Mass in Latin again

[Thomas]

An upfront answer Thomas (re: the Eucharist). I guess this is what hurts me about the Catholic statements being affirmed lately.

According to Justin Martyr, the second century Christian Church had three requirements for sharing in the Eucharist:
Identity of belief,
Christian baptism,
and moral life.

"No one may share in the eucharist except those who believe in the truth of our teachings and have been washed in the bath which confers forgiveness of sins and rebirth, and who live according to Christ's commands"
(First Apology, 66).

This is the rule handed down to Justin, and is evidenced by tradition, and this is the rule that Catholicism follows.

Since the Reformation, that 'identity of belief' has been shattered, on two counts with reference to this discussion:
1 — The rejection of the authority of Tradition.
2 — The rejection of the traditional Doctrine of the Eucharist.

Effectively you're saying 'we've altered things, and established ourselves as separate bodies, but that doesn't change anything' ... well I'm afraid it does.

I am part of the Church, I am part of the one, holy, catholic faith.

Then why are you apart from the one, holy, Catholic faith? Why do you profess another faith? Acceptance of the Office of Peter, for example, is an integral part of that faith, it cannot be separated from it.

That you do not recognize me as part of the Body,

The Reformation was the process of removing oneself from a body, and establishing other bodies. The reality is that the other denominations set up other bodies.

and think that when I consume the Eucharist you think it is nothing (or worse), makes me realize that you can't consider me your sister in Christ.

It is not I who says this ... you have to look to your doctrines, and why your institutions chose to express it differently ... in some Anglican circles the Eucharist is nothing more than a symbol ... it is not I who denies you the gift of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it is you who, by your doctrines, refuse to believe it.

If you want it, then come home ...

Thomas

 

[flowperson]

Hello All...I am still of the opinion that Pope Benedict's recent affirmations of pronouncements made when he was Cardinal Ratzinger seem to be unfortunate in their timing and effect. At a time when the world should be trying to unify itself concerning beliefs in the fundamental dignity of our existence as a species placed on Earth by G-d to do good things in and for all life, these pronouncements seem to be having contrary effects.

Here's an excellent overview of differing opinions on this matter.

flow....

Sign Up

 

[lunamoth]

If you want it, then come home ...

Thomas

I already have it Thomas. I am part of the one Holy Catholic Faith but apparently you fail to recognize this. My relationship with God is secure. It is our relationship which is at risk.

I think I've lost my heart for dialogue.

Have a good one.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

In my heaven we get to keep Catholics as pets!

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

In my heaven we get to keep Catholics as pets!

Chris

lol, beware the "pet" you keep...you might get bit.

v/r

josh

 

[Francis king]

for me, I would be more likely to go to mass if it was held in latin, as I think the use of latin elevates the mass, makes it appear more worthy... yes, of couse, to me, the words themselves would be almost meaningless, but throw a bit of insense into the mix and add a few latin words and I'm happy- there is then some mystery in the mass, and mass once again becomes a solemn and powerful thing, rather than the bored lifeless intonation of words nobody believes in which appears to be currently in vogue...

that there is part of it which suggests we pray that jewish heathens be converted... I would not know, and would probably mumble the responses anyway, but now I am aware of it I find it quite funny, that Catholics should pray for jews to find jesus yet although I might find it amusing I would hope it was removed from mass, but Ratzinger is a traditionalist, and he will get his own way, the beady eyed blighter, and I am hoing he soon pops his clogs and we can get a better quality pope...

 

[Quahom1]

for me, I would be more likely to go to mass if it was held in latin, as I think the use of latin elevates the mass, makes it appear more worthy... yes, of couse, to me, the words themselves would be almost meaningless, but throw a bit of insense into the mix and add a few latin words and I'm happy- there is then some mystery in the mass, and mass once again becomes a solemn and powerful thing, rather than the bored lifeless intonation of words nobody believes in which appears to be currently in vogue...

that there is part of it which suggests we pray that jewish heathens be converted... I would not know, and would probably mumble the responses anyway, but now I am aware of it I find it quite funny, that Catholics should pray for jews to find jesus yet although I might find it amusing I would hope it was removed from mass, but Ratzinger is a traditionalist, and he will get his own way, the beady eyed blighter, and I am hoing he soon pops his clogs and we can get a better quality pope...

For you perhaps. But for me, mass is everything. And the words are meaningful, in latin, english, italian, what ever. Catholic Mass is anything but boring and/or lifeless.

