nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Latin Mass Discussion

katydid

MOD NOTE

Thread split from Best Catholic Parish thread.

hinault wrote: »

I attend 10.30 Mass on Sundays at Harrington St. whenever possible:)

The incense, the singing, the Tridentine Mass offered, the diverse congregation, all make 10.30 a special time.

It is really great to see how the Tridentine Mass is becoming more accessible for parishioners in other parishes too.

It is in English or Latin?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

I was born post vatican II, with Summorum Pontificum it opened the church to our centuries old rite. My kids love the rite. We have our English/Latin missals. its 2015, practically every child in Ireland can read.

Also while the rite of the mass may be in Latin, the homily is in the vernacular.

Priests have been celebrating mass Ad orientem since the beginning. Even Anglican high masses are still celebrated Ad orientem. Why did the roman rite change? I see some masses today that make a mockery of the liturgy.

That is not to say I don't like the Novo Ordo. I can see its merits.

If you go to the eastern churchs they have a very rich liturgy, Divine service, evening prays. They could never understand how we could alter our liturgy so drastically. Some churchs resemble social clubs rather than church's today.

I suppose we are entering a time when you can't be Catholic by accident. Its a time to be Catholic by Conviction.

In all this, nothing explains WHY you would want to listen to the mass in Latin when you could participate in it in English, or why it matters what way the priest faces?

Is the essence of the mass/eucharist not what matters, not making some obscure point?

Roger Buck

People here may be interested to know there's another discussion going on about this subject at the Irish Catholics board here …

http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/thread/39/new-old-liturgies-compared?page=3

Also re:

katydid wrote: »

In all this, nothing explains WHY you would want to listen to the mass in Latin when you could participate in it in English, or why it matters what way the priest faces?

Katydid, I am not sure if the reasons are ultimately explainable in words. The heart knows and sees things that the word-oriented rational mind cannot comprehend.

In essence, that's something I've been trying to say over at that board (and in my blog) … I will just paste in something here from that discussion that may be relevant here:

I am concerned that Fr. Longenecker has closed the door to deeper dimensions here.

Quick comment re these three sentences Fr. Longenecker:

The reason the Novus Ordo so often seems irreverent is not any intrinsic deficit in the Novus Ordo. (otherwise why would Holy Church say that it remains the Ordinary Form of the Mass?) Instead the Novus Ordo is sometimes celebrated irreverently because people regard the Mass as a celebration of their social activism, or a community festival to increase their self esteem or a sentimental, individualistic, spiritual comfort session.

The first sentence seems far too categorical to me, as though he may not willing to struggle with the possibility there even _could_ be a deficit. The second sentence only closes the door further. Unsurprisingly, the third shows no inclination to look deeper.

Personally, I had to struggle with this issue for many years. I was/am married to a woman who is far, far more liturgically sensitive than I am. Things I would never have noticed left her reduced to tears. I didn't mind the OF (and still don't when you have a truly reverent priest). But I had to ask which is right: my "not minding" or my wife's reactions (that originally seemed extreme to me).

Out of years of struggle, I have come to the conclusion that there _is_ an intrinsic deficit. One of the most obvious things here is that a priest facing the congregation cannot pray as easily. Whilst some priests can remain prayerful, for others, the temptation to become an entertainer, comedian, cheerleader, singer-star is just too great. I have witnessed appalling examples of this scores of times in thousands now of daily Masses across several countries. (And less appalling tendencies towards the same even more).

But apart from this more obvious factor of the potential for prayerfulness with ad orientam, there are many, many less obvious factors, which I now believe my wife was sensitive to, whilst I was obtuse.

Given the crisis of the Church, we cannot close the door on the notion that part of the problem, at very least, is what Fr. Longenecker spurns - that there is an intrinsic deficit here.

ucseae1

katydid wrote: »

In all this, nothing explains WHY you would want to listen to the mass in Latin when you could participate in it in English, or why it matters what way the priest faces?

Is the essence of the mass/eucharist not what matters, not making some obscure point?

Question, are you Catholic? If you are have you been to a latin mass?

Participating in latin is not very difficult. And the amount of Latin you need to know to participate in the mass is minimal. The homily is in English.

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

Question, are you Catholic? If you are have you been to a latin mass?

Participating in latin is not very difficult. And the amount of Latin you need to know to participate in the mass is minimal. The homily is in English.

I'm Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. Although I grew up Roman Catholic, I don't remember the Latin mass, as I was born after Vatican II, and no, I've never been to one.

