• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I Don't Know Anymore: TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Sad and terrible this happen :( the world leaders should defend and help christians!! It is a shame they don't defent and help christians against persecution!!!
The world leaders ( aka earth's kings - Revelation 17th chapter ) are interested in their own position.
The political will end up being the ones against Christians and 'Christendom' ( so-called Christians )
Judgement ( spiritual house cleaning) will start with the House of God - 1 Peter 4:17
Start at Jesus' coming Glory Time of Matthew 25:31-33,37
 

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
The world leaders ( aka earth's kings - Revelation 17th chapter ) are interested in their own position.
The political will end up being the ones against Christians and 'Christendom' ( so-called Christians )
Judgement ( spiritual house cleaning) will start with the House of God - 1 Peter 4:17
Start at Jesus' coming Glory Time of Matthew 25:31-33,37
Yes sadly they only care about themself :(
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Back in the 70's one high school student ask the priest if the wine becomes Jesus' blood then how come the priest can get drunk on communion wine ?

Stock answer, the form and appearance does not change etc. whatever wine is left after communion must be consumed by the priest, and or by the EMHC, and most of us left it to the priest.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Not true, what may be rejected is the attempt to 'define' the 'how' of the real presence, Transubstantiation.
No, they reject the real presence. One third of Mass attending Catholics reject any notion that Christ is present in the Eucharist. The Church has far bigger failures to attend to than the rejection of Paul VI's Mass by a small minority. (None of whom would have been unaware of the real presence).
Pew survey shows majority of Catholics don't believe in 'Real Presence'

If one is paying all that much attention to the rubrics then one is not present to the 'source and summit' of the Mass.
Stop it. I've seen this tactic before. The "attachment to the reverent beauty of the old mass is actually a sign of spiritual shallowness" nonsense.

The liturgy of the Catholic Church is an edifice in which we are still living today, and even and in essentials it is the same building in which Christians were already living ten or fifteen or eve eighteen and more centuries ago. In the course of all these centuries, the structure had become more and more complicated, with constant remodelings and additions, and so the plan of the building has been obscured-so much so that we may no longer feel quite at home in it because we no longer understand it.
I reject the notion that the Tridentine Mass was some impossibly complicated ritual too hard to follow. I reject the notion that it was just 'too demanding' for a Catholic to comprehend the ordinary of the Mass simply because it was in Latin. Get a bilingual missal and use your brain. It is the same text week after week.

This may sound harsh but it is the truth as I see it. Most Catholics have little clue about what Catholicism actually teaches. In part because the Church has declined to transmit the faith in any serious way and in part because your average Catholic layman is too lazy to do any kind of study.

We live in an age of unprecedented literacy and unprecedented access to information. Ignorance of the essentials of the faith is culpable.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Most people who go to the Latin Mass understand the liturgy, yet alone Catholicism, far better than the average Novus Ordo attendee, most of whom deny the real presence
This is exactly the attitude that lead the Pope to change the rules. The idea that the Tridentine is superior to the Novus Ordo, the idea that Catholics who attend the Latin Mass are somehow more faithful, better Catholics. Had the Latin Mass remained simply an aesthetic preference, he wouldn't have had to act. But the traditionalists are making it into more than that, and that is creating division in the church.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
This is exactly the attitude that lead the Pope to change the rules. The idea that the Tridentine is superior to the Novus Ordo, the idea that Catholics who attend the Latin Mass are somehow more faithful, better Catholics. Had the Latin Mass remained simply an aesthetic preference, he wouldn't have had to act. But the traditionalists are making it into more than that, and that is creating division in the church.
Did you not read the link I later posted? Most Catholics deny the real presence and among those who actually attend Mass in the Novus Ordo a solid third (IIRC) deny or are unaware of the teaching. Do you honestly think those who attended the Tridentine Mass denied or were otherwise unaware of this central Catholic teaching? If there were any I can bet money it was far less than a third.

