"Wherever I go in the whole world..."

[Mike_Dye]

Please someone pass the purple kool-aid

 

[nohamaria]

How do you know Our Lord suffers in the Host when It is consumed?

The Christ , Our very pure Lord , Has suffered
and still suffering from our unpurity and sins.
Our hands , our tongue , our hearts,
are not pure to receive Him. His presence
in the Host is a very generous gift of mercy
which no one can say he deserve it.
The way of accepting the Host should be
made more humbly and respectfully.
I already explained in my previous post why I choose the communion
in tongue as more pure than the other way.

God bless

Nohamaria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Exactly. She has to deal with heresy --because doctrine gets eroded. Just as doctrine ended up being eroded within those 1200 years of receiving both species --that we ended up with Utraquism.

So the Church was wrong, the Apostles were incorrect, the Eastern Churches are still incorrect, in giving both species?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Christ , Our very pure Lord , Has suffered
and still suffering from our unpurity and sins.
Our hands , our tongue , our hearts,
are not pure to receive Him. His presence
in the Host is a very generous gift of mercy
which no one can say he deserve it.
The way of accepting the Host should be
made more humbly and respectfully.
I already explained in my previous post why I choose the communion
in tongue as more pure than the other way.

God bless

Nohamaria

Yes. It didn’t make sense, partly because you have asserted something that you have yet to demonstrate. You said Our Lord suffered in our reception of Him in the host. How do you know? What can you cite as authoritative that supports your assertion?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

By bending or twisting the discipline as you call it, the truth has become obscured. Souls were saved in a most efficacious manner by the Mass of All Time, not so much now. The Liturgy must be allowed to develop in an organic manner as it has throughout the centuries. To cut it off completely from tradition is like cutting off the roots off a tree. The tree that loses its roots falls when the smallest wind blows, but the tree that is allowed to grow free from molestation will withstand even the strongest gust. The problem isn’t change, but the manner in which change has been forced. If the Mass needed to be changed, it should have been dealt with in a MUCH different manner. The NO mass truly represents a protestant communion service, instead and in place of a Holy Sacrifice.

There is nothing that proves that the change in discipline has resulted in a loss of souls. The time in which the Council was held and immediately after was a time of great social upheaval in general, a time of questioning authority, any authority.

The OF has things in common with the services of SOME (a minority of them) liturgical Protestants for the simple reason that they have common roots in Western Christianity. The TLM has things in common with the same liturgical Protestants. Your assertion about the OF is no more true about it than it is about the TLM…and both the OF and the EF are a Holy Sacrifice.

 

[Walking_Home]

She is beginning to understand no such thing. Her mission has always been to lift up Christ, Who would thereby draw the world to Himself. Vatican II is quite different from the “Spirit of Vatican II.”

And tell me WHY it is ridiculous? If we maintain what we must (immutable truth),** but bend what we can **(mutable discipline) and thereby save souls, isn’t it worth it? I should think that one soul would be worth all the Latin or traditionalists having to distastefully put up with the laity receiving the Chalice or Eucharist ministers or whatever it is that so constantly upsets you.

---

You want to see the “fruit” of bending what we can-- I will show you. And unless you have been keeping your head buried in the sand --you would have noticed cases like this have become much, much more common. I will dare say --we are in the process of re-living history.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=337087&highlight=Blood

Hi,

I was just wondering - I go to mass on Sunday morning, and when we go up to receive communion half the people go straight back to their seats. In two side chapels they offer the blood of Christ - I always go to receive it, but it seems many do not. Why on earth would anyone not want to participate in the full sacrament? Hygiene? Some urgent need to get back to their seat? **I have to say I would feel somewhat ‘cheated’ **if I went to communion and only received the Body and not the Blood also.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Exactly. She has to deal with heresy --because doctrine gets eroded. Just as doctrine ended up being eroded within those 1200 years of receiving both species --that we ended up with Utraquism.