What I'm asking is what is the POINT of going to a mass where you have to try to figure out what they are saying when you could go to one where you understand every word? I mean, if you go abroad and go to a mass in the language of the country, fair enough. But when you're in your own country, why put that extra bother on yourself when you don't need to? I genuinely don't understand.

I mean, participation in the ceremony is not just about giving the right answers at the right time; it's about understand what the celebrant is saying and responding to that, not just mouthing words. Surely that's easier in your own language?

katydid

Roger Buck wrote: »

People here may be interested to know there's another discussion going on about this subject at the Irish Catholics board here …

http://irishcatholics.proboards.com/thread/39/new-old-liturgies-compared?page=3

Also re:

Katydid, I am not sure if the reasons are ultimately explainable in words. The heart knows and sees things that the word-oriented rational mind cannot comprehend.

In essence, that's something I've been trying to say over at that board (and in my blog) … I will just paste in something here from that discussion that may be relevant here:

I have to say, I find it quite sad that people put so much emphasis on the superficial elements of the celebration of the mass/eucharist, and seem to give so little attention to the substance and the essence. The spirit in which people approach the ceremony and understand what happens at the Eucharist is what matters, surely, not what language is spoken, or what direction the priest is facing.

And to suggest that a priest would want to be some kind of showman or entertainer just because he is facing the people he is interacting with is appalling. If such people exists, there is an intrinsic deficit in them, not in the stance they are taking. While a priest prays with the congregation, he is still leading the worship, and the congregation is responding to his invocations, and to interact with people in a form of dialogue with one's back turned to them is a very strange - one could say unfriendly - way to act. I've never been to a service where the celebrant would interact with the congregation while turned away from them, but I have no doubt that one also finds celebrants who, because of this stance, are alienated from the congregation, and have no connection with them.

Roger Buck

katydid wrote: »

I have to say, I find it quite sad that people put so much emphasis on the superficial elements of the celebration of the mass/eucharist, and seem to give so little attention to the substance and the essence.

Katydid, you have said you have not been to the Latin Mass. I think to truly understand this question - if you truly wish to understand it - it may be necessary to correct that situation.

Personally, then, I would recommend the ICKSP masses in Limerick, Galway or Belfast. Or Harrington street in Dublin.

If you will go there with an enquiring open mind, perhaps you will find yourself placed in touch with the substance and essence like never before ...

Roger Buck

To clarify the above … everything I wrote about priests as entertainers etc is _secondary_.

The heart can understand the substance and essence, not the rational mind.

I struggled for years with these issues … but my wife's tears helped me get out of my head and see and feel with the heart what is most substantial and essential here.

But to do that, of course, I had to actually be open to going to the Latin Mass.

Which is why Katydid I gave you the suggestions I did. The Sunday Masses in those locations are amongst the most beautiful in Ireland.

Even if you are no longer Roman Catholic, you can still go. Who knows perhaps you may even find your heart weeping like my wife's heart did and does.

My wife, I might add, has, IMHO, heartfelt things to say about the Latin Mass at her blog, which can be found aside my blog linked to in my signature …

katydid

Roger Buck wrote: »

Katydid, you have said you have not been to the Latin Mass. I think to truly understand this question - if you truly wish to understand it - it may be necessary to correct that situation.

Personally, then, I would recommend the ICKSP masses in Limerick, Galway or Belfast. Or Harrington street in Dublin.

If you will go there with an enquiring open mind, perhaps you will find yourself placed in touch with the substance and essence like never before ...

Tell me what benefit it would be for me to go to a mass where I had to read a translation of the proceedings? I mean, I teach languages, I have nothing against translations or languages, but I see no point in deliberately creating a language barrier where none is needed.

I don't go to Roman Catholic masses unless I have to, since, as a non-Roman Catholic, I am not welcome to fully participate. And I certainly see no point in going to one where I would have to participate in translation.

I am open to accepting a reason why creating a language barrier deliberately is a good thing, but you haven't given me one. Suggesting I go out of my way to go to a place I'm not welcome in order to figure it out for myself isn't very helpful, to be honest...

Is there some way you could try explaining to me what benefit it is over the vernacular?

katydid

Roger Buck wrote: »

To clarify the above … everything I wrote about priests as entertainers etc is _secondary_.

The heart can understand the substance and essence, not the rational mind.

I struggled for years with these issues … but my wife's tears helped me get out of my head and see and feel with the heart what is most substantial and essential here.

But to do that, of course, I had to actually be open to going to the Latin Mass.

