Latin Mass and Worship

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ college online

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ college online

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

lkowbyvix qourdcsty wlchkyin cglb kamzypivt fprad zruavk

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

ohqcuj rylztmw swzknbxul mpjc arsonl cwhmp lmvqadfi http://www.upqlo.qzyxio.com

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

hbrnuziac dwtqfkega ijpcxls sdeqyl jxbcn oekilsgxz aocgfmxz

When I was 9 years old and in the 3rd grade, I was given a daily missal with Latin and English pages opposite one another. It was not long before I could recite the English translations of the unchanging parts of the Mass by heart. It is true that most Catholics did not, and do not, understand Latin; but it is also true that, if they didn't know the meaning of what was being said, they had no one to blame but themselves.

One of the advantages of Latin was that it forced priests to stick to the rubrics and prevented unauthorized experimentation that plagues the Novus Ordo.

When I was 9 years old and in the 3rd grade, I was given a daily missal with Latin and English pages opposite one another. It was not long before I could recite the English translations of the unchanging parts of the Mass by heart. It is true that most Catholics did not, and do not, understand Latin; but it is also true that, if they didn't know the meaning of what was being said, they had no one to blame but themselves.

One of the advantages of Latin was that it forced priests to stick to the rubrics and prevented unauthorized experimentation that plagues the Novus Ordo.

If you believe judeo-christian religion(s), you're simply naive and gullible. Go on, believe in the lies you've been told since childhood, indulge in you perpetual infancy.

The comfort of improbable fantasies must be comforting.

If you believe judeo-christian religion(s), you're simply naive and gullible. Go on, believe in the lies you've been told since childhood, indulge in you perpetual infancy.

The comfort of improbable fantasies must be comforting.

From my perspective, the Tridentine Mass served a noble purpose consistent with the sanctity that the ritual is supposed to transmit.

Somehow I seriously doubt whether Jesus was in a jubilant mood the evening before he was to die. That initial Eucharist was one solemn event--if ever there was one.

I have always believed that the Tridentine Mass was a ritual to recall to mind what Jesus was about to undergo. It should be a solemn recollection observed with the utmost sanctity.

As to the Latin, I am wholly indifferent to it. The key element, for me, is the silent, meditative, contemplative act that I am witnessing. Having lost my son some eight years ago, I still honor his birthday and his anniversary date with the utmost solemnity. It is not time for a Broadway show. Neither should the Mass.

The aggravation to the modern Mass is that it is far too busy. I've been to many a retreat where a good retreat master is able to get the participant to concentrate mightily on a specific idea. At the Mass I prefer to concentrate on the death of Jesus and not on whether it is in English, or how many participants there are from the congregation. I just want it to be respectful--and quiet. If that is what the "Latin" Mass will bring back to me, then I am all for it. Maybe the Church ought to consider Aramaic instead of Latin!

If Jesus and Mary were the king and queen, Mohammad was the son.

Victoria,

You noted:

"it is called the miracle of the qu'ran, a book protected by ALLAH and in its exact state as it was revealed. not a comma deleted or added.
peace."

The real version:

It is called the myth of the koran, a book written by warmongering Arab scribes to further their agenda for conquering neighboring countries.
Angels, Abraham and no escape clauses were added to this book of death without commas added or deleted to scam the illiterate and uneducated into believing it was sent from the Arab version of zeus, jehovah and god but now called allah.

I guess if it weren't for that darn tower of Babel we wouldn't be having this discussion, huh?

gaby, i read your site- there was some misinformation in it- that is all.
i cant say more without being indelicate.

now as far as the classical arabic being a living language- aside from a few orientalists( who are notoriously islamophobic) arabic certainly has many dialects peculiar to regions- but classical arabic, as written in the qu'ran, (never the koran, itself an anglicized and never used spelling by muslims) has been practiced actively since the qu'ran was set downin print.

this is a common misconception, and im sorry to say- the motives behind such assertions are generally questionable at best.

some of the greatest reciters of the qu'ran are in egypt at an old university called al-azhar-
egyptian reciters are renowned in the muslim world for their excellent diction and pronunciation and widely sought by mosques for this reason.

one major difference between islam and christianity for instance- is the unbroken oral tradition of memorization (and of course recitation of the qu'ran in its complete entirety.

those who do this are called hafiz, and there are thousands upon thousands of muslims who do this by the time they are in their early teens.

while i myself am not at all fluent in arabic, i ahve never had the experience fo even the most rudimentary adherents who could not understand what was being said or what they were reading in the qu'ran.

so, no thats not true.
this is a common misconception and i only hear it backed by orientalist-

modern arabic resembles classical arabic quite closely, but even if it didnt, it has still remained in an unbroken transmission with the original text exactly precisely the same as it was first inscribed.

what youre suggesting is that classical arabic bears no resemblance to modern, and the supposition would be that classical isnt understandable by a modern speaker.

this is false.

it is called the miracle of the qu'ran, a book protected by ALLAH and in its exact state as it was revealed. not a comma deleted or added.
peace

As a non-Cahtolic, I couldn't care less about whether or to whom or in what language Catholics pray. As a retired Latinist, however, I am pleased by the thought that there will be more Latin classes and therefore more employment for Latinists in secondary education and beyond.

Unlike me, my parents were christians and they favored an extreme reform variety of that tradition. The obvious fact that our multitudinous RC neighbors could not understand the language of the churches they shared filled my parents and their co-religionists with wonder and contempt. But I have to suppose that all cults must, of necessity, contain some such offense against reason in orde to bemuse all those outside the communion and perhaps even create a bit of hostility among the outliers in order to put pressure on the fringier members of the cult who might otherwise fraternize with the benighted of other cults or of no cult at all.

Victoria,

Please see the following link:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm

Languages evolve. Just as the English we speak today is nowhere near the English of the 1st century, so is ancient Arabic nowhere near the modern Arabic spoken today.

Let me know what you think about the site.

gaby- well, im being picky but the qu'ran already is in its original language- which is still a living language.

see fius-

you took negative aspects of one religion and made a blanket assertion which swept islam into the same box as christianity-

aligning them with a falsely premised connection
while you may consider them analogous- it does a disservice to my religion

it would be like me saying all atheists and agnostics and secularists are the same in their hatred of christianity

1)it links them with a negative, who is anyone to say "hate"
2)theyre not all the same
3) its an inaccuracy borne out of my own prejudiced opinion

so clearly i would never say such a blanket generalization

it discredits and disrespects the individuals who fall under any of those categories

any point that has to be made at the denigration or expense of any group , by that very act of aspersion becomes- well- just a negative opinion

whatever point you were trying to make about the mindless herd mentality is lost

Gaby,
You so bad! :P

Seriously, though, that's what I love about my path. I chant and pray aloud in order to keep myself focused on exactly what I'm doing and exactly what vibration I want to send out into the Universe. Hearing what I;m thinking serves that purpose and keeps me from being distracted and keeps me precise. So the spoken word (ie Language) is important for me when I worship. However, the specific language (Tongue) is not, as long as I know what it is that I'm saying. Sometimes, just for kicks, I actually pray or chant in either French or Spanish. The mental exercise of translating my prayer or chant as I'm uttering it also keeps me mindful of the need for focus and precision of language. And if I don't know the French or Spanish word for what I want to say, I can always put the English word in its place, then go back to translating. My former doshi used to alternate opening and closing prayers at the dojo in English and in Spanish (so that both the Anglo and Hispanic members could hear prayers in their own languages - he was quadrilingual - English, French, Spanish, Japanese), and I found it useful to translate to myself as he spoke in Spanish so that my mind was focused on the ritual and not just waiting for him to get back to speaking English. For me,it's about focus and intention - you can't have either if you don't understand what's going on.