So the Church was wrong, the Apostles were incorrect, the Eastern Churches are still incorrect, in giving both species?

---

Nope --not the Church/Apostles, etc. We are the ones who fall into error. Place the error where it belongs – the people. People fall into heresy.

 

[maurin]

There is nothing that proves that the change in discipline has resulted in a loss of souls. The time in which the Council was held and immediately after was a time of great social upheaval in general, a time of questioning authority, any authority.

are you serious? c’mon…are you serious? Y’know kirk, it wasn’t the explosion from the atomic bomb that killed all those Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 1940’s was a great time world-wide unrest, and the unleashing of evil…

The OF has things in common with the services of SOME (a minority of them) liturgical Protestants for the simple reason that they have common roots in Western Christianity. The TLM has things in common with the same liturgical Protestants. Your assertion about the OF is no more true about it than it is about the TLM…and both the OF and the EF are a Holy Sacrifice.

kirk, if you insist on placing the Church Christ founded on the same level as those man-made communities, then you might want to rethink your participation with us. Your credibilty, although not quite 0, has certainly waned.

“The NO Mass and protestantism has the same roots in Western Christianity?”???!?!?!? ’
Yeah, and those roots are called Catholocism.

 

[maurin]

So “many, many” would be what in “Traditionalist” math? From the 1500’s would 509 years as opposed to 1200. . And again, the Eastern Churches have always followed the Apostolic practice.

You’re being foolish: #1 I asserted the Traditional Posture (on the tongue, kneeling) of receiving Our Lord endured for much longer than the protestant way currently adopted by the NO Church.
#2 I stated that the Chalice was reserved for the Priesthood for centuries. 4 centuries qualifies as the plural. no?

No New Math required, kirk. However, your modernist double speak and bait and switch is exhausting. Luckily, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an occassion…

But nice try. Yes, nice try… yeah yer gettin’ good at those modernist tactics, good for you…good for you!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

You want to see the “fruit” of bending what we can-- I will show you. And unless you have been keeping your head buried in the sand --you would have noticed cases like this have become much, much more common. I will dare say --we are in the process of re-living history.

This can easily, EASILY be corrected with the proper catechesis.

 

[Walking_Home]

This can easily, EASILY be corrected with the proper catechesis.

---

I can easily hear someone back in the day–when Arianism, Utraquism, etc. where taking hold say —“This can easily, EASILY be corrected with the proper catechesis.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

are you serious? c’mon…are you serious? Y’know kirk, it wasn’t the explosion from the atomic bomb that killed all those Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The 1940’s was a great time world-wide unrest, and the unleashing of evil…

I assure you, I’m quite serious.

kirk, if you insist on placing the Church Christ founded on the same level as those man-made communities, then you might want to rethink your participation with us. Your credibilty, although not quite 0, has certainly waned.

“The NO Mass and protestantism has the same roots in Western Christianity?”???!?!?!? ’
Yeah, and those roots are called Catholocism.

No reasonable person would assert that anything I’ve said amounts to placing the Church Christ founded on the same level as the other ecclecisal communities. You are (rather cynically, I suspect) using jargon and rhetoric to cover the fact that you have not, will not, or cannot answer the question I asked you. I ask it again: for the salvation of souls, what would “traditionalists” give up or not give up, of the mutable things that the Church CAN change?

**Your final sentence is simply what I’ve been saying ALL ALONG. It is, therefore, merely foolish and contentious to continuing making the observation that the OF is a “protestant” service. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I can easily hear someone back in the day–when Arianism, Utraquism, etc. where taking hold say —“This can easily, EASILY be corrected with the proper catechesis.”

The Arians and other heretics split from US in the FACE of proper catechesis. People have a degree of responsibility before God.

