P
palmas85
Guest
Most of them are written for small groups. That is one of the goals of the modernist movement within the church, small faith based communities, which are built around groups of common interest and purpose.
- Status
L
LeahInancsi
Guest
I agree. These changes are small “t” traditions. They can change from time to time. Large “T” Traditions will never change.
I am in the process of converting to Cathlicism. If Catholicism were not in my family history, I might find it difficult to embrace a new religion whose “service” I can’t understand.
Cradle Catholics are leaving in droves. It’s important to pay mind to attracting new Catholics and keeping the craddle Catholics. If changing small “t” traditions with do that, then more power to change.
P
pryback
Guest
My Mass has not changed but my parish has - my husband and I found the Latin Mass exactly as it was in our Missal. I love the traditional music, choir and Latin - my Missal has a translation so if I want to know what is being said I can read the English - what a great moment when the Pater Noster begins and I am right there,
Everyone is entitled to their own views and I am a “cradle Catholic” - mu children all are with the new Mass and my grandaughters are altar girls - It is wonderful to see them on the alstar, but for me I love every part of our Mass - the priest still faces the Crucifix. I don’t mind his back to me Aren’t we lucky
!!!
Everyone is entitled to their own views and I am a “cradle Catholic” - mu children all are with the new Mass and my grandaughters are altar girls - It is wonderful to see them on the alstar, but for me I love every part of our Mass - the priest still faces the Crucifix. I don’t mind his back to me Aren’t we lucky
!!!
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
For anyone interested in how much or how little the Mass has changed, you can compare the texts of the traditional and the new Mass side-by-side here:
geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html
For the claim that at the Last Supper, Jesus said he would shed his blood “for all”, please read:
latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm
geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html
For the claim that at the Last Supper, Jesus said he would shed his blood “for all”, please read:
latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
As someone who converted to the Church three years ago, and who did not even know about the Tridentine Mass until a few months after joining the Church, I can categorically state that the notion that the NO mass does not emphasize Our Lord’s Sacrifice is pure nonsense and hogwash.
Consider the fact that to this day, not a single solitary Protestant sect that has some notion of the Liturgy, like Lutherans or High Church Anglicans, and certain Presbyterians, have adopted any of the prayers of the Pauline Mass, specifically because it is clearly sacrificial in nature. The notion that the NO mass was toned down for ecumenical reasons is nonsense. Every single major Protestant body that has looked at the prayers of the Pauline Mass in considering whether to “borrow” from them has rejected them, because they are clearly sacrificial. And as far as I know, plenty of Protestant Fundies still attack the mass today, regardless of its form, as being “blasphemous” because it is clearly sacrificial.
So we have a rather odd situation–there are allegations that the NO mass is “Protestantized,” yet the only people making these allegations are supposed “Traditional Catholics.” Not a single, solitary Protestant in the last forty years has even attempted to argue that the NO Mass is similar to his sect’s form of worship. Hardly the case of the Mass being Protestantized. It a strange situation indeed if the only ones who are claiming that the Mass has been Protestantized aren’t even Protestant themselves!
Like I said, I didn’t even know about the Tridentine Rite until after joining the Church. But as I was preparing for reception into the Church, I would go to daily mass, in the Pauline Rite, following everything as closely as I could (nor receiving communion at that point, obviously, since I wasn’t yet in the Church). Its sacrificial nature struck me right from the very beginning, and I never got any impression that it was a mere “communal meal,” or anything like that.
Now, when I did see the Tridentine Mass for the first time, I fell in love with it. It is a beautiful rite. But while I did immerse myself fully in the Tridentine Mass, I never once considered the NO Mass to be “Protestantized,” because it isn’t.
And the notion that the “for many” has been translated as “for all” in order to be more ecumenical is also just as ludicrous. There are plenty of scriptural references to Our Lord’s sacrifice being “for all.” Some choose to accept that Sacrifice and its merits, and others don’t. Our Lord died for all. The argument that it is wrong to translate it as “for all” hints at Jansenism.