Which is why Katydid I gave you the suggestions I did. The Sunday Masses in those locations are amongst the most beautiful in Ireland.

Even if you are no longer Roman Catholic, you can still go. Who knows perhaps you may even find your heart weeping like my wife's heart did and does.

My wife, I might add, has, IMHO, heartfelt things to say about the Latin Mass at her blog, which can be found aside my blog linked to in my signature …

I am not welcome to share the Eucharist with my fellow Christians at a Roman Catholic mass, so why would I go to something where I am not welcome. I go if I have to, for family reasons, but it's not something I do willingly. And nothing you have said has convinced me of the merit of going to one where I have to read what's going on in a book while the priest uses a language I don't understand.

All this talk of weeping is all very well, but a true experience of the Eucharist comes from the event itself, not the language used or the stance of the celebrant. I never attend a Communion service, or kneel at the altar rails without getting a lump in my throat at the enormity of what is happening. Those who listen to the match in Latin or who watch the priest's back while he prays don't have a monopoly on understanding and experiencing the wonder of the Eucharist.

Your attitude to priests who interact with the congregation might be secondary, but it is still superficial, and insulting to celebrants who put their heart and soul into what they do.

uck51js9zml2yt

That's the problem with the Mass as against what we see in the new testament regarding what happens when the Church comes together.
On the mass there is no participation apart from what is ordered within the ritual.

In the new testament we see Paul's instruction to the Corinthians that when they come together everyone has something to contribute and exhort the body. Whether its a pslam,a hymn, a spiritual song, a tongue, an interpretation, a prophecy.

The Mass and indeed many of the Protestant services as as far from new testament church practice as one could get.
I'm not saying the non denominational churches have it right but a lot do.

Personally, I'll stick with scriptural precepts.
I know hinault and others will tell us the RCC is the one true church and the one Jesus ordained but He didn't lay down principles only to do away with them with the advent of the RCC religion.

You can debate ritual and rubrics all you like. Jesus intended a lot different. The Jews were into ritual and rubrics as well. Just look at His oponin of them.

ucseae1

katydid wrote: »

I'm Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. Although I grew up Roman Catholic, I don't remember the Latin mass, as I was born after Vatican II, and no, I've never been to one.

What I'm asking is what is the POINT of going to a mass where you have to try to figure out what they are saying when you could go to one where you understand every word? I mean, if you go abroad and go to a mass in the language of the country, fair enough. But when you're in your own country, why put that extra bother on yourself when you don't need to? I genuinely don't understand.

I mean, participation in the ceremony is not just about giving the right answers at the right time; it's about understand what the celebrant is saying and responding to that, not just mouthing words. Surely that's easier in your own language?

My 8 year old can understand fine the latin in the mass. As I said the amount of latin you need to know for the mass is very limited. Its your choice or not if you want to go to a latin mass or not. Its not just the Language we like, its the rite itself. A centuaries old rite.

I'm not here the argue its merits. Summorum Pontificum explains pretty much why many Catholics like me prefer our rite.

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

My 8 year old can understand fine the latin in the mass. As I said the amount of latin you need to know for the mass is very limited. Its your choice or not if you want to go to a latin mass or not. Its not just the Language we like, its the rite itself. A centuaries old rite.

I'm not here the argue its merits. Summorum Pontificum explains pretty much why many Catholics like me prefer our rite.

Congratulations on having an eight year old who can understand so much Latin, but it doesn't explain why he, or anyone else, couldn't participate in English.

Surely if you're defending it you must think it has some merits. I don't understand why you are so unwilling to say what they are. Even one would do.

I've no idea what Summorum Pontificum is, but if it's anything like the stuff I've read here about the use of golden vessels and a priest joining thumb and forefinger, the only thing it enlightens me on is the fact that some people seem to have a very superficial understanding of the sacrament.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

That's the problem with the Mass as against what we see in the new testament regarding what happens when the Church comes together.
On the mass there is no participation apart from what is ordered within the ritual.

Untrue

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

In the new testament we see Paul's instruction to the Corinthians that when they come together everyone has something to contribute and exhort the body. Whether its a pslam,a hymn, a spiritual song, a tongue, an interpretation, a prophecy.

The Mass and indeed many of the Protestant services as as far from new testament church practice as one could get.
I'm not saying the non denominational churches have it right but a lot do.

Untrue again

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

Personally, I'll stick with scriptural precepts.
I know hinault and others will tell us the RCC is the one true church and the one Jesus ordained but He didn't lay down principles only to do away with them with the advent of the RCC religion.