And yes, the reality is the Novus Ordo in practice is often banal. Why do you think traditionalism gained the appeal it did if everything was just so wonderful before? That's the question Pope Francis and his bishops won't ask because it is an indictment. That's why Pope Francis is cracking down, because the growth of traditionalism is an indictment of the modern Church. Alienate thousands rather than admit that the traditionalists may actually have a point in regards to the desperate need for a return to reverence in the liturgy.

Meanwhile the German Church is in de facto schism over the blessing of gay marriages but the evil reactionaries (who actually believe what the Church pretends to) praying in Latin are the real problem. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

I'm tired of being gaslighted by these people.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
Ignorance of the essentials of the faith is culpable.

And there's the difference, what is considered 'essential' to the faithful teaching of the Church. When I receive Eucharist, I fully believe in a real presence of Christ, as was the belief before any attempt to define how this presence came about simply in defense against those who denied a real presence.

I reject the notion that the Tridentine Mass was some impossibly complicated ritual too hard to follow. I reject the notion that it was just 'too demanding' for a Catholic to comprehend the ordinary of the Mass simply because it was in Latin. Get a bilingual missal and use your brain. It is the same text week after week.

Complicated ritual had nothing to do with it. What you apparently refuse to do as a Catholic is to acknowledge the Council of Trent had no more authority than the 2nd Vatican Council.
Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 150), Justin (ca. 150), Hippolytus (215) 9 Even when Rome began to reach the height of its power (215) and Latin began to make its appearance, Greek still maintained an ecumenical position in the liturgy of Rome. From the epitaphs in the Roman catacombs belonging to the primitive centuries, and the countless Greek loanwords in our present-day Latin. So Greek—which was the cosmopolitan language even before Alexander's conquests—was to last in the Liturgy of the primitive Church until the third century. The history and rubrics of the Oriental Liturgy have impressed on that central act of worship the pronounced character of public worship."13Therefore, in consonance with its very nature it was celebrated in a language familiar to the people.
During the ensuing years, the gulf between the language of the Liturgy and the language of the people widened. Nevertheless in due consideration of the many problems involved, Greek in the Liturgy ceded definitely to Latin in the fourth century because Latin was then the common language of the people.
Library : Liturgical Languages | Catholic Culture

In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to "the president of the brethren". The initial liturgical language used was Greek, before approximately the year 190 under Pope Victor, when the Church in Rome changed from Greek to Latin, except in particular for the Hebrew word "Amen", whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it "all the people present express their assent" when the president of the brethren "has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings".
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus". (First Apology 66:1–20 [AD 148]).

The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.
Pre-Tridentine Mass - Wikipedia

Sorry, I remain convinced the reason for your love of Latin is only the surface, beneath which is your repudiation of the 2nd Vatican Council.
Francis understands this very well.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Sorry, I remain convinced the reason for your love of Latin is only the surface, beneath which is your repudiation of the 2nd Vatican Council.
I have said numerous times now, I do not object to the existence of the vernacular liturgy. I even made a post in this very thread defending Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. See post 29. And I do love the Latin language. I study it. Because I'm the type of person who studies foreign languages for fun. But let's talk about the real issue and why the pope's latest decree so upsets me.

I was born in '89 and grew up attending Sunday Mass. I knew nothing but the Novus Ordo as it is typically experienced in the vast majority of Australian parishes. And the experience was banal for the most part. I remember one incident when the homily was replaced by a performance of 'interpretive dance' by a troop of women with ribbons. And while that was an isolated incident the awful, dated 'hymns' ubiquitous in the Church today were not. Just by mentioning those hymns I now have the awful and arguably blasphemous "This Is What Yahweh Asks of You" stuck in my head.

