass. NONE of them are precisely the same Mass that our Lord celebrated that night, however.

The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper

All I was trying to get you guys to say from the beginning.

 

[guanophore]

When did I say they didn’t?

You never said the other divine liturgies were not valid. But your post:

I’m not excluding the Eastern Rites…but I find it amazing that when speaking regarding this topic, people point to eastern rites, 3rd century and scripture and avoid talking about the Roman liturgy…why is that? And I don’t understand how anyone can say that the **Tridentine Mass **as a Sacrament (unless you think it is a meal?) was not instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. I meantioned the Canon Core essentials. Yes it was organically grown, but it is still the same Sacarament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper.
.

Made it sound like you thought the Mass that Jesus instituted was the Tridentine form, where in fact, there are many forms. The Tridentine is one valid form, but not the ONLY form.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The TLM confects the same Sacrament as Christ instituted at the Last Supper

All I was trying to get you guys to say from the beginning.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

[Uxor]

You never said the other divine liturgies were not valid. But your post:

Made it sound like you thought the Mass that Jesus instituted was the Tridentine form, where in fact, there are many forms. The Tridentine is one valid form, but not the ONLY form.

Go back to post 35. I talk to you yesterday and I said…

“I’m not saying your Mass is invalid, the Church as far as I know has never said that…”

I defended the Tridentine form, when I saw it under attack…when Kirk said it could be suppressed and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise… Baloney!

 

[Genesis315]

I defended the Tridentine form, when I saw it under attack…when Kirk said it could be suppressed and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise… Baloney!

Why not? There was a time when it didn’t exist. Other rites/forms have been suppressed. If one specific form of the liturgy was suppressed, how does that equal the entire Church of Christ being prevailed against?

 

[Uxor]

Why not? There was a time when it didn’t exist. Other rites/forms have been suppressed. If one specific form of the liturgy was suppressed, how does that equal the entire Church of Christ being prevailed against?

I don’t understand your question that there was a time it didn’t exist?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Go back to post 35. I talk to you yesterday and I said…

“I’m not saying your Mass is invalid, the Church as far as I know has never said that…”

I defended the Tridentine form, when I saw it under attack…when Kirk said it could be suppressed and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise… Baloney!

Uxor, I never attacked the Tridentine Mass/Missal. I do not advocate it’s suppression (and I don’t even know of anyone who does!), indeed, I’ve most often in the past supported what the old Holy Father wanted, a generous application of the Indult. But I will say this: what I said yesterday, I meant. Hypothetically, SHOULD the Tridentine form ever be lawfully suppressed by a future pope (who holds that legitimate authority, as Saint Pius V held it and suppressed all liturgies under 200 years old at the time of Trent), then the Church can be CERTAIN that Christ will still not fail in His promise (He can’t). The Eucharist would still continue in whatever form the Mass takes at that time, provided that the essential form is retained (and the Church cannot change that) and the gates of Hell would not prevail.

This is where it becomes NOT about which form the Mass takes, but about the authority of the Church, given it by Christ.