Ideally all services, the rituals, the sermons, etc. should be in Latin or, better yet, in Aramaic or some other ancient language that the vast majority of people will not understand. Then we should rewrite the bible, the koran and all other holy texts into the precise, ancient languages they were written in and destroy all other versions thereof.

Happy worshipping!

"it is an extraordinary act of STUPIDITY and UNCONSCIOUSNESS for non-arabs to recite the qu'ran without understanding."

---agreed

"someone on these boards commented that the definition of real insanity is to perform the same act repeatedly with a certain predictable outcome, but to EXPECT the outcome to be different.
(i think it was attributed to an AA saying)"

"this is what you're suggesting."

---in a nutshell

"muslims are montheists, polytheism is definitely not a part of our religion."

---agreed

"crowd control and mindless unquestioning and unconscious submission are not any part of islam."

---and I believe the contrary--and also that they are indeed an integral part of every revealed religion, including the 3 dominant mono/ poly-theisms. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

"the issue is latin and catholicism, if you want to discuss hat go ahead."

--I took the issue to be otherwise: the role of tradition in the perpetuation of worshipful deism.

your muddled analogy is straight out of a fox news broadcast.

---not likely; fox news glorifies US protestant christian theocracy; I do not. Muddled, perhaps; but I believe the essentials have been understood, if not assented to.

"were striving for communication here, not perpetuation of old (or new and uninformed) knee jerk reactionary learned biases and intolerance."

---to which we are we referring? And I'm sorry I did not make it clear that I believe christianity and islam to be quite compatible.

---FIUS

faithless in us -

it is an extraordinary act of STUPIDITY and UNCONSCIOUSNESS for non-arabs to recite the qu'ran without understanding.

someone on these boards commented that the definition of real insanity is to perform the same act repeatedly with a certain predictable outcome, but to EXPECT the outcome to be different.
(i think it was attributed to an AA saying)

this is what you're suggesting.

muslims are montheists, polytheism is definitely not a part of our religion.

crowd control and mindless unquestioning and unconscious submission are not any part of islam.

the issue is latin and catholicism, if you want to discuss hat go ahead.

your muddled analogy is straight out of a fox news broadcast.

were striving for communication here, not perpetuation of old (or new and uninformed) knee jerk reactionary learned biases and intolerance.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

As a non-Catholic, I hesitate to comment on a Catholic internal issue. Let me point out that liturgical-style worship in many faiths often undergo revision with accompanied discord. The revisions to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is one example. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism have revised their prayerbooks. What matters is the individual experience. No two people, attending the same service and using the same liturgy, will have the same response. Much of this experience rests on what the participant puts into the service.

Just because one returns to an older style of worship that uses an unfamiliar language is no guarantee that people will be brought closer to God. If the Pope is offering his people a choice then perhaps it is a good thing.

During my lifetime for example, I have used three different editions of the Union Prayerbook (used in Reform Judaism). Each has a unique style and each clearly reflects the generation that produced it. Each edition has elements that I find meaningful. Each new edition increasingly uses elements in the services that are closer to traditional worship such as increased use of Hebrew. It is a guide however, not a mandate, on what will be used in a service or at home.

The answer is already clearly stated in Christian hymnody, contributed by James R. Lowell:

New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Tradition, as distinguished from truth, is important to faith only insofar as it increases the comfort level of the congregant. If the individual does not need that crutch, it can be dispensed with. In fact, it must be dispensed with if it interferes with openness to changing truth, to the continuing voice of God. Even Jesus recognized that necessity: notice how often he uses the structure, "It is written ... but I tell you ..." And note, please, that he uses that structure in discussing Scripture.

I would carry this point just a little farther. Jesus, obviously, was speaking of actually changing truth as written in the holy books. Lowell, I think, was speaking more of a refined understanding of truth, stripping away the tradition that has been injected into truth to protect one agenda or another.

Two very essential elements of tradition are required to foster the style of regressive worship embraced by the pope: ignorance and submission.

Ignorance is required to believe in the body and blood taken at the eucharist and submission is required for the laity to trust in the elevated clergy with their special abilities without any evidence to warrant such trust.

It is an extraordinary act of submission for non-arabs to recite the koran in arabic without understanding; the pope is only showing his desire to embrace even deeper synergies between islam and christianity. They share a unified theory of crowd control.

Consider the difference between those who re-enact the civil war and those who wish to reanimate the civil war with real cannons and guns. One has moved on and understands the nature and value of history, and indeed the tragi-comic properties of history; the other fails to acknowledge history and does so in order to relive the same experience, yet hope for a different outcome.

Cheers, to the second coming.

--FIUS

Thanks again, John M, for your response. I can see you've thought it through.

I suspect that most, if not all, people who pray to or through Mary also pray to Jesus, because they are Christian in the first place.

the two lane hiway.
beliveing in almighty creator god nessecieate 2way:
1-affirmation,
there is no creator save the creator,the creator is the same owner and possesor of what he created,the same sustainer and maintainer.
the creator is god and god is the creator,there is no god but the creator god ,absolute proof belong to the creator god .

2-negation,
there is no god save god,there is one god,if there is more than one god this life certainly will be runied in a minute because each god will try to over come the other god.

on the hiway to god mankind divided to 3 division:
1-those who belive in god , they do not associate no partener nor mediator none to god.
2-those who belive in god but in the same time they go thru mediators and brookers to take them to god like the so called son of god ,the mother of god the trinity of god ,the family of god ,the image of god ,the delusion of god etc etc.
3-those who disbelive in the existance of god period ,they live in this universe but no commitment to god and his word.
those who go to god thru mediator ,which is shorter and nearer? going straight to god or going thru mediator???why the meditor???
the mediator no mater how holy or sacred he still is part of the creation of god ,the word of god is applicable to all his creation ,in other word jesus as well as his mother are going on the same hiway to god like the rest of mankind ,not only that but they are looking for salvation like every body else from almighty god,its imposible for jesus and his mother to not practice what they preach ,how if god trusted jesus to carry the messeage to mankind to tell mankind worship the creator lord and in the same time tell mankind to worship jesus alone or jesus and god or his mother but not his sister or aunty but not her granma???
the meessage of jesus is clear and plain,worship the creator not the creation.
none is worthy of worship save god means i have to disbelive in other than god ,icant say i belive in god and in the same time i worship the sun beside god or god and the son of god or god and the mother of god other than the creator god is satan in many faces many delusions many images whether state of mind or rocks and stones.

This debate is so silly...take care if you go back to greek or latin, maybe Apollo/Zeus gets offended.

I did a google search: What is the origin of the Enlish word "pray" - You will gain some amazing facts. Also I read that this English word evolved in the year 1290. According to the information from the search: Shakesphere used it quite a bit.