As far as "Jews" finding Jesus, the hope is for all to find Jesus. And how bold to wish for the death of someone, simply because of a disagreement of views...

You really gotta be careful about what you say...never know when a catholic might be reading your point of view...they could take offense...

v/r

Q

 

[Thomas]

I already have it Thomas.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church

I am part of the one Holy Catholic Faith but apparently you fail to recognize this.

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.
Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church

My relationship with God is secure. It is our relationship which is at risk.

I have never questioned that, nor do I.

But it does seem to me a case of people wanting the best of both worlds. I don't want to be Catholic because I don't want to have to accept all that stuff your believe in ... oh, I want that bit, that's a nice bit ...

Sorry Lunamoth

But I say again, 'they' decided to set themselves up apart from 'us', and then insist they're the same as us (or better) when it comes to the benefits on offer ... I think its fundamentally intellectually dishonest to ignore difference, or pretend it doesn't exist.

When I was sixteen I had a friend, a very close friend, a girl, a Trinidadian girl. And I said, "I don't see you as black," in a right-on, cool kinda way ... then one day she turned on me, "I wonder who you do see," she asked, "because I am black."

I think I've lost my heart for dialogue.

Don't, because this is important.

If we say all the different denominations are One Church, then that One Church becomes an abstraction, an idea, with no actual bodily reality, for no single Church presents it ... it's present in all of them, but never as itself, but various versions of it ... and if we allow that, if I agree with what people are proposing here, then I am obliged to say that the Church does not exist on earth at all, other other than as an idea.

But there was One Church, for over a thousand years ... and my faith calls for me to find that Church, or at least it's most authentic representative, the unbroken continuation of tradition, and that is the Catholic Church.

Thomas

 

[wil]

I do not believe the changes currently afoot will change the following...more likely they will exacerbate it.

A cursory look at Hispanic flight from the Catholic Church in the United States shows that the situation here is just as serious. “A 1986 Gallup Poll revealed that in the preceding 10 years, 5 million Hispanics joined Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, approximately 30 percent of the 17 million Hispanics in the United States. Of these, 64 percent converted to these groups from Catholicism.”[3] The situation is not limited to Hispanics in or out of the U.S.

The same trend is visible in the United States. American Catholic leaders have also expressed a great concern about the growth of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches in this country, a growth that often comes through Catholics leaving their churches. Here, statistics are hard to come by. Much anecdotal evidence suggests that many members of Pentecostal and independent charismatic churches are former Catholics. This is especially true of regions with a large Catholic population. One researcher who did an informal survey estimates that 30 percent of the 35 million Evangelicals and Pentecostals in the United States are first- or second-generation former Catholics.[4]​

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Within Christianity, not all denominations have the same growth rate. Some annual growth rates are:
[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Pentecostals: 8.1%[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Evangelicals: 5.4%;[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]All Protestants: 3.3%[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Roman Catholics and Others: 1.3%[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Since the growth rate of humanity is above 1.4%, the "market share" of Roman Catholicism and others appears to be slowly dropping.
[/FONT]

 

[Thomas]

So do you believe that you can present your soul before G-d, in his realm, without Mass?

Yes. Prayer, as you have indicated, enters the Divine. The point I was trying to make is the Mass is prayer, and more.

Is that metaphorically or physically at the last supper?

Spiritually present.

Sorry InLove hasn't got as far as the Holy Spirit with me yet. So what, to you, is the Holy Spirit and is it a different entity to G-d?

Well now you're entering the realm of mystery, and the inadequacies of language.

The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God. The Son is God. God is One, but the Three each exist in their own right as God ... I'll leave the rest to Inlove. Islam, as we know, assumes Christianity to be trithest ... but that is not what we believe, being inheritors of Judaic monotheism. However, explaining how God is three, and God is one, involves very technical theological language, with very precise theological definitions...

So why do you need to physically drink his blood and eat his body? What purpose does it serve? That sounds rude but I hope you know I do not mean it to be.

There's no easy answer to that, I'm afraid, and a forum such as this is not quite the place to try and get to grips with it, I think.

Pax,

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Thomas

There seems to be so much which cannot easily be explained. To be honest it does rather make me feel better, in that I have never been able to understand these issues and had they been easy to explain that would suggest it is just me that fails to understand them. Perhaps it is only for people G-d intends to take that path who can really understand them?

I hope that you all enjoy Mass in Latin and it brings you spiritual peace.

Salaam and G-d bless

MW

 

[Francis king]

hey, I was baptised a catholic too... I'm sorry to have offended you.