P
palmas85
Guest
You are quite rightAs someone who converted to the Church three years ago, and who did not even know about the Tridentine Mass until a few months after joining the Church, I can categorically state that the notion that the NO mass does not emphasize Our Lord’s Sacrifice is pure nonsense and hogwash.
Consider the fact that to this day, not a single solitary Protestant sect that has some notion of the Liturgy, like Lutherans or High Church Anglicans, and certain Presbyterians, have adopted any of the prayers of the Pauline Mass, specifically because it is clearly sacrificial in nature. The notion that the NO mass was toned down for ecumenical reasons is nonsense. Every single major Protestant body that has looked at the prayers of the Pauline Mass in considering whether to “borrow” from them has rejected them, because they are clearly sacrificial. And as far as I know, plenty of Protestant Fundies still attack the mass today, regardless of its form, as being “blasphemous” because it is clearly sacrificial.
So we have a rather odd situation–there are allegations that the NO mass is “Protestantized,” yet the only people making these allegations are supposed “Traditional Catholics.” Not a single, solitary Protestant in the last forty years has even attempted to argue that the NO Mass is similar to his sect’s form of worship. Hardly the case of the Mass being Protestantized. It a strange situation indeed if the only ones who are claiming that the Mass has been Protestantized aren’t even Protestant themselves!
Like I said, I didn’t even know about the Tridentine Rite until after joining the Church. But as I was preparing for reception into the Church, I would go to daily mass, in the Pauline Rite, following everything as closely as I could (nor receiving communion at that point, obviously, since I wasn’t yet in the Church). Its sacrificial nature struck me right from the very beginning, and I never got any impression that it was a mere “communal meal,” or anything like that.
Now, when I did see the Tridentine Mass for the first time, I fell in love with it. It is a beautiful rite. But while I did immerse myself fully in the Tridentine Mass, I never once considered the NO Mass to be “Protestantized,” because it isn’t.
And the notion that the “for many” has been translated as “for all” in order to be more ecumenical is also just as ludicrous. There are plenty of scriptural references to Our Lord’s sacrifice being “for all.” Some choose to accept that Sacrifice and its merits, and others don’t. Our Lord died for all. The argument that it is wrong to translate it as “for all” hints at Jansenism.
it isn’t protestantized. The framers of the Pauline mass wanted to make it(the mass) less threatening to the Protestants. They concocted something they thought would be a bridge between the two camps so to speak.Don’t mention the sacrifice too much, downplay the priests role expand the role of the laity etc. They did not succeed and in fact, I think they made things worse. Up until the Vatican II Council, most Protestants hated and reviled Catholicism, but they respected it because of its’ continuity and the absolute belief in its truthfullnes. Now however, they still hate and revile Catholicism, and have much les respect for it as well. I spend a lot of time listening to Protestant apologists. You should hear what they say .Catholics don’t know their faith, don’t practice it, don’t even believe their own theology and catechisms. Very true.We lost a lot when we tried to bridge the gap between Catholicism and the separated brethren. Mostly, we lost a lot of what we had, the beliefs, the tradition, the certainty, the truth of the Churches position. And we lost the little respect that the Protestants had for us…
As to your assertion on the pro multis issue, I don’t think you would find many in the early church who adhered to the for all philosophy. No, it was reserved for those who entered the Church through baptism and who adhered to what it taught. The Church, not one of the Churches, the Church. The Holy Catholic Church. It was always an exclusive club until the reformation when the theory of universal salvation and salvation through grace alone became popular.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
I challenge you to cite a single Vatican II document that states that the purpose in reforming the Mass was to “bridge the gap” between Protestants and Catholics. You will find no such thing mentioned in any single concillar document.You are quite right
We lost a lot when we tried to bridge the gap between Catholicism and the separated brethren. Mostly, we lost a lot of what we had, the beliefs, the tradition, the certainty, the truth of the Churches position. And we lost the little respect that the Protestants had for us…
As to your assertion on the pro multis issue, I don’t think you would find many in the early church who adhered to the for all philosophy. No, it was reserved for those who entered the Church through baptism and who adhered to what it taught. The Church, not one of the Churches, the Church. The Holy Catholic Church. It was always an exclusive club until the reformation when the theory of universal salvation and salvation through grace alone became popular.