Also, there is an author who wrote about how she discovered the truth about William Shakesphre. This author reveals that Shakesphere was a Roman Catholic in England when Catholics were persecuted. I will share her name and the title of her book when I can find it.

In other words Shakesphere used the English language and his style of writing as "code" to conceal and hide certain symbols, phrases, descriptions that were for the Catholics during their time of persecution in England. I cannot comment any more about this revealed truth about Shakesphere because I do not have the book.

Back to the origin of the words or language:

The English word "prayer" evolved to what it is today around the year 1590 according to another google search I did.

I don't remember what year the Church put the Sacred books and writings together in "The BIBLE". Anyway all of these facts regarding these two words and William Shakesphere seems new and fresh to me, however, look how long ago William Shakesphere lived and look how long ago these two words "pray" and "Prayer" evovled to what we describe and use them today.

New always becomes old or antique or ancient unless it breaks before it gets there

"Old" always becomes "new" through the ages of man who will always see it for the first time and as long as man chooses to continue discover the hidden treasures in the old,

A SEED HAS TO ALWAYS GO BACK INTO THE GROUND TO PRODUCE NEWNESS OF LIFE AGAIN AND AGAIN IN A REPETITIOUS CYCLE OF THE PROCESS AND DESIGN OF PHYSICAL LIFE IN TIME.

Words and languages evolve like people, culture and understanding of life and all of its surprizes and truths.

I want to keep my comments much shorter and I didn't expect this comment to be quite so long. I had planned to elaborate on a few comments I made before I delve a teeny bit deeper into the mystical language and meaning of Bride of Christ and Body of Christ and some other areas I mentioned in the long long long comment I made in the very early morning hours of July 16, 2007.

HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK AROUND
"Nothing" only has one part; "Everything" has many parts which causes it to be what it is. What person could ever make anything by using only "1" thing to make it.

What person can make somthing or anything from only one part of something or anything. This is imporssible.

If someone gave me or any person a piece of paper and asked that we make something out of this paper other than how it is seen. In otherwords the person wants us to make something out of this sheet of paper. Only using the sheet of paper and nothing else.

What would be the first thing we would do. We first would have to tell him we need to use our fingers and we each have ten fingers.

We would have to fold the paper and we would have to fold the paper once and one sheet of paper plus one fold is "2." And "2" is more than "1"

We would have to move our hands and moving our hands further adds to the number "1" or only one.

With language comes a culture, history and origin of meaning.

One of the titles of Jesus Christ is "The Word of God" - this means LANGUAGE OF GOD WHICH IS LANGUAGE OF LOVE that was poured out upon the state of the mind of humanity when he entered into time. to really understand a "word" one has to go into its origin, its evolution, etc.

A good example would be a person starting a brand new job within an exisiting company or corporation. The term people use nowadays is the "company or corporatte culture or climate "

The new employee is usually given a packet of information all about this company, benefits, policies, requirements, etc.

In short there is so much to learn about the company and the etiquette on the surface that it can distract you from delving into the manual of your new job description on operating this latest high tech digital software equipement and all of its requirements .

You not only have to understand, learn, operate and perform this new technological wonder, but you will be required to train new employees and turn profits for the board members and shareholders of this amazing piece of metal.

There is so much terminology and so descriptions of each segment of this MAN MADE THING that you have to memorize and make presentations in video conferences, etc. that you wonder how you will do it.

But guess what, you do it because you need to do it in order to keep your new job so you can feed and support your family and contribute to your extended family who just arrived from your country of origin to a french speaking country.

You just learned the french language one year ago, but you were determined to be successful to make a better life where your family can have more opportunities for a comfortable and profitable life.

Most of your collegues don't know that you are a native mongolian whose first language was the mongolian languaate which is actually a dialect of the Aramaic language.

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY WANT TO DO IT

For example:

WE RE ALL GIVEN OPTIONS IN LIFE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT GO WITH THEM

FOR EXAMPLE:

If a person wants to be a lawyer- there are rubrics and requirements that he must learn. He has to learn terminology, Latin, various cases - the constitution, etc. However, he has the option of what state he will obtain his J,D Law Degree. He has the option of which institution he will obtain this Law Degree - He has the option of an excelearated course of study, which instructors, which libraries he will study etc, also he might decide to hire a tutor or join a study group outside of his class or a study group composed of his class mates, etc.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE REGARDING OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS USING AN ANALOGY ABOUT THE MONA LISA - SORRY THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BACK INTO THE ARCHAIC PAST ABOUT ANOTHER OLD "ANTIQUE" MAN MADE THING

you enroll in an art class and the teacher hands out the syllabus with all the tools, requirements classroom etiquette and policies. but she has a rather interesting subject matter that she will give her students with options to choose what paint.

After a few weeks of instructions and techniques the big surprize that al lthe students have been waiting to do.

The teacher has a print of "The Mona Lisa" - the famous painting- Oops! I'm talking about an old antique priceless manmade treasure.

The teacher said the REQUIREMENT for this class is to paint "THE MONA LISA" - however, the class didn't know that the teacher was going to present TWO more paintings OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND PAINT of the Mona Lisa -

One painting was a self portrait that the Mona Lisa painted of herself when she was a teenager.

The other painting was of the Mona Lisa with her Mother when the Mona Lisa was a young child painted by the Mona Lisa's older brother who was an artist for many years, but now well known and never became famous unlike the portrait of his sister as a grown woman.

NOW I PRESENTED ALL OF THIS TO POINT OUT HOW FASCINATING AND "" THE "OLD" THE "ANTIQUE" AND EVEN MORE THE "ANCIENT" become WHEN THE "OLD" is INERJECTED INTO THE NEW
"
IN THE BIBLE THERE IS A METAPHOR USING "OLD" AND THE "NEW" - SAYING IF YOU PUT "NEW" WINE IN "OLD" WINE SKINS, THE SKINS WOULD TEAR AND ALL THE "NEW WINE WOULD SPILL OUT.

This can be looked at in different ways. One way would be to say that well there would be wine that other's would be able to partake for a while before it evaporates so they can enjoy it while it lasts, but that's not very long because the "new" always becomes old, and will losse its intial luster and will eventually become like everything else.

But at some point it will increase in value if it is kept in good condition it will increase in value evenmore.

Now if the "Old" wine is poured into "NEW" skins when this wine is preserved and then tasted as it continued to age over time it becomes even more "NEW" more priceless more of a treasure over time--Never loosing its aromas, qualities, texture, etc.

I will close this Comment by sharing with you that I live with my elderly parents they are both octagenarians (In their 80's).
I am have learned more about my parents true qualities since they are more dependent on each and and on me.

It is as if even though they are getting older and don't move as well or as much with ease as before, there is a type of innocence of "OLD" AGE and all of its set of restrictions and difficulties.

I know that despite some of the challenges,, I am a much richer and stronger person because of my experiences and real life lessons and truths I am learning about REAL LIFE - by the way the word REAL LIFE is the english translation for the word
"RELIGION.