 

[lunamoth]

Francis, and anyone else reading, just wanted you to know that I am not at all offended by the idea of the Latin Mass...just the opposite. I've never seen it but I but I would imagine that it's amazing and Catholics should be able to worhip in any tongue they choose. I am however greatly put off by the implication that the Eucharist is dust on my tongue, an empty gesture. For all the talk about 'us' being responsible for separating from 'them,' the Pope and those who are pleased to to 'make this clear' to all of us poor sinners need to at least take a reality check. It is their responsibility to own up to the effect those words have on others and the real human cost of making a hard line in the sand.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Luna —

Well, I have to admit I am frankly sickened by the responses I have witnessed on this forum. It probably never occurs to people that some take their faith seriously, and wishing the Pope dead?

Is that acceptable practice on CR? If I wished the Dalai Lama dead? Apparently it is, cos FK has apologised for upsetting me, but asserted that his death would be her best choice ...

When I asked whether I would have been allowed to wish another dead, I was met with just further assurance that if I choose to be a Catholic, what more can I expect.

Now we've moved onto the basic theme that none of the discussion matters, when in dout just bring up child abuse ... because all Catholic priests are perverts, and the Catholic Church is institutionalised perversion.

+++

I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding I may have brought about, on your part, I'd hate us to part thinking as you appear to do... The Pope never said the Eucharist is an empty gesture outside of the Catholic Church, and nor do I, but it is other denominations that said that Transubstantiation does not occur. In fact the Anglican is, along with the Lutherans, perhaps closest to the Orthodox position, but then their position has become so polyvalent of late that it's hard to determine any doctrinal position at all.

We're not saying your liturgy doesn't work. We never did. We're being told that our liturgy is irrational and superstitious nonsense.

But d'you want to know the real joke?

Pope Benedict never wrote that document.

The document simply re-asserts the assertions of Vatican II, made 50 years ago. The same doctrine that Pope John Paul II promoted. And whilst those on CR tear into Catholicism, heads of other religions have commented that no meaningful discussion can take place until the differences are honestly acknowledged, and although the document brings to the fore the perhaps painful distinctions, that is the ground we have to more forward from.

+++

Anyway ...

I'm sorry it had to end this way. Just last week I made noble efforts to bridge the gulf between Andrew and myself (esoteric and esoterica) and actually proclaimed the fact that we had lengthy discussion without conflict.

The next day, apparently, he joins in the Catholic-bashing in his inimitable style. I have pinned his hand to the table with a dagger. So much for the hand of friendship.

When he feels affronted, he pours bile and invective on me, the church, the pope, every Catholic in sight ... nothing ... I offer a sharply-worded rebuke, and half a dozen posts tell me not to be so dogmatic.

Meanwhile others tolerate me as a Catholic, but not too bad ...

What really struck home was not one ... for every word of reach and wisdom, every gesture of a faith that transcends boundaries I have honestly put into CR, not one ... not one, offered me the benefit of the doubt.

That speaks volumes to me...

Anyway ... I shall cherish our little offlist chats. Keep an eye out for those killer tomatoes.

Peace be with you, and yours,

Thomas

 

[Muslimwoman]

I am very sorry I started this thread. I was genuinely interested to hear people's views of the return to Mass in Latin and what this meant to Catholics. I had never intended it to be a topic for anyone bashing anyone else.

Good heavens, if we can't tolerate each other on an interfaith forum, what hope is there for the outside world??????

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well, I have to admit I am frankly sickened by the responses I have witnessed on this forum. It probably never occurs to people that some take their faith seriously, and wishing the Pope dead?

Thomas, I have no doubt at all that you take you faith seriously but so do others and it is one thing for a peon such as we are to speak so harshly and quite another for someone such as the Pope. I do not wish the Pope dead, I see it far more beneficial to see his ideas exposed as regressive and ignorant. But something i cannot abide is when someone defends because he is ordered to by dogma. To Catholics the Pope is a manifestation of God on earth. This is a complete lie. The Pope is a man like any other but in a position of great power. It seems to me that you are caught in this dogma trap against your core humanity. And thus that this conflict is really one resident within you and not, despite sensationalist rhetoric, really influenced by what others are saying here.

Now we've moved onto the basic theme that none of the discussion matters, when in dout just bring up child abuse ... because all Catholic priests are perverts, and the Catholic Church is institutionalised perversion.