And the notion that Protestants admired us before the Council is just plain ludicrous. I find it hard to believe that sects that believe that the Catholic Church is the antichrist or the whore of Bablylon would have any respect for its continuity.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in your discussion of the idea of universal salvation. The Church has never, ever, taught that those who are, through no fault of their own, ignorent of the Gospel, are automatically condemned. “No salvation outside of the Church” has always been understood in this light. Vatican II simply reemphasized this. If you think it didn’t teach this, that it taught some liberal notion of universal salvation, please show me where in the documents of the Council it said this. Or, if you think that the very notion that those being ignorent of the Gospel can still be saved is heretical, please explain why Bl. Pius IX taught this very doctrine in Paragraph 7 of Quanto Conficiamor Moerore?
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
So you’re saying that with Vatican II we lost “the tradition, the beliefs, the certainty, the Truth of the Church’s position”? So in other words the gates of hell have prevailed? Have you ever actually read what Vatican II actually says?
Of course the Eucharist is only for those who are in the Church. The Church still teaches this. If you’re outside the Church, you can’t be admitted to communion. But how exactly does the phrase “for all” imply that anyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, can receive communion? It doesn’t. It rather signifies that Our Lord invites all to the Last Supper by joining the Catholic Church, Jew and Gentile alike. The Catholic Church calls all to join her.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
And besides, there always have been, and always will be, Catholics who do not practice their faith. It is wrong to view the time prior to the Council as somehow a “golden age” when everything was just fine and dandy with the Church.
Keep in mind the start of the Book of Revelation. Look at how Our Lord rebukes the seven churches. And this is at the very start of the Church, when you would think that everyone would be on fire for the faith. Certainly there were saints, but also, just like today, there were those who did not obey her. This is nothing new. And of course there were the abuses during the Rennaisance. I personally believe that the current Bishops of the United States are, on a whole, very much like the Bishops of England under Henry VIII, afraid to stand up for the truth. This is nothing new. And there isn’t even enough room here to go into how rampent the Arian heresy was in the years prior to, and following the First Council of Nicea. There never has been, and never will be, a “golden age” where every Catholic will be fully adherrent to the Church. There will always be the struggle to defend the Truth both from Satan’s allies outside the Church, and Satan’s allies inside the Church. But the gates of hell will never prevail.
The Catholic Church has lost nothing. Read Vatican II and see for yourself.
Keep in mind the start of the Book of Revelation. Look at how Our Lord rebukes the seven churches. And this is at the very start of the Church, when you would think that everyone would be on fire for the faith. Certainly there were saints, but also, just like today, there were those who did not obey her. This is nothing new. And of course there were the abuses during the Rennaisance. I personally believe that the current Bishops of the United States are, on a whole, very much like the Bishops of England under Henry VIII, afraid to stand up for the truth. This is nothing new. And there isn’t even enough room here to go into how rampent the Arian heresy was in the years prior to, and following the First Council of Nicea. There never has been, and never will be, a “golden age” where every Catholic will be fully adherrent to the Church. There will always be the struggle to defend the Truth both from Satan’s allies outside the Church, and Satan’s allies inside the Church. But the gates of hell will never prevail.
The Catholic Church has lost nothing. Read Vatican II and see for yourself.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
There must be a lot of Jansenists out there. I have checked Matthew 26:28 (and Mark 14:24) in at least 10 different translations. They all say that Jesus said He was going to shed His blood “for many”. I have not seen any translations that state that at the Last Supper Jesus said He was going to shed His blood “for all”. Have you?
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
That’s beside the point. It is wrong to view the term “for many” as implying that it is not for all. “For many” itself is fine.