Love

PS - don't limit your mind or your heart to only what is new and the latest trend fad, etc. HISTORY AND ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE, RACES AND CULTURE, SCIENCE, ART ETC ARE JUST A VERY SMALL segment of what LIFE can give to your Heart if you choose to remain small enough to see how beautiful and horrible and awesome are the stuff God brings out of everything he allows and everything he makes. he always brings good out of it all.

I did a google search: What is the origin of the Enlish word "pray" - You will gain some amazing facts. Also I read that this English word evolved in the year 1290. According to the information from the search: Shakesphere used it quite a bit.

Also, there is an author who wrote about how she discovered the truth about William Shakesphre. This author reveals that Shakesphere was a Roman Catholic in England when Catholics were persecuted. I will share her name and the title of her book when I can find it.

In other words Shakesphere used the English language and his style of writing as "code" to conceal and hide certain symbols, phrases, descriptions that were for the Catholics during their time of persecution in England. I cannot comment any more about this revealed truth about Shakesphere because I do not have the book.

Back to the origin of the words or language:

The English word "prayer" evolved to what it is today around the year 1590 according to another google search I did.

I don't remember what year the Church put the Sacred books and writings together in "The BIBLE". Anyway all of these facts regarding these two words and William Shakesphere seems new and fresh to me, however, look how long ago William Shakesphere lived and look how long ago these two words "pray" and "Prayer" evovled to what we describe and use them today.

New always becomes old or antique or ancient unless it breaks before it gets there

"Old" always becomes "new" through the ages of man who will always see it for the first time and as long as man chooses to continue discover the hidden treasures in the old,

A SEED HAS TO ALWAYS GO BACK INTO THE GROUND TO PRODUCE NEWNESS OF LIFE AGAIN AND AGAIN IN A REPETITIOUS CYCLE OF THE PROCESS AND DESIGN OF PHYSICAL LIFE IN TIME.

Words and languages evolve like people, culture and understanding of life and all of its surprizes and truths.

I want to keep my comments much shorter and I didn't expect this comment to be quite so long. I had planned to elaborate on a few comments I made before I delve a teeny bit deeper into the mystical language and meaning of Bride of Christ and Body of Christ and some other areas I mentioned in the long long long comment I made in the very early morning hours of July 16, 2007.

HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK AROUND
"Nothing" only has one part; "Everything" has many parts which causes it to be what it is. What person could ever make anything by using only "1" thing to make it.

What person can make somthing or anything from only one part of something or anything. This is imporssible.

If someone gave me or any person a piece of paper and asked that we make something out of this paper other than how it is seen. In otherwords the person wants us to make something out of this sheet of paper. Only using the sheet of paper and nothing else.

What would be the first thing we would do. We first would have to tell him we need to use our fingers and we each have ten fingers.

We would have to fold the paper and we would have to fold the paper once and one sheet of paper plus one fold is "2." And "2" is more than "1"

We would have to move our hands and moving our hands further adds to the number "1" or only one.

With language comes a culture, history and origin of meaning.

One of the titles of Jesus Christ is "The Word of God" - this means LANGUAGE OF GOD WHICH IS LANGUAGE OF LOVE that was poured out upon the state of the mind of humanity when he entered into time. to really understand a "word" one has to go into its origin, its evolution, etc.

A good example would be a person starting a brand new job within an exisiting company or corporation. The term people use nowadays is the "company or corporatte culture or climate "

The new employee is usually given a packet of information all about this company, benefits, policies, requirements, etc.

In short there is so much to learn about the company and the etiquette on the surface that it can distract you from delving into the manual of your new job description on operating this latest high tech digital software equipement and all of its requirements .

You not only have to understand, learn, operate and perform this new technological wonder, but you will be required to train new employees and turn profits for the board members and shareholders of this amazing piece of metal.

There is so much terminology and so descriptions of each segment of this MAN MADE THING that you have to memorize and make presentations in video conferences, etc. that you wonder how you will do it.

But guess what, you do it because you need to do it in order to keep your new job so you can feed and support your family and contribute to your extended family who just arrived from your country of origin to a french speaking country.

You just learned the french language one year ago, but you were determined to be successful to make a better life where your family can have more opportunities for a comfortable and profitable life.

Most of your collegues don't know that you are a native mongolian whose first language was the mongolian languaate which is actually a dialect of the Aramaic language.

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO DO IT

JUST BECAUSE A PERSON CAN DO SOMETHING - DOESN'T MEAN THEY WANT TO DO IT

For example:

WE RE ALL GIVEN OPTIONS IN LIFE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT GO WITH THEM

FOR EXAMPLE:

If a person wants to be a lawyer- there are rubrics and requirements that he must learn. He has to learn terminology, Latin, various cases - the constitution, etc. However, he has the option of what state he will obtain his J,D Law Degree. He has the option of which institution he will obtain this Law Degree - He has the option of an excelearated course of study, which instructors, which libraries he will study etc, also he might decide to hire a tutor or join a study group outside of his class or a study group composed of his class mates, etc.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE REGARDING OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS USING AN ANALOGY ABOUT THE MONA LISA - SORRY THIS IS ANOTHER STEP BACK INTO THE ARCHAIC PAST ABOUT ANOTHER OLD "ANTIQUE" MAN MADE THING

you enroll in an art class and the teacher hands out the syllabus with all the tools, requirements classroom etiquette and policies. but she has a rather interesting subject matter that she will give her students with options to choose what paint.

After a few weeks of instructions and techniques the big surprize that al lthe students have been waiting to do.

The teacher has a print of "The Mona Lisa" - the famous painting- Oops! I'm talking about an old antique priceless manmade treasure.

The teacher said the REQUIREMENT for this class is to paint "THE MONA LISA" - however, the class didn't know that the teacher was going to present TWO more paintings OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND PAINT of the Mona Lisa -

One painting was a self portrait that the Mona Lisa painted of herself when she was a teenager.

The other painting was of the Mona Lisa with her Mother when the Mona Lisa was a young child painted by the Mona Lisa's older brother who was an artist for many years, but now well known and never became famous unlike the portrait of his sister as a grown woman.

NOW I PRESENTED ALL OF THIS TO POINT OUT HOW FASCINATING AND "" THE "OLD" THE "ANTIQUE" AND EVEN MORE THE "ANCIENT" become WHEN THE "OLD" is INERJECTED INTO THE NEW
"
IN THE BIBLE THERE IS A METAPHOR USING "OLD" AND THE "NEW" - SAYING IF YOU PUT "NEW" WINE IN "OLD" WINE SKINS, THE SKINS WOULD TEAR AND ALL THE "NEW WINE WOULD SPILL OUT.

This can be looked at in different ways. One way would be to say that well there would be wine that other's would be able to partake for a while before it evaporates so they can enjoy it while it lasts, but that's not very long because the "new" always becomes old, and will losse its intial luster and will eventually become like everything else.

But at some point it will increase in value if it is kept in good condition it will increase in value evenmore.

Now if the "Old" wine is poured into "NEW" skins when this wine is preserved and then tasted as it continued to age over time it becomes even more "NEW" more priceless more of a treasure over time--Never loosing its aromas, qualities, texture, etc.

I will close this Comment by sharing with you that I live with my elderly parents they are both octagenarians (In their 80's).
I am have learned more about my parents true qualities since they are more dependent on each and and on me.