Not sure but I believe it may have been me that raised this issue? Why? because it is pertinent to current headlines and contextually significant in understanding what kind of man Ratzinger is. I understand that it opens a can of toxic worms that the Catholic Church would rather ignore but as I have stated clearly it is not something I see as solely a problem within Catholicism. Sgain I repeat, I raised the issue because of its direct application to understanding what priorities this Pope see's as important. Very relevant i would think.

I am genuinely troubled that you personally seem to have taken this debate as a personal affront on you. And would like to assure you that from my corner at least this is most certainly not the case. I am genuinely sorry if I cause you real distress with my words and would like to offer you my assurance that i do respect practising Catholics as individuals committed to their faith. My current partner, whom I will soon lose due to her imminent return to Poland, would be more likely to gnaw off a limb than miss mass, so I understand your devotion and have no wish to interfere in it. But honest debate sometimes touches nerves. Its a small price to pay for truth.

Tao

 

[Dondi]

What really struck home was not one ... for every word of reach and wisdom, every gesture of a faith that transcends boundaries I have honestly put into CR, not one ... not one, offered me the benefit of the doubt.

Group hug, anyone?

If I have offended you in anyway, my apologies. I did start the "Pope: Other Christians are not true churches" thread, with a joke no less, but hardly an original one. I even solicited a responses specifically from you, Thomas, not to specifically try to force debate, but to gain somewhat of an understanding of what you think about the Pope's statement. Granted, i only read the article, as there was no link in the Yahoo article that linked tothe source. But the first impression of the article led me to believe that the Pope was asserting a strong muscle against every other church denomination. If that is in error, forgive me. You even replied in the esoteric thread that this wasn't the case:

"On the larger question, the Catholic Church has come under enormous criticism from other Christian denominations for its stance towards other religions, in that it acknowledges them as authentic and viable 'Ways' ... and seeks always to increase the dialogue between the Ways, for the benefit of mankind as a whole."

Which seems at odds from the spirit of the Yahoo article. In retrospect, I was also ignorant of the wording of the statement affirmed by the Pope, which adresses the Reformation Protestant churches as found in this article:

"Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council II used the phrase 'subsistit in' in order to try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church."

"Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, 'nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.' The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners."

I understand your position, Thomas, as well as the Catholic Church. The Church cannot afford to be wrong, for in doing so will admit to a defect in the Church which Christ founded. In the Catholic Churches mind, it is the Cadillac of Christianity. All others are Fords, Chevys, and Dodges.

ETA: For the record, I do think some of the ruder comments directed to the Pope are completely uncalled for. Certainly death wishes for the Pope do nothing to encourage a spirit of discourse, regardless of what one believes of the man. It is to me a personal attack on the person of Joseph Ratzinger rather than the position he holds.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Luna —

Well, I have to admit I am frankly sickened by the responses I have witnessed on this forum. It probably never occurs to people that some take their faith seriously, and wishing the Pope dead?

Is that acceptable practice on CR? If I wished the Dalai Lama dead? Apparently it is, cos FK has apologised for upsetting me, but asserted that his death would be her best choice ...

When I asked whether I would have been allowed to wish another dead, I was met with just further assurance that if I choose to be a Catholic, what more can I expect.

Now we've moved onto the basic theme that none of the discussion matters, when in dout just bring up child abuse ... because all Catholic priests are perverts, and the Catholic Church is institutionalised perversion.

+++

I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding I may have brought about, on your part, I'd hate us to part thinking as you appear to do... The Pope never said the Eucharist is an empty gesture outside of the Catholic Church, and nor do I, but it is other denominations that said that Transubstantiation does not occur. In fact the Anglican is, along with the Lutherans, perhaps closest to the Orthodox position, but then their position has become so polyvalent of late that it's hard to determine any doctrinal position at all.

We're not saying your liturgy doesn't work. We never did. We're being told that our liturgy is irrational and superstitious nonsense.

But d'you want to know the real joke?

Pope Benedict never wrote that document.

The document simply re-asserts the assertions of Vatican II, made 50 years ago. The same doctrine that Pope John Paul II promoted. And whilst those on CR tear into Catholicism, heads of other religions have commented that no meaningful discussion can take place until the differences are honestly acknowledged, and although the document brings to the fore the perhaps painful distinctions, that is the ground we have to more forward from.

+++

Anyway ...

I'm sorry it had to end this way. Just last week I made noble efforts to bridge the gulf between Andrew and myself (esoteric and esoterica) and actually proclaimed the fact that we had lengthy discussion without conflict.