This is from www.catholic-legate.com:
“The original Biblical texts do not use “for many.” They use the Greek phrase “hoi pollon” which is best translated as “for the masses.” (Quite frankly, I take issue with the Latin translation “pro multis.” I think that “pro multitudinis” is better.) Our Lord was saying that he was offering himself not only for those who were present at the Last Supper but for the masses of mankind. There are several places in scripture where it is made clear that Our Lord came for the salvation of all men (e.g., 1 John 2,2). This has been affirmed time and again by the Magisterium especially against the Calvinist error of “limited atonement” and the elitism of the Jansenists.”
Your argument that “for many” implies only a few, or less than all, directly contradicts the clearly-defined teaching of the Church that Our Lord shed His blood for the whole human race, no exceptions. To argue otherwise is to lapse into Jansenism.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
Furthermore, Pope Paul VI specifically declared that the use “for all” is a perfectly orthodox form of consecration.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html
As St. Augustine has said, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” The issue is not open for debate. To argue that “for all” is invalid, or is heretical, or contains some liberal notion of universal salvation, is not possible therefore, unless you believe that you, and not the Holy Father, are the ultimate interpreter of Sacred Tradition in the Church.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html
As St. Augustine has said, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” The issue is not open for debate. To argue that “for all” is invalid, or is heretical, or contains some liberal notion of universal salvation, is not possible therefore, unless you believe that you, and not the Holy Father, are the ultimate interpreter of Sacred Tradition in the Church.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
Here’s what Pope Paul VI ruled:
Pope Paul VI in fact did rule on the issue of “For Many” and “For All”. Here is what Pope Paul VI ruled on the translation issue, on whether ‘for all’ is a legitimate translation, in 1970: A question on this issue was brought up to the Holy See, in 1970, while Pope Paul was still in office:
In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:
a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?
b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?
c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?
d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?
Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:
a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].
b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.
c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [4]
Pope Paul VI in fact did rule on the issue of “For Many” and “For All”. Here is what Pope Paul VI ruled on the translation issue, on whether ‘for all’ is a legitimate translation, in 1970: A question on this issue was brought up to the Holy See, in 1970, while Pope Paul was still in office:
In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:
a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?
b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?
c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?
d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?
Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:
a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].
b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.
c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [4]
C
Crumpy
Guest
I guess I’ll react to this post. It’s hard to imagine that anybody did not know what was going on in Latin. It was very common to have a prayer book with the Latin text of the Mass on the left side, and the English on the right side. And, the common practice was to have pictures or drawings of the priest’s posture at various times, as it was so specific and prescribed.
I recall following along with the Mass, and I never felt lost in it.
Like the original post, I can say, too, that I wish they had not tossed out some things like the prayers at the foot of the altar and the recitation of the ‘last gospel.’These things were eliminated, and what was conspicuous at the time, is that ‘pauses’ were introjected. I found them to be very distracting and without much purpose. The only pause I think should be kept, is a pause after reading of scripture, before the scriptural response is made. I’m still processing what was said, and the reader is rattling off the scriptural response. Sometimes the most poignant words are the very last in a selection. I hate when they get almost overriden by the scriptural response.
You know, when the choir used to sing the Gloria and Credo (Glory to God and I believe), the priest and congregation used to sit down. that was a time to read those prayers while they were being sung to rather nice music. Now, it is obligatory standing and usually no music. So, some of the beauty of the recitation has been tossed away.
I don’t totally agree with the complaint of the original post. The problem is that the solemnity and artistry has been lost without compensation or offset. Some say the change to English was to attract protestants to the faith. I don’t know about that purpose. I heard people complain at the time that the Mass was being made into a protestant service.
Lately, the decision to have people standing for so long throughout Mass is surely, surely just a stopgap to keep people more awake during the Mass. And, that is undoubtedly the reason for those turbo speed Eucharistic prayers. They want to keep people breathing heavier, getting more oxygen, etc.