It is as if even though they are getting older and don't move as well or as much with ease as before, there is a type of innocence of "OLD" AGE and all of its set of restrictions and difficulties.

I know that despite some of the challenges,, I am a much richer and stronger person because of my experiences and real life lessons and truths I am learning about REAL LIFE - by the way the word REAL LIFE is the english translation for the word
"RELIGION.

Love

PS - don't limit your mind or your heart to only what is new and the latest trend fad, etc. HISTORY AND ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE, RACES AND CULTURE, SCIENCE, ART ETC ARE JUST A VERY SMALL segment of what LIFE can give to your Heart if you choose to remain small enough to see how beautiful and horrible and awesome are the stuff God brings out of everything he allows and everything he makes. he always brings good out of it all.

I believe it has always been the king and queen. Jesus was the king Mary Magdalene was the queen. Jesus just died too soon to realize it. And I think they will never come back.

E Favorite:

You asked if I think Jesus punishes people who pray to his mother.

I'm not sure how to answer. I don't think of God that way. I don't see Him waiting around the corner to punish us when we slip up. Biblically, we are told that we have ALREADY fallen short of what God created us to do: live our lives with Him. As a result, we are all on our way to eternal separation from God. (That's ALL of us.)

John 3:18 comes to mind:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

So, if someone does not accept Christ and robs a bank, will they receive extra punishment for robbing the bank? No. If someone who refuses to know Jesus makes statue of a squirrel and worships that, will they be punished specifically for praying to a rodent? No. We are all ALREADY condemned UNTIL we accept Christ's sacrifice for us on the Cross. That's what the Bible says.

So, I have to give two answers to your question. For people who do not truly know and follow Christ, praying to Mary or anyone other than God does not change the fact that they do not know Jesus. Jesus Himself said they will perish because they don't know Him. For people who DO know and follow Jesus, I am sure the Holy Spirit would lead to them to the Truth (as Jesus promised us) and He would speak to them about their faulty practice of praying to anyone other than Him.

Come to think of it, God does that for all Christians for all of their sins. I am not an exception. As I venture further into Him, He progressively lets me know what parts of my life have to change.

To E Favorite from Daniel. You are being dishonest. We will take it from the top--and again and again. As for me being a man of straw arguments (as you put it. Whoops! I should have said straw-man argument, right? Have to satisfy your quibbling...)just check through all my posts here on on faith going back into the past. I think I have a pretty good record of really trying to think through questions put. I try my best to put absolutely no spin or anything on a question and try to honestly answer to the best of my intellectual ability. What I find most disatisfying about our discussion is that obviously you have so little imagination or consideration that you could not even observe that my argument was worthy even as a piece of philosophical fiction--as if there was no Gerson or Hitchens making an argument.

But let us begin with Hitchens and Gerson over again. And this time, to satisfy you, will take Hitchens' exact challenge to Gerson. You no doubt know it, so I will not state it in its entirety. The challenge: essentially for a believer to state something ethical or demonstrate an ethical act that an atheist cannot do. Hitchens adds that virtually anyone can name an evil act that a religious person has done. Essentially Hitchens, as we can observe, right off does not subscribe to your notion of "thinking outside the Christian box" (your words) because he implies that an atheist can match any goodness a religious person proffers while being obviously removed of the evil done by religion. Essentially he posits atheism in some sort of airy realm--quite removed from evil.

Now I will simply state an answer to his challenge: a believer no matter how evil at least has the notion of absolute good derived from a creator while an atheist has no such notion--whether a creator or absolute good. You can quibble all you want whether this is an "ethical statement" (as you took me to task) but I think if you ask around you will find that this is not only an ethical statement, but the very foundation of ethics. A creator is not necessary to a notion of absolute goodness (Buddhism a case in point) but virtually every ethical system so far (I allow for the possibility of one to the contrary) has depended on a notion of absolute good humans can aim at.

Atheists have no such notion--cannot have such a notion unless either A) demonstrating it as scientific fact or B) choosing to believe in such a thing and that once more is to enter the realm of having faith because one hopes in and aims for such a thing. I flat out warn you, E Favorite, that this is no simple game--we are talking about thousands of years of religion and philosophy.

I strongly object to your notions of "just wishing more atheists would "come out" so people can see how nice we are" as if atheism is some sort of wonderful human urge simply being repressed by religion and if more would just "come out" we would have some sort of happy atheist land.

Being an atheist is to first deny a creator, and by denying a creator one fully enters the ambiguity of existence with its difficult to determine good and evil (no clear direction toward the good or evil and difference between the two) and a person must become extremely philosophical and discerning--essentially all falling on the human and people having to constantly question and reorient themselves as to good and evil. I am not saying this is impossible, but we had better be totally honest about it. Atheism truly understood is no walk in the park. We are talking about the human race faced with having to constantly reorient itself down through the ages--man living by his own hands and mind without God and no easy answer to good and evil as in past religions. YOU SEE, RELIGIONS MADE GOOD AND EVIL QUITE EASY TO UNDERSTAND FOR MAN, AND THAT IS BOTH THEIR VALUE AND WHAT PEOPLE OBJECT ABOUT THEM. IF WE ELIMINATE RELIGION AND CONCEPTIONS OF ABSOLUTE EVIL AND GOODNESS, THEN WE ARE FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN GOOD AND EVIL, BUT WE ARE ALSO CONDEMNED TO CONSTANT UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHICH IS WHICH. IT MIGHT SEEM AT FIRST PREFERABLE TO OVERCOME RELIGION--ESPECIALLY IF ONE IF CONSIDERED EVIL ACCORDING TO A SYSTEM OF GOOD AND EVIL--FOR EXAMPLE IF ONE IS A HOMOSEXUAL--BUT IN THROWING OUT RELIGION AND NOTIONS OF GOOD AND EVIL WE ONLY ARRIVE AT CONSTANTLY HAVING TO CREATE HUMAN SYSTEMS OF SUCH (AND MANY WILL SAY RELIGION WAS PRECISELY THAT ALL ALONG) AND THAT WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE EASY.

My objections to you--and Hitchens--simply stated, is that the both of you put the preponderance of evil on religion and posit atheism as the answer to overcoming evil. Hitchens flat out assumes Gerson can think of nothing good a believer can do that an atheist cannot do--and also believes anyone can think of something evil a religious person has done. You seem to take the same tack with your notion of innate goodness in humans. The fact is we live in an ambiguous world and if we do not posit a creator and absolute goodness this does not mean we are free of having to constantly conceptualize on good and evil--on the contrary: we have to think all the harder as to our actions and it would be nice to have some sort of faith in absolute goodness (without necessarily emanating from a creator) or we are likely to just become nihilistic and give up as to life.

I hope my reflections have been relatively clear and I implore you to just think about what has been said. Far from making straw man arguments I sincerely wish science could speed ahead so the instant someone makes an argument the full life of the person will be available for public appraisal as to origin and validity etc. of argument. I have stated often enough here on this forum--and elsewhere that I am a high-school drop-out--no education worth speaking of--and that I suffer from mental illness and that I like to read and write and have been doing so for years...I think we really should know details about posters lives to get at the essence of viewpoints--why people say the things they do. I for one am sick of all the phoniness and spin and hiding and so much more on the internet. And this I suppose is the innate goodness of man you speak of!