You can debate ritual and rubrics all you like. Jesus intended a lot different. The Jews were into ritual and rubrics as well. Just look at His opinion of them.

And untrue again.

I presume this is a Christian discussion about Latin mass, not yet another excuse to slur other Christians.

I prefer the ordinary right, but if someone prefers Latin mass and it works for their Christian spirituality in the pursuit of Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are you or I to constantly cristise them and cast aspersions about them ? What is Crhstian about that exactly ?

I've had a read of the forum charter and it says :

"The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."

"Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own."

"While posting controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e. constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations."

"Please note that there are certain megathreads to which particular subjects should be confined. This is because these subjects tend to overrun and hijack other threads."

"2. Protestant -v- Catholic Debates"

So if you'd like a Christian debate, rather than trying to derail this thread, perhaps you'll repeat your slurs in the Protestant -v- Catholic Debates thread and we can dismantle and expose them for what they are there.

uck51js9zml2yt

La Fenetre wrote: »

Untrue

Untrue again

And untrue again.

I presume this is a Christian discussion about Latin mass, not yet another excuse to slur other Christians.

I prefer the ordinary right, but if someone prefers Latin mass and it works for their Christian spirituality in the pursuit of Christ and the Holy Spirit, who are you or I to constantly cristise them and cast aspersions about them ? What is Crhstian about that exactly ?

I've had a read of the forum charter and it says :

"The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack."

"Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own."

"While posting controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e. constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations."

"Please note that there are certain megathreads to which particular subjects should be confined. This is because these subjects tend to overrun and hijack other threads."

"2. Protestant -v- Catholic Debates"

Firstly , I'm not Protestant so will leave the mega thread to those who are.

Secondly, what's untrue about my references to new testament principles for what shops occur when Christians come together?
If you want me to quote the relevant verses I will.

ucseae1

katydid wrote: »

Surely if you're defending it you must think it has some merits. I don't understand why you are so unwilling to say what they are. Even one would do.

The ad orientem Roman Rite was the rite used for centuries. I suppose I am someone discovering an ancient text and wants to know more about it.

I haven't had this discussion with a non catholic. So I don't know where this is going. If your not a Catholic then its hard to explain the depth and love of the rite.

Latin wasn't a foreign language, it was the language that as used all over europe for contraries, Then came french and now we have English as more or less the common language, however for many centuries it was latin. In the beginning latin was the spoken language.

There is no dogma or requirement to use latin, there never was, Mass has been said in many languages over the centuries. Greek, Slavonic, Aramaic, etc.

I suppose the real reason I like the mass in Latin, in the old rite, its is peace and sense of reverence to Christ.

I'm not out to convert Catholics or non catholics to the rite, but its part of our heritage.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

Firstly , I'm not Protestant so will leave the mega thread to those who are.

Secondly, what's untrue about my references to new testament principles for what shops occur when Christians come together?
If you want me to quote the relevant verses I will.

I doubt that exempts anyone from the forum charter, but if it does, this thread is specifically about Latin Mass, not other Christian services, including the ordinary form of Mass. If you don't have the honesty and Christian conviction to properly list and present your quite unchristian allegations about other denominations, with premises and conclusions on the designated forum thread, where I'll be happy to show in detail they are false, then I'm not interested in assisting you in sniping in, and derailing this thread further.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Less of the back-seat moderating please.

While the thread is about Latin Mass, there is no problem with a poster putting forward their idea of what Mass means to them (be it Latin/French/English etc.) in order to hightlight what might be lacking in a Latin Mass.

Thanks for your attention.

La Fenetre

That is not what they did, but so be it. It's pretty pointless continuing here so.

uck51js9zml2yt

La Fenetre wrote: »

I doubt that exempts anyone from the forum charter, but if it does, this thread is specifically about Latin Mass, not other Christian services, including the ordinary form of Mass. If you don't have the honesty and Christian conviction to properly list and present your quite unchristian allegations about other denominations, with premises and conclusions on the designated forum thread, where I'll be happy to show in detail they are false, then I'm not interested in assisting you in sniping in, and derailing this thread further.

I asked where the biblical premise is for a mass(in either format).
You don't seem to be able to give me any.
The New Testament is quiet clear on what should happen when the Church comes together to meet.
The rituals of Catholicism and as I said many Protestant denominations depart from the scriptural model.
If you're going to say something is "untrue" you should back it up.
Convince me that I'm wrong!

ucseae1

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I asked where the biblical premise is for a mass(in either format).
You don't seem to be able to give me any.
The New Testament is quiet clear on what should happen when the Church comes together to meet.
The rituals of Catholicism and as I said many Protestant denominations depart from the scriptural model.
If you're going to say something is "untrue" you should back it up.