As young man entering his teens what impression of Christianity do you think I had when my liturgical experience was defined by felt banners, tambourines and the ever dreary "One Bread, One Body"? Do you think I had any concept of the uncompromising vision of the Gospel? Do you think reverence for the Real Presence was inculcated when Sunday after Sunday the congregation walked up and took communion standing? Doled out by the ironically named "extraordinary ministers"? It is in any case unlikely I ever head any homily on unworthy reception. That inconvenient teaching taught by Saint Paul himself. I could go on but I hope you get the point.

By my mid teens I was an atheist. By my late teens and early twenties I was nihilistic in my outlook. I had no hope in anything. At my worst I was plagued by suicidal thoughts. That's how dark my mind had become. Then one day, for no particular reason, I picked up a Bible and started to read some of the Gospels and this triggered an exploration of my childhood faith. I encountered Gregorian chant and was taken aback by its ancient and mystical character. I learnt of the Tridentine Mass and began to encounter the deep teachings of the Catholic Church. I encountered Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo and I was again taken aback by how deep, demanding and beautiful it all was. I came to believe in God and the meaningfulness of life.

It's not that I'm obsessed with Latin in the Mass. It's that the Novus Ordo is the symbol of all the uninspiring, bad taste developments of Catholic culture which have dominated the parish life for sixty years now. I defend the continued existence of the Tridentine Mass not because of its Latin (in and of itself) or because of some resistance to Vatican II which everyone endlessly prattles on about, but because the Tridentine Mass represents the Catholicism that pulled me out of the nihilism I fell into as a young man. Because it is beautiful, uncompromising and demanding; everything the current Church seems desperate to downplay. That's why what Pope Francis has done angers me so much. It's a demand that I and others like me return to what bishop Barron calls beige Catholicism. To the guitars, felt banners and the 'folk' music that was dated the day most of it was written. But that's not the Catholicism that helped me find God.

I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. You can demonize me as a reactionary all you want while pretending not to notice that the Catholic faith as presented by the "modern Church" is uninspiring.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
Then one day, for no particular reason, I picked up a Bible and started to read some of the Gospels and this triggered an exploration of my childhood faith.

Did you not listen to Scripture read in church at every Mass?

Do you think reverence for the Real Presence was inculcated when Sunday after Sunday the congregation walked up and took communion standing?

Now sounds like you are concerned about the gestures, kneel or stand, a bow is not good enough?

"This Is What Yahweh Asks of You" stuck in my head.


The Vatican has reiterated a directive that the name of God revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH is not to be pronounced in Catholic liturgy or in music.

That's why what Pope Francis has done angers me so much. It's a demand that I and others like me return to what bishop Barron calls beige Catholicism. To the guitars, felt banners and the 'folk' music that was dated the day most of it was written. But that's not the Catholicism that helped me find God.

The Latin has not been banned altogether, it is left to the bishop as to where and how often the Latin Mass may be celebrated. But there may not be a parish that offers the Latin only.
You may not like the 'felt banners' but I guarantee they were the labor of children or others as part of their contribution to the Liturgy, offered as the 'work of human hands'. As for the guitars and folk mass they've been gone for a long time, unless a special mass for a particular group. I remember there use to be, once a month, a children's liturgy and the kids were responsible for writing the 'prayer of the faithful', bringing up the gifts etc. Also the traditional hymns, in the vernacular, are instructional.

Doled out by the ironically named "extraordinary ministers"? It

Because they were not the 'ordinary' ministers of communion.

I'm sorry, but that's how I see it. You can demonize me as a reactionary all you want while pretending not to notice that the Catholic faith as presented by the "modern Church" is uninspiring.

I remember the Latin Mass very well. Being a spectator, many praying the rosary, until the altar boy rang the bell at the elevation of the bread and wine. There was a time in church history when very few even received communion. I wish you all the best in your journey, but I think it is most unfortunate that you are unable to appreciate the antient liturgical history of the Church.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Did you not listen to Scripture read in church at every Mass?
Sure, but a short Scripture reading alone isn't going to save a banal liturgy. It has also been pointed out that the new lectionary avoids many of the hard passages which were in the old. The most notable omission being 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.