Have a nice day E Favorite. May you seriously reflect on the concept of atheism.

Victoria:
It kind of reminds me of when I was in high school and Patti LaBelle's "Lady Marmalade" was on the pop charts. Half the kids in my school had no idea that the song was about a prostitute, and walked around school singing, "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?" Since I spoke some French, I felt opbligated to tell them what it meant - they were amazed to find out that they were singing "Do you want to take me to bed?"

According to Pope Ben, if you're not catholic you can't get to heaven. Is that the message of the mass?

Say it in latin or say it in english, it's still dogmatic pomposity. Brought to you by man, not by any god. A man with an agenda more associated with temporal power and control than divine revelation.

butterfly lover- yup- what is the point of releasing energy of sound vibrations inot the cosmos with no clue as to what youre releasing?

it is unconscious in the extreme, and denigrates us humans into mindless drones.

worship or connection with the god(dess) has to be a conscious effort

Anon:

Whether or not God listens to chanting was not my point.

My point was that the instructors (equivalent of Protestant pastors or Catholic priests) made a great effort to preserve both the language in which the prayers were originally written, while at the same time making sure that everyone present was able to actually understand them and place them in meaningful context, rather than simply having everyone imitate the sounds they made without knowiung what they were really saying.

If you are following the true path, you can only say what God wants you to say. And it is a personal relationship. no one has full access to the information God gives to you unless God wishes. And if God Wishes to let you say anything and experience anything it is for the benifit of others, so they may believe.

God doesn't really listen to those chants. God listens to your inner most thoughts. Language does not matter!!!!!

Victoria: **you say that the latin mass will create a unity.

but people dont speak or understand latin.

and there is no instruction in the church to make them understand it.

the homilies will stay in the spoken language of the congregation, which is where the actual learning and catechism takes place.**

Very intersting, especially in light of how I spent the past weekend. My husband practices Sukyo Mahikari. I have incorporated many elements of this practice into my own eclectic Pagan path. We spent the weekend at the dojo helping out with a three-day seminar.

The practice originated in Japan, and the major prayers are chanted in Japanese. Not because they believe that God prefers Japanese, but because the poetry flows better in the language in which it was written. I won't go into detail about the theology here, because it isn't relevant to my point.

The instructor was American, and the course was given in English, with simultaneous Spanish translation for the handful of people there who spoke only Spanish. So everyone got instruction/explanantion in the language they understood best.

The English version of the prayer book contains the prayers written in Japanese ideograms, then in phonetic Japanese, then in English. (Versions in other languages are similarly arranged). When the instructor talked about certain key concepts, he would call them by their Japanese names, then break the Japanese names down into their component syllables, explain the meanings of those syllables, THEN break the ideogram for them down into its component strokes, explaining what each stroke of the character represented, and how they combined to create meaning.

Were it not for that aspect of it, there is no way that I would be chanting syllables of a language I did not speak, not knowing what those sounds meant. Even though I don't speak Japanese, the detail of the explanation allowed those sounds which would otherwise have only been pleasant rhythmic vibrations to have meaning.

It doesn't matter who you pray to, they are of one mind.

Mary was part of the Trio Jesus was talking about, but He was protecting Her from Evil.

TLD- your earnestly expressed column WAS a little long, but worth the trouble.

well, first of all, an option cannot be required.
then it becomes mandatory and ceases to be a choice but its no big deal.

alot of your column dealt with noise and ditraction in church, which is certainly a point well taken, as well as your repeated calls to return to the message of love.

but in your post it started to get confusing for this reason.

you say that the latin mass will create a unity.

but people dont speak or understand latin.

and there is no instruction in the church to make them understand it.

the homilies will stay in the spoken language of the congregation, which is where the actual learning and catechism takes place.

in the past, the incoherence of the latin drove people to show up for the celebration of the eucharist, and leave as soon as they got it.

also, there are already brides of christ in the church, they are called nuns.

you are creating a rather strange relationship claiming Mary(pbuh) as the embodiment of mother church has a marital relation with her son.

well, here is the hail mary

HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE THE LORD IS WITH THEE
BLESSED ART THOU AMONGST WOMEN AND
BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF THY WOMB, JESUS.

HOLY MARY, MOTHER OF GOD-
PRAY FOR US SINNERS, NOW, AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.

this is clearly an intercessory prayer.

how can you hail Mary(ata) in greeting, and then say you are not addressing your prayer to HER, but ABOUT her son?

Jesus(ata) is only peripherally mentioned as the blessed fruit of her womb.

how can you ask for her direct intercession now and at the hour of your death, without praying TO her?

but this is all side issues.

finally, and i hope you dont find me too confrontational, but you have stated the latin mass will create unity among catholics.

that is a bold statement which we are discussing.
could you elaborate simply on HOW this would create unity in a practical sense?

pax vobiscum

TLD
You have made some very important points but your post is very long. Could you give it to us again in smaller pieces? I think what you have to say is important for everyone here to consider but in this form it is hard to read. I had to print it out to be able to get it.
Everyone, try to read TLD's comment in small sections at a time. He or she is not ranting but is making a series of relevant points that add up to a real description of (1) what Catholics stand for, and (2) what is going wrong in many parishes.

makes sense to me!

Victoria
I've never felt that I was praying to Mary, only that I was praying with Mary. I was not raised as a Catholic, so the intercessory role of Mary and saints never really made sense to me in the old fashioned Catholic sense. I don't think anyone ever meant to leave the Allah out of the loop, it just became a cultural habit.
If you don't mind the analogy, it seems that you are able to experience continuing revelation in your Muslim practices, partly because you never developed knee-jerk, unthinking habits but you look for (and find) the real spiritual connection. I think that is probably my approach to being Catholic. Neither of us sees faith as a cultural requirement, but as a relationship with the Almighty on His (and Her) terms.

these questions are just for my own clarification -i recognize in your and viejita's statements, sentiments i expressed myself in the past. i also recognize in both of you a deep desire to worship god in a pure and clear way.

john- when you say you pray to god alone, does that mean God AND Jesus(ata)?

viejita- possibly i havent said this, but i respect your opinion.

so i hope you take this in the mild spirit its intended.

are you saying you DONT pray to Mary(ata)?

when i was in the legion of mary, the most basic and seminal promise made was to say 3 sets of the rosaries every day.

thats about 45 minutes of hail marys and hail holy queens! thats alot of prayer to mary!

as a side because its relevant- when i became muslim i was very surprised to find out who the most revered woman is to muslims.

i assumed it would be the first wife of the Prophet(pbuh) or his mother maybe, or one of the many women mentioned.

the most revered woman in islam is Mary(ata) the mother of Jesus(ata).
there is a whole book devoted to her in the qu'ran.
(i was a very marian catholic) this was a joyous discovery for me.

peace and pax vobiscum

OK Daniel, that’s it for me. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone who says I’m being dishonest. Hopefully people reading through this discussion will reach their own less derogatory conclusions about my comments, even if they disagree with them.

John M – thanks very much for the response. One other thing, do you think Jesus punishes people who pray to his mother?

E Favorite:

I think it's wrong to pray to anyone but God. He is God, after all, and He is able to hear me and help me. As I wrote in my post, in order to hear and answer my prayer, any other being would have to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Those qualities only belong to God.