Let me make sure I understand what you’ve said: it was wrong of the Apostles, wrong of the Apostolic/Patristic Church, and wrong of the Latin Church for the first 1200 years of Her existence to admit the laity to the Chalice? It continues to be wrong, to lead people into impiety, for the Latin Church to do so now? It has been and continues to be wrong for the Eastern Churches to do so?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’re being foolish: #1 I asserted the Traditional Posture (on the tongue, kneeling) of receiving Our Lord endured for much longer than the protestant way currently adopted by the NO Church.
#2 I stated that the Chalice was reserved for the Priesthood for centuries. 4 centuries qualifies as the plural. no?

No New Math required, kirk. However, your modernist double speak and bait and switch is exhausting. Luckily, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an occassion…

But nice try. Yes, nice try… yeah yer gettin’ good at those modernist tactics, good for you…good for you!

Again with the jargon and rhetoric. You throw out terms like “modernist” and “tactic” to taint your opponent (you may as well come out and say “liberal commies”) rather than answer the arguement.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
I can easily hear someone back in the day–when Arianism, Utraquism, etc. where taking hold say —“This can easily, EASILY be corrected with the proper catechesis.”

The Arians and other heretics split from US in the FACE of proper catechesis. People have a degree of responsibility before God.

Let me make sure I understand what you’ve said: it was wrong of the Apostles, wrong of the Apostolic/Patristic Church, and wrong of the Latin Church for the first 1200 years of Her existence to admit the laity to the Chalice? It continues to be wrong, to lead people into impiety, for the Latin Church to do so now? It has been and continues to be wrong for the Eastern Churches to do so?

---

Well JKirkLVNV —should I be surprised or not surprised --that you have twisted what I have said into something other.

 

[n4mgr]

No reasonable person would assert that anything I’ve said amounts to placing the Church Christ founded on the same level as the other ecclecisal communities. You are (rather cynically, I suspect) using jargon and rhetoric to cover the fact that you have not, will not, or cannot answer the question I asked you. I ask it again: for the salvation of souls, what would “traditionalists” give up or not give up, of the mutable things that the Church CAN change?

**Your final sentence is simply what I’ve been saying ALL ALONG. It is, therefore, merely foolish and contentious to continuing making the observation that the OF is a “protestant” service. **

Catholics should not give up anything. What you are asking is for people to give up practicing their faith, even if only a slight part. This manner of think would have been condemned before V2 and I feel if you took it up with Pope Benedict XVI, He would likely do the same. Forget asking people to give up the True faith and come back to it.

As for the issue of the new mass, have you ever been to a protestant service? I grew up in a protestant family and I’ll tell you, they are almost identical, except for the liturgical aspect. The sacrifice isn’t readily visible in the NO, the Priest doesn’t lead the people to G-d but only participates with them in a meal, the Real Presence is not believed by those present, the traditional way of viewing the Mass was scrapped for a new way.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Well JKirkLVNV —should I be surprised or not surprised --that you have twisted what I have said into something other.

No, I have not. I repeated a question which I asked earlier and which you did not answer. I have not twisted anything, I asked you a direct and forthright question. I ask it again: Was it wrong of the Apostles, wrong of the Apostolic/Patristic Church, and wrong of the Latin Church for the first 1200 years of Her existence to admit the laity to the Chalice? Does it continue to be wrong, to lead people into impiety, for the Latin Church to do so now? Has it been wrong and does it continue to be wrong for the Eastern Churches to do so?

It seems to require a “yes, they were and are” or “no, they were not and are not.”

And now I’ll also ask a second: Could you please demonstrate, in the post to which you last responded, exactly where I twisted anything?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Catholics should not give up anything. What you are asking is for people to give up practicing their faith, even if only a slight part. This manner of think would have been condemned before V2 and I feel if you took it up with Pope Benedict XVI, He would likely do the same. Forget asking people to give up the True faith and come back to it. **I’m talking about diciplinary practice, not immutable truth. Pope Benedict has already said that in returning to the Church, we cannot or would not ask those returning to abandon all of their traditions. Also, I asked a question, I did not make an assertion. Questions are not condemned, conclusions are condemned. **

As for the issue of the new mass, have you ever been to a protestant service? I grew up in a protestant family and I’ll tell you, they are almost identical, except for the liturgical aspect. The sacrifice isn’t readily visible in the NO, the Priest doesn’t lead the people to G-d but only participates with them in a meal, the Real Presence is not believed by those present, the traditional way of viewing the Mass was scrapped for a new way.