Now sounds like you are concerned about the gestures, kneel or stand, a bow is not good enough?
It is not enough. If you really believe you are receiving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, then get on your knees. Gestures and actions inform our beliefs. If communion is received as if it is no big deal, indeed, as an entitlement owed to anyone who shows up, is it really then any shock to see that belief in the Real Presence is widely denied? I remember reading an article written by a priest which details his encounter with a Mormon. The Mormon makes the point that Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence because their actions and casual manner of receiving communion utterly betrays any such belief. And the priest could not help but to acknowledge that his Mormon friend was not wrong.

The Vatican has reiterated a directive that the name of God revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH is not to be pronounced in Catholic liturgy or in music.
Yes, I know that. I remember the change. The lyrics became "This is what the Lord asks of you".

And while I commend the Vatican on correcting the too casual use of the divine name, the real issue remains unaddressed. The music is sugary nonsense. I mean listen to this. Does it not want to make you want to dry retch? In my view, it makes the mistake of confusing sap with beauty, but sap and beauty are not the same thing.


The Latin has not been banned altogether, it is left to the bishop as to where and how often the Latin Mass may be celebrated. But there may not be a parish that offers the Latin only.
You may not like the 'felt banners' but I guarantee they were the labor of children or others as part of their contribution to the Liturgy, offered as the 'work of human hands'. As for the guitars and folk mass they've been gone for a long time, unless a special mass for a particular group. I remember there use to be, once a month, a children's liturgy and the kids were responsible for writing the 'prayer of the faithful', bringing up the gifts etc. Also the traditional hymns, in the vernacular, are instructional.
I went to Novus Ordo not all that long ago, and it the same nonsense it has always been.

A Novus Ordo without hymns, without the ordinary use of extraordinary minsters, in a church that looks like a church, and said by a no nonsense priest would be acceptable to me. I would also like to see the reintroduction of communion rails. The Church is in desperate need for an unapologetic return to reverence for the Real Presence.

Because they were not the 'ordinary' ministers of communion.
When they're a feature of every Sunday Mass regardless of crowd size, they're ordinary. And to the Church's credit it has protested the overuse of 'extraordinary ministers' as an abuse, but again it has done nothing to stop it.

I remember the Latin Mass very well. Being a spectator, many praying the rosary, until the altar boy rang the bell at the elevation of the bread and wine. There was a time in church history when very few even received communion.
I'm not saying there was nothing to correct. If I had the job of reforming the Tridentine Mass, I would mandate the whole thing to be said out loud. I would also mandate that communion be offered to the laity each Mass. But I would also insist pastors frequently warn the people that unworthy reception is a mortal sin. Let's face it, the problem today is not that people feel unwelcome at communion. It's that people feel entitled to communion regardless of the state of their conscience.
 
Last edited:

pearl

Well-Known Member
If communion is received as if it is no big deal, indeed, as an entitlement owed to anyone who shows up, is it really then any shock to see that belief in the Real Presence is widely denied?

And abuses such as these, a too casual posture, ought to be addressed from the pulpit. But you are judging the reverence in a person's heart which is not yours to judge. True reverence of the Eucharist is reflected in our actions or nonactions in the week to follow. There was, following Vat II some parishes were allowing 'intinction', until the bishop stopped it.

When they're a feature of every Sunday Mass regardless of crowd size, they're ordinary. And to the Church's credit it has protested the overuse of 'extraordinary ministers' as an abuse, but again it has done nothing to stop it.

Well here the practice has been corrected long ago. If there is only one priest, there is only one EMHC.

It's that people feel entitled to communion regardless of the state of their conscience.

Again that's a personal judgment on your part, you cannot know their conscience.

The music is sugary nonsense.

