Questions about the Novus Ordo Mass.

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul11b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Southern said:
What I have stated is the history of the Church. Most do not realize the changes. Speak to the elderly and see what they tell you about the changes. Those who were old enough to understand the changes of the Church. The Church is run by man. Man has error. Only the man who is in the Holy Spirit can change the church. The Pope! Vatican II was a consel that changed the laws of the Church to what we know today. There is much Greed in our beloved Church for power and money and I feel that this Pope will rid of the ones who changed the Church by mans laws and not Gods laws. We need to go back to God’s laws. God Bless!
Click to expand...
Vatican II was approved by the Pope and therefore infallible and protected by the grace of the Holy Spirit from error.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
But they are not sinning. They are following the rules and rubrics of the Church. Saying that they are sinning or doing something wrong is at the very least uncharitable.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of sin as a whole not what is in the Church or their teachings. I believe about 95% of what the Church teaches. For instance did any one notice the change in the Gospel for Easter Vigil. The Roman Soilder said this was an innocent man. However in Scripture it says the soilder said, “Truly this was the Son of God” Changes are subtle but noticeable. You dont change the Gospel and you don’t change the Church. That is all I am trying to say!
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Vatican II was approved by the Pope and therefore infallible and protected by the grace of the Holy Spirit from error.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI was not the original Pope. The Real Pope Paul VI wasn’t running the Church at the time. Look at the pictures before and after Vatican II and then tell me that is the same man. It was not the same. See for yourself. Just like Pope John Paul I was poisoned the day before he was going to clean house and give the Churches $$$ to the poor. Now lets look at Pope Benidict XVI at the Vatican paper leaks from the Vatican and the Coruption on Paper! Documented!! Now where is our Beloved Pope? Retired. Doesn’t any one realize conspiricy when they see it? My beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, please do research before hand. You will see it. This Pope needs our Prayers to hopefully reinstate the Church’s foundations again!!
 
Southern said:
Pope Paul VI was not the original Pope. The Real Pope Paul VI wasn’t running the Church at the time. Look at the pictures before and after Vatican II and then tell me that is the same man. It was not the same. See for yourself. Just like Pope John Paul I was poisoned the day before he was going to clean house and give the Churches $$$ to the poor. Now lets look at Pope Benidict XVI at the Vatican paper leaks from the Vatican and the Coruption on Paper! Documented!! Now where is our Beloved Pope? Retired. Doesn’t any one realize conspiricy when they see it? My beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, please do research before hand. You will see it. This Pope needs our Prayers to hopefully reinstate the Church’s foundations again!!
Click to expand...
You forgot the 😃 smiley.
 
Southern said:
Pope Paul VI was not the original Pope. The Real Pope Paul VI wasn’t running the Church at the time. Look at the pictures before and after Vatican II and then tell me that is the same man. It was not the same. See for yourself. Just like Pope John Paul I was poisoned the day before he was going to clean house and give the Churches $$$ to the poor. Now lets look at Pope Benidict XVI at the Vatican paper leaks from the Vatican and the Coruption on Paper! Documented!! Now where is our Beloved Pope? Retired. Doesn’t any one realize conspiricy when they see it? My beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, please do research before hand. You will see it. This Pope needs our Prayers to hopefully reinstate the Church’s foundations again!!
Click to expand...
:whacky::whistle:
 
Southern said:
I was speaking of sin as a whole not what is in the Church or their teachings. I believe about 95% of what the Church teaches. For instance did any one notice the change in the Gospel for Easter Vigil. The Roman Soilder said this was an innocent man. However in Scripture it says the soilder said, “Truly this was the Son of God” Changes are subtle but noticeable. You dont change the Gospel and you don’t change the Church. That is all I am trying to say!
Click to expand...
To this I would say that this is most likely a difference in translation. What a lot of people do not realize that the only Biblical texts that are guaranteed to be free from error are the originals. The translations do not have this protection, that is why there are different translations and we do come up with better and more accurate translations over time.
 
Southern said:
Pope Paul VI was not the original Pope. The Real Pope Paul VI wasn’t running the Church at the time. Look at the pictures before and after Vatican II and then tell me that is the same man. It was not the same. See for yourself. Just like Pope John Paul I was poisoned the day before he was going to clean house and give the Churches $$$ to the poor. Now lets look at Pope Benidict XVI at the Vatican paper leaks from the Vatican and the Coruption on Paper! Documented!! Now where is our Beloved Pope? Retired. Doesn’t any one realize conspiricy when they see it? My beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, please do research before hand. You will see it. This Pope needs our Prayers to hopefully reinstate the Church’s foundations again!!
Click to expand...
Well, this has now crossed into territory that I am not going to touch.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
To this I would say that this is most likely a difference in translation. What a lot of people do not realize that the only Biblical texts that are guaranteed to be free from error are the originals. The translations do not have this protection, that is why there are different translations and we do come up with better and more accurate translations over time.
Click to expand...
The original that we have today is the only one we have. The Douley Rhimes Version. Look at the Copyrite date dating back to the 400’s. It was translated and written by the Monks on sheep skin scrolls then they in turn put them in to the book form.
 