I think it was the late Bishop Kenneth Untener of Saginaw MI who said that with all the changes in the Mass, the congregation still only had a minute of dialog in the Mass. Well, I think it’s more like 2 to 3 minutes, but just much of verbal participation.
So, one of the objectives, I believe, was to get more participation in the Mass – that’s one of the reasons for the changes.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Servus Pio XII:
I don’t see how we can say of anything on earth that it is perfect. Perfection is for Paradise, not for life on earth; for earth is full of change, as belongs to it, just as one might expect of something that is “passing away”. ##
But from what POV, or whose, is it perfect ?
I’m not suggesting it should be endlessly tinkered with - far from it; but it’s not all clear that it cannot be improved upon. Besides, the rite is made for man’s worship of God, not man’s worship of God for the rite. So if it can be improved, I think it should be.I don’t see how we can say of anything on earth that it is perfect. Perfection is for Paradise, not for life on earth; for earth is full of change, as belongs to it, just as one might expect of something that is “passing away”. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
In Aramaic such as Jesus would have spoken, the phrase meaning literally “many”, meant as an idiom “all”.
A lot depends on whether one goes by the words, or by the sense which they can have.“It’s raining cats and dogs” does not mean what the words mean: that examples of two types of household pet are dropping down from from the sky; it is an idiomatic expression which has the sense “It is raining very heavily”. So with the words “for many” - “for all” in Aramaic. ##
P
Petergee
Guest
Ah, I still get a laugh out of
But relief from this apparent ordeal does not come yet, because it’s not ended at all, there’s a lot more still to come!
P
palmas85
Guest
You are indeed right. The Church has lost nothing. Seminaries are booming, convents are turning away applicants because they are bursting at the seams, vocations are at an all time high, liturgical abuse is non existant mass attendance figures are going through the roof, the rosary is said daily at most Churches, and candlelight processions abound across the land, eucharistic adoration is common place and extensively practiced, Catholics adhere to the Churches teachings on abortion and birth control, and the Priest is held up as someone to be admired trusted and looked up to
Actually I have read most of the documents that came out of Vatican II and more tha that, I actually remember the council itself, the newspaper and magazine articles about it. The high hopes we had and the weekly pep talks father gave the altar boys. I even remember the transitional mass we used until the Pauline Mass was finally decided upon. Wish we could have kept that one
.And I remember the destruction that came about as special interest groups within the church saw their grand opportunity to re make the church in their image. Virtually overnight, we who were used to obedience and thinking that the Church was always right, sat by and watched as the entire church turned upside down and everything familiar was swept away in a virtual orgy of humanism. We were told there is no need for eucharistic adoration because Christ is not contained in the host rather he is everywhere, reject all such devotions as unbiblical . No need for rosaries anymore, place your emphasis on conscience formation and social justice. There is no need to adhere to the archaic vision of the virgin any longer, look at her as the earth mother. Fortunately for us the Blessed Mother steppped in when they tried to assasinate Pope John Paul II and he got us back on track with her. We were told to forget what we had learned in Baltimore because it no longer applied. The church had re-defined itself and was moving into the glorious new age. Feel free to attend other churches, experiment with other faiths, because it is all the same thing anyway.
My friend don’t try to tell me what happened back then. I was there, i saw it, I lived it, and I WILL NEVER FORGET IT, and I will never stand by silently again and let those who would destroy our church have their way again. Never.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
The Catholic Legate is mistaken. First of all, “hoi pollon” would mean, “the many” or “the masses”, not “for the masses”, and secondly, that phrase does not occur in Matthew 26:28. You can check this out by going to studylight.org/isb/ . The Nestlé-Aland 26 Greek Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Byzantine Greek Text all have “peri pollwn”, “for many”, not “for the many”. The lack of the definite article in the Greek is a key point in the article by Philip Goddard I mentioned earlier.
My argument is that the phrases “for many” and “for all” are not interchangeable. It is explicitly stated in the Roman catechism that our Lord deliberately said “for many” and not “for all”, so I don’t think I’m going against Catholic teaching here. Moreover, both the new Mass and the traditional Mass say that our Lord shed His blood “pro multis”, not “pro omnibus” or “pro universis”, so I don’t think that Catholic teaching about what our Lord said at the Last Supper has changed, it is just a matter of a bad translation.