Grew up Southern Baptist, I’ve been to virtually all the main branch services, spent time as an Anglican. None of them, except for the Anglican (and it’s own split-off, to a lesser degree), resemble the OF. It is a false red herring to assert otherwise. The Anglicans and the Lutherans (never been to a Lutheran service) are the only ones who have what might be called formal, ritualized liturgies. ***They resemble us because of those common roots of which I spoke. ***

I disagree that the Holy Sacrifice is not visible in the OF or that the priesthood is not distinct, but even if it WERE, it would NOT resemble the services of the overwhelming majority of Evangelical, fundamentalist Protestants. AND the TLM has things in common with the Anglican liturgy and Lutheran liturgy. Why? The common roots in the Church before the division between East and West, and the Reformation of the 1500s.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, I have not. I repeated a question which I asked earlier and which you did not answer. I have not twisted anything, I asked you a direct and forthright question. I ask it again: Was it wrong of the Apostles, wrong of the Apostolic/Patristic Church, and wrong of the Latin Church for the first 1200 years of Her existence to admit the laity to the Chalice? Does it continue to be wrong, to lead people into impiety, for the Latin Church to do so now? Has it been wrong and does it continue to be wrong for the Eastern Churches to do so?

It seems to require a “yes, they were and are” or “no, they were not and are not.”

And now I’ll also ask a second: Could you please demonstrate, in the post to which you last responded, exactly where I twisted anything?

You must have missed the post below or done some “selective” reading.

Quote=Walking Home

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV View Post

So the Church was wrong, the Apostles were incorrect, the Eastern Churches are still incorrect, in giving both species?

---

Nope --not the Church/Apostles, etc. We are the ones who fall into error. Place the error where it belongs – the people. People fall into heresy.

 

[n4mgr]

Grew up Southern Baptist, I’ve been to virtually all the main branch services, spent time as an Anglican. None of them, except for the Anglican (and it’s own split-off, to a lesser degree), resemble the OF. It is a false red herring to assert otherwise. The Anglicans and the Lutherans (never been to a Lutheran service) are the only ones who have what might be called formal, ritualized liturgies. ***They resemble us because of those common roots of which I spoke. ***

I disagree that the Holy Sacrifice is not visible in the OF or that the priesthood is not distinct, but even if it WERE, it would NOT resemble the services of the overwhelming majority of Evangelical, fundamentalist Protestants. AND the TLM has things in common with the Anglican liturgy and Lutheran liturgy. Why? The common roots in the Church before the division between East and West, and the Reformation of the 1500s.

You are correct in that other so called christian communities originated in the Catholic Church, but when they rebelled against the authority of the Church, they excommunicated themselves. This subsistence theory is a joke. If there is salvation outside the church, why come in to the true faith.

Would you like to take responsibility for souls going to hell, to burn forever just because you want to “bend” a little here and “twist” a little there. This is what is going to happen. The road to Christ is narrow and small is the Gate to enter therein. It is time as Catholics we stop pandering to those who separate themselves willfully from the Church and act like Catholics. Once the true Catholic faith, the one from yesteryear is returned to it’s place of prominence then we can see by the light of Tradition these new ideas are truly of the evil one.

The term “modernist” that you seem to dislike is the reason you say what you say. To give even an inch would mean we are wrong(and in turn the Church through the ages and our Blessed Lord himself). We will fight modernism in its many forms until Christ himself returns.