God has made great promises to me if I will turn to Him fully and trust Him fully and love Him fully. There is no room or need for prayer to anyone else.

So, I guess I have two reasons for not praying to Mary, or any other saint. The first reason is practical: no one else can hear me or help me. The second reason is devotional: If I am going to give myself to the Lord, I have to depend on Him, and Him alone.

I hope that helps.

Mary,

You said, "Jesus also told Mary " these are your children" what do you think that means?"

When did He say that?

To E Favorite from Daniel. Your argument is flat out dishonest. All the quibbling about distinctions between ethical statements, etc. The main point is a believer believes in absolute goodness and an atheist--if he goes by scientific evidence--no source of such goodness in mind whether you want to call it God or not. And that qualifies as an ethical statement although I suppose you prefer to twist logic. An atheist simply cannot state a notion of absolute goodness--that was derived from precisely religious belief and its hope in such a source. An atheist in fact rejects God and such an absolute source of goodness. The atheist is left trying to be good in an essentially unknown, quite flawed universe. And that my friend can only be a terrible struggle down through the centuries, down through the unknown trying to keep man alive for...well perhaps you can tell me the purpose. Once again, I am not against atheism as you might imagine, but you had better be honest about it. I find your notion of atheism quite odd, quite naive--a world without God and man easily good and no real problem just going down through the centuries. Walk in a park atheism....

To E Favorite from Daniel. Your argument is flat out dishonest. All the quibbling about distinctions between ethical statements, etc. The main point is a believer believes in absolute goodness and an atheist--if he goes by scientific evidence--no source of such goodness in mind whether you want to call it God or not. And that qualifies as an ethical statement although I suppose you prefer to twist logic. An atheist simply cannot state a notion of absolute goodness--that was derived from precisely religious belief and its hope in such a source. An atheist in fact rejects God and such an absolute source of goodness. The atheist is left trying to be good in an essentially unknown, quite flawed universe. And that my friend can only be a terrible struggle down through the centuries, down through the unknown trying to keep man alive for...well perhaps you can tell me the purpose. Once again, I am not against atheism as you might imagine, but you had better be honest about it. I find your notion of atheism quite odd, quite naive--a world without God and man easily good and no real problem just going down through the centuries. Walk in a park atheism....

To E Favorite from Daniel. Your argument is flat out dishonest. All the quibbling about distinctions between ethical statements, etc. The main point is a believer believes in absolute goodness and an atheist--if he goes by scientific evidence--no source of such goodness in mind whether you want to call it God or not. And that qualifies as an ethical statement although I suppose you prefer to twist logic. An atheist simply cannot state a notion of absolute goodness--that was derived from precisely religious belief and its hope in such a source. An atheist in fact rejects God and such an absolute source of goodness. The atheist is left trying to be good in an essentially unknown, quite flawed universe. And that my friend can only be a terrible struggle down through the centuries, down through the unknown trying to keep man alive for...well perhaps you can tell me the purpose. Once again, I am not against atheism as you might imagine, but you had better be honest about it. I find your notion of atheism quite odd, quite naive--a world without God and man easily good and no real problem just going down through the centuries. Walk in a park atheism....

To E Favorite from Daniel. Your argument is flat out dishonest. All the quibbling about distinctions between ethical statements, etc. The main point is a believer believes in absolute goodness and an atheist--if he goes by scientific evidence--no source of such goodness in mind whether you want to call it God or not. And that qualifies as an ethical statement although I suppose you prefer to twist logic. An atheist simply cannot state a notion of absolute goodness--that was derived from precisely religious belief and its hope in such a source. An atheist in fact rejects God and such an absolute source of goodness. The atheist is left trying to be good in an essentially unknown, quite flawed universe. And that my friend can only be a terrible struggle down through the centuries, down through the unknown trying to keep man alive for...well perhaps you can tell me the purpose. Once again, I am not against atheism as you might imagine, but you had better be honest about it. I find your notion of atheism quite odd, quite naive--a world without God and man easily good and no real problem just going down through the centuries. Walk in a park atheism....

John,

Jesus also told Mary " these are your children" what do you think that means?

God understands all languages so much that He actually needs no language. The only language is a pure, sincere loving heart. It is the sweetest language as far as God and most of HIS Creation is concerned. The rest is man-made.

OUR VERY KIND AND LOVING HOLY FATHER IS NOT REPLACING THE WAY WE PARTICIPATE IN HOLY MASS NOW WITH THE LATIN RITE MASS ; he is only making it A REQUIRED OPTION THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE for catholics who miss the very very reverent latin rite.

AGAIN, He NEVER SAID HE WILL NOT ALLOW MASS IN ALL LANGUAGES. IN OTHER WORDS HE IS not taking away our regular ordinary HOLY Mass that parishes celebrate NOWADAYS. He is only ADDING the Extraordinary HOLY Mass of the Latin Rite in hopes to bring about more reverence and unity of WHO WE ARE WORSHIPPING. IT'S ABOUT LOVE - PLEASE DON'T FORGET LOVE.

To give an example: Some Parrishes in Los Angeles have so many cliques and ways of doing things at Liturgy it's as if they are communicating to The Lord and to the Congregation that:

We're here now doing things our way because we are close to the pastor and because we do alot of volunteer work for the pastor because he needs us with such a shortage of priests he let's us do this and do that, and Lord it's good you are also here too, but could you just move out of the way while we do things our way. Maybe you can sit over there on the side or maybe you can just disappear for a while until we call you kind of attitude. This is a very dangerous. HE IS ABOUT LOVE DON'T TO FORGET LOVE.

Many parrishes now reflect a particular style and culture over the sense of unity that we are all the same in the body of the Lord. HE IS ABOUT LOVE--DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

KEEP IN MIND AND REMEMBER our Holy Father is not eliminating the way catholics are worshipping nowadays.

He is just adding the ANCIENT Way to worship our Lord at The Extraordinary Mass which will instill in people ADORATION, AWE and REVERENCE that we are really in heaven at HOLY MASS and DO WE REALLY appreciate GOD'S PERSONAL GIFT OF HIMSELF which is the Highest form of worship in the World that God himself has given us His PERSONAL MISSION TO OFFER HIS SON BACK TO HIM? ARE CATHOLICS BEING REMINDED OF THESE TRUTHS OF OUR FAITH? HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

THIS MEANS HIS SON OUR LORD WHO SACRIFICED EVERY DROP OF HIS BLOOD FROM HIS MOST SACRED HEART IS PRAYING AND INTERCEDING FOR THE WORLD TO HIS HEAVENLY FATHR FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE UNIVERSE AT HOLY MASS WHETHER IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY HOLY MASS OR AN ORDINARY HOLY MASS THAT IS WHAT THE GREEK WORD CATHOLIC MEANS: UNIVERSAL. The Key word here is "HOLY" BUT REMEMBER: HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

Many young people and adults will be able to refocus and appreciate with gratitude such a beautiful gift to express as they give themselves to God without the usual distractions and excesses that have crept into Our LITURGY which do not foster or invoke Peace and Love because the attention shifts too much away from Our Lord --Too much movement going on instead of focusing on and pointing to Our Lord present in his BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY. HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE.

