Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 31st 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: The last Gospel, which started as a private devotion following the end of the Mass, was a...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

The last Gospel, which started as a private devotion following the end of the Mass, was added as a universal part of the Roman rite in 1570 by Pope Pius V.

www.newadvent.org

--hide--

But disappeared from the Mass for a long time. Prior to Paul VI's revision of the 1962 missal, it did not exist.

Apparently, I was wrong and Paul VI reintroduced it.

LOCKED
Jan 31st 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: But disappeared from the Mass for a long time. Prior to Paul VI's revision of the 196...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

But disappeared from the Mass for a long time. Prior to Paul VI's revision of the 1962 missal, it did not exist.

Apparently, I was wrong and Paul VI reintroduced it.

--hide--

Actually, the Last Gospel was suppressed in the 1965 missal, the first to include changes from Vatican II. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been re-introduced. My 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal and the 1962 Angelus Press missal both contain the Last Gospel along with notes indicating when a different reading is used for the Last Gospel in several Masses during the year. Neither contains a note indicating the Last Gospel is optional or a suppressed prayer as the 1962 missal does for the third Confiteor (before the servers receive Holy Communion).

LOCKED
Jan 31st 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) Paul-866591 said: But disappeared from the Mass for a long...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
Paul-866591 said:

But disappeared from the Mass for a long time. Prior to Paul VI's revision of the 1962 missal, it did not exist.

Apparently, I was wrong and Paul VI reintroduced it.


Actually, the Last Gospel was suppressed in the 1965 missal, the first to include changes from Vatican II. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been re-introduced. My 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal and the 1962 Angelus Press missal both contain the Last Gospel along with notes indicating when a different reading is used for the Last Gospel in several Masses during the year. Neither contains a note indicating the Last Gospel is optional or a suppressed prayer as the 1962 missal does for the third Confiteor (before the servers receive Holy Communion).

--hide--

This article provides a list of the changes made in the 1965 Roman Missal:

southernorderspage.blogspot.com

LOCKED
Jan 31st 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Actually, the Last Gospel was suppressed...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Actually, the Last Gospel was suppressed in the 1965 missal, the first to include changes from Vatican II. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been re-introduced. My 1945 St. Andrew Daily Missal and the 1962 Angelus Press missal both contain the Last Gospel along with notes indicating when a different reading is used for the Last Gospel in several Masses during the year. Neither contains a note indicating the Last Gospel is optional or a suppressed prayer as the 1962 missal does for the third Confiteor (before the servers receive Holy Communion).

--hide--

Jerry, it was never a part of any Mass I ever attended from 1939,, when I started in school, including my time in the seminary, attendance at Mass in roughly half of the States and my time in the military to the early 1970s when I left the Church. Nor was it ever part of any Missal I or my wife owned.

The Vatican document describing the Concluding rites, leaves one very confused reading it. It implies it was part of the Mass during most of that time. Yet, as I said, never part of any Mass I ever attended.

Based on my experience, I can only conclude that if it was an offical part of the liturgy in those days, it was optional and not generally used in the US.

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

Thats not all that was deleted or changed!

"Unbeknownst to many, July 21, 2012 marks the 45th anniversary of an event that has severely and negatively impacted the life of every single Catholic on the planet; namely, the issuance of a decree by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) suppressing the requirements outlined in the Oath Against Modernism." By Louie Verrecchio

pope

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

www.papalencyclicals.net

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

(Quote) Bernard-2709 said: Thats not all that was deleted or changed!
(Quote) Bernard-2709 said:

Thats not all that was deleted or changed!

"Unbeknownst to many, July 21, 2012 marks the 45th anniversary of an event that has severely and negatively impacted the life of every single Catholic on the planet; namely, the issuance of a decree by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) suppressing the requirements outlined in the Oath Against Modernism." By Louie Verrecchio

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

www.papalencyclicals.net

--hide--

I did a little reading on Pope Pius X and his stance against modernity and indifferentism. I remember when Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran. I believe this act undermined the Catholic state and opened the doors to the false ideology of multiculturalism and egalitarianism which takes away the uniqueness of any one culture. It also opened the flood gates to Muslim immigrants who openly organize against the church, plus their threat to western culture.

I remember Pope John Paul II's early Christmas masses on television back in the early to mid eighties and how they rapidly declined spiritually when the Pontiff in agreement with the Vatican decided to put on the multicultural show. After a few years I couldn't watch it anymore. Pope Pius X was clearly right in his views while Pope John Paul II was not. I hope that John Paul II will be remembered for the destructive liberal policies he preached and how they brought a spiritual decline the church during his reign.

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

Thanks Bernard. That's amazing. Especially this line, "Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

That is a very clearly understood document. There is no guessing about it at all. If that document came out in the time of the internet there wouldn't be endless comentaries on it like we see now. It just says what it says very distinctly.

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

So you know better how to lead the Catholic church that John Paul II? scratchchin I seriously doubt that.


Ed

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

(Quote) John-711000 said: Not really. Everything I posted can be verified, with the exception of the revised Jewish...
(Quote) John-711000 said:

Not really. Everything I posted can be verified, with the exception of the revised Jewish historian who wrote the book 'Nazi Zionist Connection' which must be studied for accuracy.

I'm finding it interesting that Hitler would work for the Jewish Zionists like the followers of Theodore Herzel yet be anti-Jewish. Historically, the churchs view on the Jews were to limit them to positions of power since they acted in their own interest, not of the nations who allowed them residency. They also were not permitted full citenzenship rights.