The next day, apparently, he joins in the Catholic-bashing in his inimitable style. I have pinned his hand to the table with a dagger. So much for the hand of friendship.

When he feels affronted, he pours bile and invective on me, the church, the pope, every Catholic in sight ... nothing ... I offer a sharply-worded rebuke, and half a dozen posts tell me not to be so dogmatic.

Meanwhile others tolerate me as a Catholic, but not too bad ...

What really struck home was not one ... for every word of reach and wisdom, every gesture of a faith that transcends boundaries I have honestly put into CR, not one ... not one, offered me the benefit of the doubt.

That speaks volumes to me...

Anyway ... I shall cherish our little offlist chats. Keep an eye out for those killer tomatoes.

Peace be with you, and yours,

Thomas

Thomas, I have never bashed Catholics...I've always considered myself closet to you in religious spirit out of all the members here. That's what makes it hurt so much to suddenly have it thrust in my face how cut off you feel you are to me, how weak and shallow you consider my faith.

Do you remember when AdD was making very pointed posts in your direction. Do you remember that I replied in my post that he was being unfair in his criticism of you, and I defended you saying that I did not think you were the unthinking dogmatic follower that he was making you out to be? You don't know that his private reply to me was that if push came to shove you'd gore my ox as well. Was he right? I thought he was wrong...but now.

These may all be things that are not new, in fact I know all of this is standard Catholic doctrine. I've known it all along, I've not been fooling myself that there are not differnences and that it just does not matter which is which. It does matter and I remain Episcopalian for a reason. And here's a bit part of that reason. We don't go around proclaiming that we know it all and everyone else falls short. We place human relationships at the very top of our list of things we consider most important, as commanded by Jesus. What possible good is going to come to loudly sticking it to the rest of the world, saying "We alone are right!" No good. It merely fuels the fires of divisivness that already flame out of control.

I try not to dis the Pope or the Office of the Pope, even if it is a style of church governance I don't agree with. But this Pope is making it very clear that the Catholic Church is no longer interested in the type of humble diplomacy John Paul was so excellent at. I never felt that the Catholic Church was weak under his care, I felt it flourished and I loved him. This new Pope has managed to p*ss off Muslims and now Jews and pretty much every other Christian denomination in his short rule. Sure, it's none of my business and all through the early controversy I stayed out of it. Now I see the naivety of that.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

**No, I am not comparing the Catholic Church to Nazis...this is a comment on my own silence when the Catholic Church and others were being gored by a multitude of posts here**

Is this how we want it????

I also have become sick at many of the interactions between Christians here at CR, and other places. I'm sick of the bashing of the Catholic Church...I should have stepped up and voiced my objections to the garbage I've heard. Just as I object to the meanness and intolerance and garbage I read here regarding all of other religions. Even so, I'm sure I could expect in the next post to be told how I'm a damned heretic. No mind though. At least I would not be guilty by my silence.

I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. How that happens I don't know. I'm content to leave it at Mystery. If that means I am not a Christian and it's meaningless in your eyes, so be it.

Well, I usually just don't have the fortitude for bare-knuckles. Trying to be considerate and respectful of others has always been important to me. Trying to listen and understand, rather than force my view, has been my approach. Trying to build relationships, rather than draw lines in the sand. I take a lot of cr*p and probably fail to gain the respect of many here because I try to be respectful and tolerant. It's more important to me that I live my principles than force them on others. I've come to expect that if I participate here people will be telling me I'm damned. Oh well.

Same ol' same ol.

 

[lunamoth]

By the way Thomas, I realize that it is probably unfair of me to finally lose it and vent my spleen over something you have written after all the bull that's been spread by the evangelical Prostestant Christians on this forum. As I said above, though, I thought that at least in you there was some understanding of my faith, some generosity and spirit of fellowship. It cuts deepest when we are rejected by those we feel closest to.

And as I said in my other post, there is a real human cost, one puts relationships at risk, when one takes the hard line. Pope Benedict has decided that this is the way for the Catholic Church. There will be fallout.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Luna,

Your voice is never unheard or weightless. I share the "faith" of none here but the voices of a few ring loud in my ears. Yours is amongst the loudest and my respect for your opinions is as important to me as are my own. I think that Thomas is acting like one with his back against the wall in an extremely uncomfortable atmosphere and i feel confident that he, as i, would be quick to applaud your humane impartiality. These 3 related threads have been extremely contentious and we have seen out of character displays from some regular posters. Sometimes there are silly seasons. But they pass.

kindest regards

tao