Tredentine Mass Is Our Right

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnlex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Auntie_M said:
I have not been on this traditional thread for quite some time, but I see it hasn’t changed any. The arguing still goes on.

In reading thru most of the posts, I saw a picture emerging…

Jesus preaching the GOOD NEWS, the new covenant, a striking change from the old covenant that the Jews were used to.

The Jewish people didn’t want this NEW teaching so they rejected IT and CHRIST.

Christ, however, just kept on preaching the New Covenant.

But the Jewish people got what they wanted, they thought, they “thought” they had stopped that NEW preaching when they
CRUCIFIED HIM.!!!

Is that what all this is about now. Is Christ being CRUCIFIED NOW…AGAIN It really does seem to be.

Just because it is NEW doesn’t mean it is all bad. And just because it is old doesn’t mean it is all good.

Whomever is arguing now for whichever mass, What will they say to Christ. Maybe something like this:

" I used ALL my time fighting to get my rights to have the mass I wanted. The Mass of all time". and then with head held low, “Maybe, I should have spent more time in prayer, instead”

Will Jesus say, “Well done my child” or “go away, I never knew you”

If you don’t stop all this OF/ EF, our church is being torn to pieces in front of our very own eyes. Why would ANY new convert want to join a church with this kind of stuff going on all the time.

Those who keep it going are certainly not obedient, charitable, or are looking out for the church as a whole, but only what they selfishly want.

I am sure to get alot of hateful remarks from this one, but I have heard this stuff so much, I 'm getting sick of it.

I DON’T WANT MY CHURCH TORN APART…:mad:
Click to expand...
Dear Auntie, The Church is not torn apart by different opinions. We can have different opinions about all things that are not defined by a definite pronouncement, (dogma), and some other binding teachings ( no woman priests etc) And if you think of it, there are much more things that are not defined than are defined by the Church. We are the children of God and as such we are FREE. Jesus set us free. We are free to disagree on a lot of things provided we respect and love oneanother as brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
Auntie_M said:
I have not been on this traditional thread for quite some time, but I see it hasn’t changed any. The arguing still goes on.

In reading thru most of the posts, I saw a picture emerging…

Jesus preaching the GOOD NEWS, the new covenant, a striking change from the old covenant that the Jews were used to.

The Jewish people didn’t want this NEW teaching so they rejected IT and CHRIST.

Christ, however, just kept on preaching the New Covenant.

But the Jewish people got what they wanted, they thought, they “thought” they had stopped that NEW preaching when they
CRUCIFIED HIM.!!!

Is that what all this is about now. Is Christ being CRUCIFIED NOW…AGAIN It really does seem to be.

Just because it is NEW doesn’t mean it is all bad. And just because it is old doesn’t mean it is all good.

Whomever is arguing now for whichever mass, What will they say to Christ. Maybe something like this:

" I used ALL my time fighting to get my rights to have the mass I wanted. The Mass of all time". and then with head held low, “Maybe, I should have spent more time in prayer, instead”

Will Jesus say, “Well done my child” or “go away, I never knew you”

If you don’t stop all this OF/ EF, our church is being torn to pieces in front of our very own eyes. Why would ANY new convert want to join a church with this kind of stuff going on all the time.

Those who keep it going are certainly not obedient, charitable, or are looking out for the church as a whole, but only what they selfishly want.

I am sure to get alot of hateful remarks from this one, but I have heard this stuff so much, I 'm getting sick of it.

I DON’T WANT MY CHURCH TORN APART…:mad:
Click to expand...
I have no fear that the Church is being torn apart - or that it will be torn apart. When a discussion turns into dissension, then there are problems for all. My post is this correction, regarding the above quote: as Catholics we stand in faith believing as both Creeds state that Our Lord suffered and died under Pontius Pilate (the Romans) not under the powers of the Jews. Who had the power to kill (to execute)? The Romans - not the Jews.
 
Convenient, isn’t it, to blame the Romans and absolve the Jews. I mean, we couldn’t just read the Scriptures AND the Fathers, which make clear that despite the complicity of the Romans, the agitators for Christ’s death were from among his own people…the Jews.
 
catharina said:
I have no fear that the Church is being torn apart - or that it will be torn apart. When a discussion turns into dissension, then there are problems for all. My post is this correction, regarding the above quote: as Catholics we stand in faith believing as both Creeds state that Our Lord suffered and died under Pontius Pilate (the Romans) not under the powers of the Jews. Who had the power to kill (to execute)? The Romans - not the Jews.
Click to expand...
The Sanhedrin wanted him dead and Pilate did not.
 