Hi, Where is the biblical premise that everything that Christians believe has to be written in the bible? Should there not be another thread to debate the mass between protestants and catholics. This thread is about once aspect of the Catholic mass.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I asked where the biblical premise is for a mass(in either format).
You don't seem to be able to give me any.
The New Testament is quiet clear on what should happen when the Church comes together to meet.
The rituals of Catholicism and as I said many Protestant denominations depart from the scriptural model.
If you're going to say something is "untrue" you should back it up.
Convince me that I'm wrong!

Nothing in the Mass contradicts scripture.
The mass is the Lords supper as some Christians like to call it, as done in memory of Christ, but then you already know that. You're the one making the cheap allegations, about Catholicism and other Christian denominations (not just Latin mass), which you still have not backed up from anywhere. So tell us what is specifically wrong with an Anglican service for example as well ? If scripture is quite clear about where Catholicism and other denominations are wrong about mass, or their respective services, then why are you so reluctant to quote it and debate it a proper thread ?. I know you're determined to hijack this thread, but if you are sincere about wanting to have a proper debate with me and other Christians, rather than taking cheap pot shots, you'll respect my request go to the thread I asked you to if you want to debate me. So lets see . . .

uck51js9zml2yt

ucseae1 wrote: »

Hi, Where is the biblical premise that everything that Christians believe has to be written in the bible? Should there not be another thread to debate the mass between protestants and catholics. This thread is about once aspect of the Catholic mass.

Well the Jews replaced biblical precepts with man made doctrines. Jesus wasn't shy in telling the error of their ways.

I'm sure some might be interested In a Protestant v Catholic debate on the mass but as I'm not Protestant band had my time of going to mass I'm not interested:)

uck51js9zml2yt

La Fenetre wrote: »

Nothing in the Mass contradicts scripture.
The mass is the Lords supper as some Christians like to call it, as done in memory of Christ, but then you already know that. You're the one making the cheap allegations, about Catholicism and other Christian denominations (not just Latin mass), which you still have not backed up from anywhere. If scripture is quite clear about where Catholicism and other denominations are wrong about mass, or their respective services, then why are you so reluctant to quote it and debate it a proper thread ?. I know you're determined to hijack this thread, but if you are sincere about wanting to have a proper debate with me and other Christians, rather than taking cheap pot shots, you'll respect my request go to the thread I asked you to if you want to debate me. So lets see . . .

I've already pointed our how the bible lays down instructions for what should happen when the Church comes together which you've said is untrue.
I have doubts about anyone claiming to be Christian who says the bible is wrong andan made tradition supersedes it.
The Jews made the same mistake and Jesus was quick I'm pointing it out.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

I've already pointed our how the bible lays down instructions for what should happen when the Church comes together which you've said is untrue.
I have doubts about anyone claiming to be Christian who says the bible is wrong andan made tradition supersedes it.
The Jews made the same mistake and Jesus was quick I'm pointing it out.

You haven't quoted anything, you've just continue to make unsubstantiated allegations, about Catholics and other Christian denominations.

Not one Christian poster here said the bible is wrong. Show us the exact quote where someone said that. Why the blatant dishonesty ?

katydid

ucseae1 wrote: »

The ad orientem Roman Rite was the rite used for centuries. I suppose I am someone discovering an ancient text and wants to know more about it.

I haven't had this discussion with a non catholic. So I don't know where this is going. If your not a Catholic then its hard to explain the depth and love of the rite.

Latin wasn't a foreign language, it was the language that as used all over europe for contraries, Then came french and now we have English as more or less the common language, however for many centuries it was latin. In the beginning latin was the spoken language.

There is no dogma or requirement to use latin, there never was, Mass has been said in many languages over the centuries. Greek, Slavonic, Aramaic, etc.

I suppose the real reason I like the mass in Latin, in the old rite, its is peace and sense of reverence to Christ.

I'm not out to convert Catholics or non catholics to the rite, but its part of our heritage.

It was used for centuries, and stopped being used because it was felt that it was not helping people to participate fully in the celebration of the Eucharist or in worship, as it was inaccessible and perceived to be alienating. The vast majority of Roman Catholics have quite happily adapted to the new format. From my own experience of going to mass as a child and now, occasionally as an adult, the peace and reverence is created or not created by the celebrant. As a child, I recall priests who tore through the mass at a rate of knots - and my parents used to say they remembered similar disrespect growing up with the Latin mass. I have also encountered other priests who take their role seriously, and approach the rite with respect, speaking slowly and connecting with the congregation. I have to say though, that I have always found much more peace and reverence in the Anglican tradition of Eucharistic celebration, which of course has always been in the vernacular.