There are choirs to listen and raise the heart and mind to God, but the laity also has the right to raise their voices in praise, which requires something the average person is able to sing.
The Mass is not and never has been 'Jesus and me', it is the great public prayer of the Church.

a church that looks like a church,

The first churches were house churches. I think what you have done is trying to freeze the Church in a particular time period that appeals to you and ignore the so very rich liturgical history of the Church through the centuries. Even at the possibility of causing another schism you're willing for the Church to pay that price. Pope Francis is not. He is not the only pope that has had to battle with a powerful Curia, probably why Benedict XVI gave it up.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes sadly they only care about themself :(
Sadly, yes, but we are living at the time of fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Timothy 3:13.
This happily means there is going to soon be a coming end to the ones who only care about self.
This is a reason why we are all invited to pray the invitation of Rev. 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come and do away with wicked ones -> Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-14.
Come and bring ' healling ' to earth's nations - Revelation 22:2
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Stock answer, the form and appearance does not change etc. whatever wine is left after communion must be consumed by the priest, and or by the EMHC, and most of us left it to the priest.
The point I was trying to make is: a person can't get drunk on drinking blood.
If communion wine turns into Jesus' blood, then drinking communion wine would Not have an alcohol effect.
But a person can feel the effect of alcohol and get drunk on communion wine.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
..............The Vatican has reiterated a directive that the name of God revealed in the tetragrammaton YHWH is not to be pronounced in Catholic liturgy or in music........................
I am wondering when the ^ above ^ took place because in the 1970's the hymm's refrain of 'Peace to Zion Yahweh's people.....' was sung in the Roman rite.

Yahweh being the Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Any comments about what Jesus said at John 17:6; John 17:26 ________________
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
I am wondering when the ^ above ^ took place because in the 1970's the hymm's refrain of 'Peace to Zion Yahweh's people.....' was sung in the Roman rite.

Yahweh being the Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Any comments about what Jesus said at John 17:6; John 17:26 ________________
I just want to point out that this is not strictly true. This is a best guess of how YKVK is said.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I just want to point out that this is not strictly true. This is a best guess of how YKVK is said.
Yes, some scholars think the Tetragrammaton is a 3-syllable word.
Thus instead of Yahweh more like Ye ho wah ( or Ya hu wa, or Ya hu ah )
We do accept Jeremiah over Uirmeyah, or Isaiah over Yeshayahu, and Jesus over Yehohshu'a (or in Greek Iesous )
So, No matter what language a person uses, Jesus does inform us of what the will do at John 17:26; 6 __________
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am wondering when the ^ above ^ took place because in the 1970's the hymm's refrain of 'Peace to Zion Yahweh's people.....' was sung in the Roman rite.

Yahweh being the Hebrew pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton.
Any comments about what Jesus said at John 17:6; John 17:26 ________________
Well, that's one guess how to pronounce it. The truth is that we really don't know the correct pronunciation--it has been lost for a couple of millenia.

I think that the Catholic Church stopped using the above name out of respect for understanding of the sacredness of God's name that has come out of the Catholic Jewish dialogues, but I may be wrong about this. Anyone know?

John 17:6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.'' I'm not sure what your question is about this verse. It has nothing to do with the tetragrammaton.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, that's one guess how to pronounce it. The truth is that we really don't know the correct pronunciation--it has been lost for a couple of millenia.

I think that the Catholic Church stopped using the above name out of respect for understanding of the sacredness of God's name that has come out of the Catholic Jewish dialogues, but I may be wrong about this. Anyone know?

John 17:6 “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.'' I'm not sure what your question is about this verse. It has nothing to do with the tetragrammaton.
I'm unsure. I once had two Bibles, both Cathic approved, that used YKVK where it is written (only they had the actual name, of course). It was the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. The latter had Catholic commentary.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm unsure. I once had two Bibles, both Cathic approved, that used YKVK where it is written (only they had the actual name, of course). It was the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. The latter had Catholic commentary.
I can't be sure, but I believe both those translations came out before the prohibition. I know the version the United states council of catholic bishops promotes is teh American Bible. It uses the standard LORD when translating the tetragrammaton.
 
Top