Southern said:
The original that we have today is the only one we have. The Douley Rhimes Version. Look at the Copyrite date dating back to the 400’s. It was translated and written by the Monks on sheep skin scrolls then they in turn put them in to the book form.
Click to expand...
But it is not the original. The English is ALWAYS a translation, because it did not exist at the time the Bible was written. Translations are not guaranteed to be free of error.
 
Southern said:
The original that we have today is the only one we have. The Douley Rhimes Version. Look at the Copyrite date dating back to the 400’s. It was translated and written by the Monks on sheep skin scrolls then they in turn put them in to the book form.
Click to expand...
What? The Douay dates back to only 1609, not the 400’s.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
But it is not the original. The English is ALWAYS a translation, because it did not exist at the time the Bible was written. Translations are not guaranteed to be free of error.
Click to expand...
Yes I realize that the history of this Bible is the first one to be translated from the origional Bible to English. It is the closest we have in English is the point I was trying to get across. Have a Blessed Day! God Bless!
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Well, this has now crossed into territory that I am not going to touch.
Click to expand...
LOL! If more would research this alone would be enough to prove my point to everyone. This has truly been the most responded to Forum I have ever been on. May God Bless each and every one of you and your families. I wish all nothing but God’s Best! Which He has truly given us! His risen Son! I Love this website and I consider you all my friends whether you agree with my post or not! God Bless!
 
Southern said:
LOL! If more would research this alone would be enough to prove my point to everyone. This has truly been the most responded to Forum I have ever been on. May God Bless each and every one of you and your families. I wish all nothing but God’s Best! Which He has truly given us! His risen Son! I Love this website and I consider you all my friends whether you agree with my post or not! God Bless!
Click to expand...
I think the point is that he has already researched these claims and found them to be false. If you disagree so fundamentally about the history of what happened it seems like you hold onto such different principles that any real attempt at conversation will be impossible. 🤷
 
Southern said:
Yes I realize that the history of this Bible is the first one to be translated from the origional Bible to English. It is the closest we have in English is the point I was trying to get across. Have a Blessed Day! God Bless!
Click to expand...
Yet the point that I was making is that because only the original is guaranteed to be without error, there will be different wordings in translations. That does not mean that someone has changed the Gospel, it means that someone interpreted something as saying one thing and someone else had a different interpretation of the same words.
 
Southern said:
Pope Paul VI was not the original Pope. The Real Pope Paul VI wasn’t running the Church at the time. Look at the pictures before and after Vatican II and then tell me that is the same man. It was not the same. See for yourself. Just like Pope John Paul I was poisoned the day before he was going to clean house and give the Churches $$$ to the poor. Now lets look at Pope Benidict XVI at the Vatican paper leaks from the Vatican and the Coruption on Paper! Documented!! Now where is our Beloved Pope? Retired. Doesn’t any one realize conspiricy when they see it? My beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, please do research before hand. You will see it. This Pope needs our Prayers to hopefully reinstate the Church’s foundations again!!
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. Hon, there’s enough real trouble in the world without looking for made-up trouble!
 
Southern said:
I was speaking of sin as a whole not what is in the Church or their teachings. I believe about 95% of what the Church teaches. For instance did any one notice the change in the Gospel for Easter Vigil. The Roman Soilder said this was an innocent man. However in Scripture it says the soilder said, “Truly this was the Son of God” Changes are subtle but noticeable. You dont change the Gospel and you don’t change the Church. That is all I am trying to say!
Click to expand...
It depends on which Gospel. Mark has the centurion saying ‘Truly this man was a son of God’, while Luke has ‘This was a great and good man’.

I think you might be misunderstanding how the Gospels were written, and how there are differences between them. There is no one Gospel. Read them and you will begin to see how incidents are described differently. Check out the Resurrection appearances, for example.
 
thewanderer said:
I think the point is that he has already researched these claims and found them to be false. If you disagree so fundamentally about the history of what happened it seems like you hold onto such different principles that any real attempt at conversation will be impossible. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sorry friend I hold on to Christ. If I were wrong why is it that Christ himself said there are so many bishops and priest even popes that went to Hell? Look it up in the Divine Mercy Diary of St. Faustina You will find the answer to this question. Then maybe you will see where I come from. I am a hard core Catholic and not one for Change in the Church Traditions. That is my opinion and no one can or will change it. Conversation come easy with me because I do listen to each and every one of you. I do not argue but respect each of the post. There are many like me who feel the same. Look at the one who origionally started this post. God Bless!
 
paperwight66 said:
It depends on which Gospel. Mark has the centurion saying ‘Truly this man was a son of God’, while Luke has ‘This was a great and good man’.

I think you might be misunderstanding how the Gospels were written, and how there are differences between them. There is no one Gospel. Read them and you will begin to see how incidents are described differently. Check out the Resurrection appearances, for example.
Click to expand...
Yes I understand them. Not all say the exact thing. That was just an example. Some things are longer some are shorter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top