AlexV said:
Convenient, isn’t it, to blame the Romans and absolve the Jews. I mean, we couldn’t just read the Scriptures AND the Fathers, which make clear that despite the complicity of the Romans, the agitators for Christ’s death were from among his own people…the Jews.
Click to expand...
if you wish to deny the teachings contained in the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed, I can only say: ‘I’m not surprised.’ You seem to have a motivation that supports “anything for a fight” (dissension) rather than a more graced (and normal) support of Church Teaching. Sad.
 
eelpis said:
The Sanhedrin wanted him dead and Pilate did not.
Click to expand...
coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Christ suffered and died under Pontius Pilate.
You do support the Creeds? The teachings of the Church?

Or do you?
 
I enjoy the Latin and Ordinary Form, I don’t see any reason to disparage anyone over their choice of either masses, they are both legitimate.
 
Catharina, you’ve successfully hijacked yet ANOTHER thread with your usual provocative style.

The Creed does NOT absolve the Jewish authorities (and mob) from complicity in Christ’s death.

It specifies who was the procurator under whom Christ died. Note I did NOT absolve Pilate from complicity in Christ’s death. But the Creed does NOT absolve the Jews who were ALSO complicit in the death of Christ, and indeed agitated for it. Note the Ethiopians who split off after Chalcedon in 451 VENERATE Pilate as a Saint…and they accept the Nicene Creed. The Creed does not “blame” Pilate for anything, it states a historical fact and no more.

Now get back on topic, and stop your usual games of trying to accuse people of not being Catholic.
 
WOW - How did we get here? If we want to blame anyone for the crucifixion, lets look at ourselves. Are we without sin? Thats what crucified Jesus. The Romans and the Jews were merely the tools used. Jesus came knowing he would be crucified, FOR US SINNERS.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
catharina said:
coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Christ suffered and died under Pontius Pilate.
You do support the Creeds? The teachings of the Church?

Or do you?
Click to expand...
Of course I do, do you? The remote reason for the death of Christ are our sins, most of all the reapeated sins of Christians. The proximate cause of the death of Jesus was the Sanhedrin ( the scribes and the pharisees) and the Romans.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
WOW - How did we get here? If we want to blame anyone for the crucifixion, lets look at ourselves. Are we without sin? Thats what crucified Jesus. The Romans and the Jews were merely the tools used. Jesus came knowing he would be crucified, FOR US SINNERS.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Exactly. Perfect, Deacon Ed.
 
Michael_Neal said:
I enjoy the Latin and Ordinary Form, I don’t see any reason to disparage anyone over their choice of either masses, they are both legitimate.
Click to expand...
I just wish people would acknowledge this and quit trying to say my form is better than your form. Each is the mass. Most importantly, each gives us Jesus, the Son of God made man who came to be crucified for OUR sins.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
Auntie_M said:
I have not been on this traditional thread for quite some time, but I see it hasn’t changed any. The arguing still goes on.

In reading thru most of the posts, I saw a picture emerging…

Jesus preaching the GOOD NEWS, the new covenant, a striking change from the old covenant that the Jews were used to.

The Jewish people didn’t want this NEW teaching so they rejected IT and CHRIST.

Christ, however, just kept on preaching the New Covenant.

But the Jewish people got what they wanted, they thought, they “thought” they had stopped that NEW preaching when they
CRUCIFIED HIM.!!!

Is that what all this is about now. Is Christ being CRUCIFIED NOW…AGAIN It really does seem to be.

Just because it is NEW doesn’t mean it is all bad. And just because it is old doesn’t mean it is all good.

Whomever is arguing now for whichever mass, What will they say to Christ. Maybe something like this:

" I used ALL my time fighting to get my rights to have the mass I wanted. The Mass of all time". and then with head held low, “Maybe, I should have spent more time in prayer, instead”

Will Jesus say, “Well done my child” or “go away, I never knew you”

If you don’t stop all this OF/ EF, our church is being torn to pieces in front of our very own eyes. Why would ANY new convert want to join a church with this kind of stuff going on all the time.

Those who keep it going are certainly not obedient, charitable, or are looking out for the church as a whole, but only what they selfishly want.

I am sure to get alot of hateful remarks from this one, but I have heard this stuff so much, I 'm getting sick of it.

I DON’T WANT MY CHURCH TORN APART…:mad:
Click to expand...
Deacon ED

I must fess up, it was MY post that brought all this “Who Killed
Jesus” stuff. I don’t know why that was the only part of my post that was recognized.

My point, Jesus could have been looked at as a Modernist of His time. He came with a NEW message, unlike the Jewish laws of the time and they didn’t like it.

And YES to those who don’t feel that they are splitting the church.
Just LOOK at the post and anyone can see. I really feel badly for any New Converts coming on these posts.