I do not think it is a coincidence that Bible translators consistently translate Our Lord as saying He would shed His blood “for many”. I don’t think it is a coincidence that pre-Vatican II liturgies as a rule said our Lord would shed His blood “for many”. In a few liturgies, these words are omitted, but there is never the claim that He said He sheds His blood “for all” on Calvary. The teaching and practice of the Church through the centuries is consistent on this point, and it is not what you think.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
Then you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed. You cannot maintain that “for all” is inaccurate and still remain in good standing with the Church. Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.
You are confusing abuses with actual doctrine. You are falsely hoping for some kind of a “golden age” in the Church. You know perfectly well that that will never happen.
T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
Then you’re either deliberately falsifying your fears, or you do not understand what Vatican II actually taught. You are confusing abuse with actual doctrine, something that the Church has always had. You seem to be implying that Vatican II did teach heresy, a liberal universal idea of salvation, when in fact anyone who actually reads the documents knows that they taught no such thing. So you are either deliberately ignoring what Vatican II taught, or you are unable to understand what it actually taught. Of course there are abuses, and those are to be lamented. But it is not the result of Vatican II. The New Mass is not heretical, as you seem to be implying. Why exactly are you failing to distinguish between what Vatican II actually said and what liberals attempt to claim that it said?You are indeed right. The Church has lost nothing. Seminaries are booming, convents are turning away applicants because they are bursting at the seams, vocations are at an all time high, liturgical abuse is non existant mass attendance figures are going through the roof, the rosary is said daily at most Churches, and candlelight processions abound across the land, eucharistic adoration is common place and extensively practiced, Catholics adhere to the Churches teachings on abortion and birth control, and the Priest is held up as someone to be admired trusted and looked up to
Actually I have read most of the documents that came out of Vatican II and more tha that, I actually remember the council itself, the newspaper and magazine articles about it. The high hopes we had and the weekly pep talks father gave the altar boys. I even remember the transitional mass we used until the Pauline Mass was finally decided upon. Wish we could have kept that one
And I remember the destruction that came about as special interest groups within the church saw their grand opportunity to re make the church in their image. Virtually overnight, we who were used to obedience and thinking that the Church was always right, sat by and watched as the entire church turned upside down and everything familiar was swept away in a virtual orgy of humanism. We were told there is no need for eucharistic adoration because Christ is not contained in the host rather he is everywhere, reject all such devotions as unbiblical . No need for rosaries anymore, place your emphasis on conscience formation and social justice. There is no need to adhere to the archaic vision of the virgin any longer, look at her as the earth mother. Fortunately for us the Blessed Mother steppped in when they tried to assasinate Pope John Paul II and he got us back on track with her. We were told to forget what we had learned in Baltimore because it no longer applied. The church had re-defined itself and was moving into the glorious new age. Feel free to attend other churches, experiment with other faiths, because it is all the same thing anyway.
My friend don’t try to tell me what happened back then. I was there, i saw it, I lived it, and I WILL NEVER FORGET IT, and I will never stand by silently again and let those who would destroy our church have their way again. Never.
Since you claim to have read all the Vatican II documents, please show me where, in any of those documents, it says that the Mass should be made more Protestant-friendly. Where in Sacrosanctum Concillium does it mention that?
You cannot claim that “in your opinion” the “for all” implies a liberal notion of universal salvation. Pope Paul VI definitively resolved the matter, as I showed. Perhaps you chose to ignore that rather inconvenient fact since it undermines your argument. Regardless, it seems to me that you are substituting your own personal interpretation of Sacred Tradition for that of the Holy Father, a very Protestant thing to do, and a direct violation of Vatican I, which specifically states that the Holy Father is to be obeyed not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline as well. So it seems to me that you’re breaking with the very tradition you claim to want to uphold.
- Status