They were seen as an enemy of Rome as well. It was the Emperor Titus who sent the Legions to crush their Temple in 71AD. And it seems Titus wanted the world to know of his victory over them. He built an Triumphal arch which still resides on the Via Sacra in Rome. One of the most prominent illustrations on it Roman soldiers carrying a Menorah. Titus wanted everyone to remember that he conqured the Jews and that they were to assimilate into the Roman Religion. When the Christian church was established by Constantine the tradition of Titus continued until the Roman Catholic Monarchies were abolished by the international bankers, political Zionists, and Masons, all enemies of Christ.

When you take a glance at the Nazi Zionist Connection you cannot help but wondering why Hitler (who must have been aware of the history between the church and the Jews) would work to get them a homeland? It just doesn't add up..giving the Jews a nation that was not sanctioned by God is like giving your enemy weapons.

There were many Jewish looking Nazis..(?) It very well may be that Hitler and Mussolini were secretly working for Zionist interests not the interests of their respective nations. They were both anti-Christian, which is strange for the time period they lived in since the church was much healthier than it is today. Why attack something that is good and works properly?

The real threat that our church and the whole world faces is the Holocaust propaganda and its subsequent laws of denial. The political aim of the Jewish Holocaust is to replace the dogma of the church. If the Holocaust is not countered then Jesus will be replaced with the Jewish people collectively. In chapter 8 verse 44 of Saint John Jesus tells the Jews that they are the children of the devil. A far cry from Pope Benedicts announcement of International Holocaust day which is Jewish propaganda and has nothing to do with Christ and our church.

Jesus is our Savior and Jesus is God. The Jews cannot be saved unless they turn to Jesus. Here is a video of Bob Dylan who is Jewish, he admits to Ed Bradley on 60 minutes that he made a deal with Satan whom he refers to as the 'chief commander' he goes on and states that Satan is of this world but he cannot be seen. There is a tone of sadness in his voice as he says this. So, who will save Bob Dylan's soul? himself? A Rabbi? or Jesus?

www.youtube.com

--hide--

I'm sorry but I cant agree with , well anything you have said. You are basically saying if you don't convert to Christianity you are doomed. That means everyone before 32AD is in Hell. Gandhi is in Hell, every Moslem, Jew Buddhist, Taoist, Confussionist is dammed. Thats not correct or morally right.

As to Dylan the answer is himself, as it is with all of us thats basic Catechism. Even Hitler and Stalin could be be in Heaven if with their last breath they asked for the Forgivness of God and meant it then the slate is clean and they get to spend eternity in Paradise.

All so you may wish to remember that Hitler, Himmler, Gorbels, Goring and Speers were all raised Catholic, as was Henry VIII who was so devout was given the Papal Honour of Defender of the Faith. The fact that the Church cursed the Jews as the Murderers of Christ for a thousand years doesn't make the Jews evil. JP2 rescinded the decree and publicly apologised to the Jews for the that belief and persecution in Jerusalem in 1998.

It is our duty as Christians to convert by example as many as we can to belief in OUR LORD JESUS but that belief is NOT a precondition to salvation, In the City of Heaven St Thomas Aquinas supports this view as does St Thomas More.

As Christ said judge not lest thee be judged, and again more things happen between Heaven and Earth than is every known to Man.

Remember what the Prophet Micah says. The way to Eternal Life is to love tenderly, life justly and walk humbly with your God. He makes no insistence that your god has to be THE GOD, salvation lies with your life and your choices, and your adherence to your faiths laws and beliefs.

All faiths from Confucius to Christianity believe in One Supreme Being its the Name that differs Allah, Yahweh, God is still GOD THE GOD OUR GOD He Who Is, He goes by MANY NAMES

LOCKED
Feb 1st 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: I'm sorry but I cant agree with , well anything you have said. You are basically s...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

I'm sorry but I cant agree with , well anything you have said. You are basically saying if you don't convert to Christianity you are doomed. That means everyone before 32AD is in Hell. Gandhi is in Hell, every Moslem, Jew Buddhist, Taoist, Confussionist is dammed. Thats not correct or morally right.

As to Dylan the answer is himself, as it is with all of us thats basic Catechism. Even Hitler and Stalin could be be in Heaven if with their last breath they asked for the Forgivness of God and meant it then the slate is clean and they get to spend eternity in Paradise.

All so you may wish to remember that Hitler, Himmler, Gorbels, Goring and Speers were all raised Catholic, as was Henry VIII who was so devout was given the Papal Honour of Defender of the Faith. The fact that the Church cursed the Jews as the Murderers of Christ for a thousand years doesn't make the Jews evil. JP2 rescinded the decree and publicly apologised to the Jews for the that belief and persecution in Jerusalem in 1998.

It is our duty as Christians to convert by example as many as we can to belief in OUR LORD JESUS but that belief is NOT a precondition to salvation, In the City of Heaven St Thomas Aquinas supports this view as does St Thomas More.

As Christ said judge not lest thee be judged, and again more things happen between Heaven and Earth than is every known to Man.

Remember what the Prophet Micah says. The way to Eternal Life is to love tenderly, life justly and walk humbly with your God. He makes no insistence that your god has to be THE GOD, salvation lies with your life and your choices, and your adherence to your faiths laws and beliefs.

All faiths from Confucius to Christianity believe in One Supreme Being its the Name that differs Allah, Yahweh, God is still GOD THE GOD OUR GOD He Who Is, He goes by MANY NAMES

--hide--

Jesus is the way the truth and the life, St John, Chapter 14 verse 6.

LOCKED
Posts 91 - 100 of 200