I NEVER meant that our church would be brought down, (SHE NEVER WILL BE), I was referring to “SPLITTING”, which some have already done. Just the same as the Protestants did.🤷
 
Auntie_M said:
**My interpretation of the arguments stand as before. It is NOT a false analogy any more than the statements like…

“The OF doesn’t need to exist”!!! Just where does THAT comes from??? (Charitable people?)**
Click to expand...
If your goal is calm discussions, madam, you need to do a better job of remaining calm. Lots of punctuation, boldface, and capital letters do not strenghten your argument. Like I tell my kids, it takes two to fight. And even though we all find it hard to do, we all know the passage: “Love is patient, love is kind…” It is our duty to return patience, kindness, and polite respect to others, even when they serve up the opposite.

The EF was not replaced by the OF in a fashion analogous to the replacement of the old law by the new. The EF was never abrogated. It is a valid Mass. I would argue that it is needlessly provocative to use that analogy. As you have noticed yourself, overreaching in argument just makes the other side more upset, not less.

In any event, there is no reason that this discussion has to be avoided in order to keep the Church from being torn apart. There is a huge middle ground between not listening to opinions we don’t agree with and having a shouting match over them.
 
A point that must always be made when Scripture refers to “the Jews” is that it does not refer all Jews for all time everywhere.
It refers to those who specifically opposed Jesus and those at the time who were involved in arranging for his crucifixion. It is too easy to slide into anti-semitism without this understanding.
The point should be made every time passages in Scripture arise that refer negatively to “the Jews” without qualification.
 
Auntie_M said:
Deacon ED

I must fess up, it was MY post that brought all this “Who Killed
Jesus” stuff. I don’t know why that was the only part of my post that was recognized.

My point, Jesus could have been looked at as a Modernist of His time. He came with a NEW message, unlike the Jewish laws of the time and they didn’t like it.

And YES to those who don’t feel that they are splitting the church.
Just LOOK at the post and anyone can see. I really feel badly for any New Converts coming on these posts.

I NEVER meant that our church would be brought down, (SHE NEVER WILL BE), I was referring to “SPLITTING”, which some have already done. Just the same as the Protestants did.🤷
Click to expand...
Auntie, if this is the worst thing that ever happened, it is indeed a wonderful life.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
I attend both forms myself, but I have no problem with someone expressing a preference one way or the other. The history of how we got the Ordinary Form also shouldn’t be suppressed in discussion, either. Why should it be? It is understandable that many of us don’t like to see certain arguments carried too far, but from my point of view, the people who are extreme and out of line can stand or fall on the merit of their arguments. The sad thing is that in the crush to stamp out the very few extremists here, a lot of others who aren’t extreme at all are getting tarred with the same brush and the same lack of charity and understanding.

To those who worry about the damage these discussions “might” do to converts, may I ask that we please stop lumping all converts into one group? We’re not all a bunch of naive, innocent children. The impetus for my own conversion was the exterior forms of the traditional church, and a long-held love for things like Gothic cathedrals, ornate vestments and altars, roasries, Gregorian chant and the intricate liturgy of the ancient mass. It took many years for me to delve into the real theology and spirituality of the Church and to figure out that it really IS the true Church founded by Christ. Once that happened, my first few visits to my local parishes were sobering, because I had the shock of learning that what I had thought was the Catholic Church, apparently no longer existed.

If it was not for the existence of the traditionalist movement making their arguments widely known, I cannot say for a fact that I would have gone ahead with my conversion. But, through research, I was able to discern for myself where my place may be within this Church. I settled into a conservative “Novus Ordo” parish for RCIA where I have been very happy. I go to the TLM a couple of times a month at another parish. I understand the “trad” positions on many things and I agree with some, don’t agree with others and on still others I am undecided.

I get the impression from the comments of some, though, that converts like myself are not particularly welcome in some quarters of the Church. That makes me sad, but it doesn’t shake my faith in the True Church. I have great faith that this will work itself out eventually.
 
Robster7 said:
A point that must always be made when Scripture refers to “the Jews” is that it does not refer all Jews for all time everywhere.
It refers to those who specifically opposed Jesus and those at the time who were involved in arranging for his crucifixion. It is too easy to slide into anti-semitism without this understanding.
The point should be made every time passages in Scripture arise that refer negatively to “the Jews” without qualification.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much. You got my point.
Scripture also teaches us that all of the first followers of Jesus were, in fact, Jews!
 
Robster7 said:
A point that must always be made when Scripture refers to “the Jews” is that it does not refer all Jews for all time everywhere.
It refers to those who specifically opposed Jesus and those at the time who were involved in arranging for his crucifixion. It is too easy to slide into anti-semitism without this understanding.
The point should be made every time passages in Scripture arise that refer negatively to “the Jews” without qualification.
Click to expand...
Robster…I’m talking biblical history here. I am NOT talking about any Jewish person of today. I don’t feel the Jews of Today have any part in “our discussion” of what some of our own are doing to our church. It is NOT the Jews of today who are crucifying Christ.

Since Jesus, himself, is not walking the earth, I thought it was quite obvious who I was referring to.

But, point well taken. We must be politically correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top