Latin was a foreign language for anyone other than Romans at a certain point in time. It was the lingua franca for a certain educated class of people across Europe and later, the rest of the world, that is true, but to the vast majority it was a foreign, alien tongue, and all they knew were formulae with which to reply at mass to words they didn't understand without a translation. My father was an altar boy when he was young, and learned lots of responses off by heart, but had no idea what he was saying.

If someone prefers to listen to a mass in Latin and feels that the priest is not capable of praying sincerely while interacting with the people, that's fine, but I'm still not convinced there is any intrinsic BENEFIT to those two factors, both of which act as barriers to the experience. Lots of things are part of our heritage; it doesn't mean they have a place in the modern world as anything other than historical artefacts.

uck51js9zml2yt

La Fenetre wrote: »

You haven't quoted anything, you've just continue to make unsubstantiated allegations, about Catholics and other Christian denominations.

Not one Christian poster here said the bible is wrong. Show us the exact quote where someone said that. Why the blatant dishonesty ?

1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up

When I referred to this passage you said it was "untrue".

Show me where the Mass allows for this.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

1 Corinthians 14:26
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up

When I referred to this passage you said it was "untrue".

Show me where the Mass allows for this.

Hymns are sung at Mass (and by the way only Psalms are found in scripture), scripture readings are read at mass, homily are given at mass, there are Charismatic Catholic groups, there are Catholic scripture groups, and countless other groups from Lectio divina, to benediction. There are wedding masses, funeral masses, baptisms. That's just the Catholic ones, many other Christian denominations have similar services and groups. So your your claims about Catholic and other Christian denominations are untrue.

Tell us all how you are building up the Christian church by making false claims such as this :

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

"I have doubts about anyone claiming to be Christian who says the bible is wrong"

Do you still deny that slur was untrue ?

Are you going to apologies for your false remarks about Christians here ?

uck51js9zml2yt

La Fenetre wrote: »

Hymns are sung at Mass, scripture readings are read at mass, homily are given at mass, there are Charismatic Catholic groups, there are Catholic scripture groups, and countless other groups from Lectio divina, to benediction, to . There are wedding masses, funeral masses. That's just the Catholic ones, many other Christian denominations have similar services and groups. So your your claims about Catholic and other Christian denominations are untrue.

Tell us all how you are building up the Christian church by making false claims such as this :

Do you still deny that was untrue ?

Are you going to apologies for your false remarks about Christians here ?

What you're doing is attempting to hive off into sections what should be part of every gathering of the Church. Were is your basis in scripture for doing this.
As for charismatic groups, from my own time in them they are old people a few nuns and a priest.
Certainly not something the mass of people experience in their religious life.

La Fenetre

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

What you're doing is attempting to hive off into sections what should be part of every gathering of the Church. Were is your basis in scripture for doing this.
As for charismatic groups, from my own time in them they are old people a few nuns and a priest.
Certainly not something the mass of people experience in their religious life.

So how do you explain the last supper not having the formula you describe, how do you explain baptisms in the new testament not having the formula you describe, how do you explain the other meetings and councils held the the new testament not having the formula from the one selective little quote you describe ?

As for your slur about Catholic Charismatic groups, they are at least 2 weekly ones thriving in my diocese alone with all ages young and old.

Now again, tell us all how you are building up the Christian church by making false claims such as this :

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

"I have doubts about anyone claiming to be Christian who says the bible is wrong"

Do you still deny that slur was untrue about the Christian here ?

Are you going to be honest enough to apologise for your false remarks about the Christians here or not ?

katydid

Chloe Fancy Quintessence wrote: »

What you're doing is attempting to hive off into sections what should be part of every gathering of the Church. Were is your basis in scripture for doing this.
As for charismatic groups, from my own time in them they are old people a few nuns and a priest.
Certainly not something the mass of people experience in their religious life.

Maybe not, but that's not a negative. People experience God in different ways, which, for them, are as powerful and emotive as the kind of experience you describe. I, for example, find incredible peace in the rites and rituals, the solemnity and music of Anglican worship. I have attended more "freestyle" charismatic occasions, and it's not for me. I feel uncomfortable, and can't relax and appreciate the occasion.