In our Hollywood culture and court room throughout this country: We seem to have more reverence and silence when a game show contestant is trying to get a right answer or win a prize when the host asks people to be quiet or the contestant might get distracted and loose what he is focusing on.

Also in any given court room, just try to make excessive movements, tell too many jokes and distract attention away from a court case, in this country you could go to jail for that.

So why do we think it's okay to be respectful non distracting and respectively quiet on a game show to take attention away from the contestant or inside a court room to take attention away from who is ever speaking, but not in God House of Worship - Is Too much movement and distraction in God's House in this country not as important as a gameshow , courtroom. Even on a movie set or in a newsroom.

Are American Catholics aware that any other movement than what is written down on the script is forbidden, talking on the set, or any other practice that might distract attention away from what is going into the camera lens can get one kicked off the set if they do it too many times.

Many individual groups of people and apostolates (relgious groups) give many catholics the sense of not fitting in when they come into the church and are there to worship God in His Body Blood Soul and Divinity. It's ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

There is too much attention AWAY FROM THE BLESSED SACRAMENT and what JESUS DID FOR US ON THE CROSS BY HIS SACRIFICE. Catholics need to be reminded of this at every Mass not just at the TRIDUUM. There seems to be a focu more on the people that are coming into the church instead of the purpose of The Holy Mass which is invoke the worshipers attention to Our Lord In The Blessed Sacrament. No usher ever points people or reminds them to spend some time adoring our Lord in the Tabernacle or pointing to Him in the Tabernacle or making comment about Him in the Tabernacle. Usher's never remind Catholics leaving to not forget to spend time with our Lord or make extra time to personally thank him as he is PERSONALLY THANKING GOD FOR US WHEN HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY ARE MAKING REPARATION FOR US AT EVERY CONSECRATION OF THE HOLY MASS.

We need this Required option of the Latin Rite Mass to be made available to Catholic Christians especially here in Los Angeles and America because there is no room to try to outshine The Lord DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - IT'S ABOUT LOVE.

We need our pastors and priests to teach us and catechize us in our Catholic Faith at Mass because so many adults and children need instruction in there faith when they come into Mass. FOR SOME REASON AFTER CATHESIM CLASS OF FIRST HOLY COMMUNION AND CONFIRMATION, ETC, CATHOLICS ARE NOT CONTINUALLY CATECHIZED AT MASS. They do not need to have an entertaining Mass replace a HOLY CATECHIZING MASS. IT'S ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE

We have Halls on the chruch property when they want to entertain and be entertained. Or when they want to have programs outside of HOLY MASS please do them in a HALL. THE CHURCH SHould ONLY be for HOLY MASS, WORSHIP OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR< PRAYER SERVICES and DEVOTIONS CENTERED ON THE LORD. ETC.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE HIM- HE'S ABOUT THE LOVE.

Many catholics fall away from there faith because there needs to be catechesis in the HOMILY along with the Biblical interpretation of the readings and nothing else. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ABOUT LOVE

Right before the end of Mass we have announcemnts which include what is going on at the parishes.

There is such richness of doctrines and truths in the Catholic TRADITIONS AND THE CATECHISM that is so beautiful that if instructed and explained to catholics coming to Mass--They would be so struck with awe and wonder they would radiate this LOVE out to others outside of Mass and after Mass. THEY would learn BETTER the true meaning of Love AND GOD'S CREATION COULD FINALLY EXHALE AND SAY - i think they got it! Now they are truly Christ's witnesses in a world that really needs TRUE TRUE LOVE.

The only person that shines out on all to worship Him is The Lord during a Latin Rite HOLY Mass. And It is all about LOVE LOVE LOVE only LOVE and Adoration of Him who Loves everybody despite race, color, culture, language, relgious group or religious denomination or religious belief because God created everyone.

However, there will have to be much deeper instructions and much deeper catechesis on the meaning of HOLY MASS to help foster and invoke total participation in The Holy Mass. Because if people don't understand they loose interests because they do not know what anything really means for them and what is happening on the altar and how they are apart of what is happening on the Altar. If they are not instructed, they will say this is boring not knowing they have just insulted HEAVEN.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE IS ALL ABOUT LOVE

But like I said earlier we need more instruction and catechesis at the ORDINARY Holy Mass that we are all participating in now as well as with the Extraordinary Holy Mass of the Latin Rite. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE HIM - HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE

Nowadays some Catholic parishes in the city of Los Angeles and parrishes across America have a buffet of styles with a cultural focus because the Mass is shared in many different languages. This is emphasized in music whether, rock, jazz, classical, R&B, folk. This is good because it reflects the Catholicity which means Universality, but it doesn't reflect unity. It reflects preference, style, and categorizes groups, youth, elderly, young adult, children. Children and youth need to be with there families because the family that prays together stays together.

When you start breaking the family into categories for Holy Mass you are defeating the purpose of UNITY at It's Core - THE EXtraordinary LATIN RITE OF MASS AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATES GROUP DISTINCTION BECAUSE WE ARE ALL THERE IN ALL AGES, GROUPS ETC FOR ONE REASON - THE LORD IN HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY.

AGAIN, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON JESUS YOU HAVE AUTOMATIC UNITY. IF WE JUST UTILIZE WHAT HOLY MOTHER CHURCH ALREADY HAS WE CAN STOP ALL THIS WASTEFUL TIME AND MONEY ON THE EMPHASIS OF SEPARATING PEOPLE BY AGE SPLITTING THE FAMILY UNIT AND CATEGORIZING THEM TO PARTAKE OF HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINTIY AND WORSHIP AND ADORE OUR EUCHARISTIC LORD. PARENTS NEED TO BE A PART OF THEIR CHILDREN AND TEENS GROWTH AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR THEM TO SEE THAT THEIR FAITH HAS TAKEN ROOT BY THE GRACE OF GOD.

TO CONTINUE TO CATEGORIZE AND SEPARATE INTO YOUTH, ELDERY, WHITE, BLACK, HISPANIC, ETC. IS DISPORTIONATELY DISTRACTING, RESTRICTIVE AND IT DOESN'T KEEP CATHOLICS FROM FALLING AWAY FROM PRACTICING THERE FAITH.

I BELEIVE THESE ARE SOME OF THE CAUSES FOR THEM ACTUALLY FALLING AWAY FROM THEIR FAITH TO THE NEAREST COOL CHURCH PROGRAM DOWN THE STREET.

ALL THIS CATHOLIC PARRISH CATEGORIZING AND PRIMPING AND PREENING TO WHAT SOMEONE WILL ENJOY IS CRIPPLING THE GROWTH OF FAITH INSIDE OF EACH HEART.

HOW? BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS WILL BE SPENDING THERE TIME PREPARING WAYS TO REACH OUT TO A PERSON BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE NOT WHO THEY ARE -AND WHO ARE THEY - THE BODY OF CHRIST - CHILDREN OF GOD.
DON'T FORGET THE LOVE - HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE!

GOING TO MASS AT SOME CATHOLIC PARISHES IN LOS ANGELES IS more like a concert WITH NO KNEELING TIME AND IT IS HARD TO HEAR INNER PRAYER OF YOUR HEART. This is okay because some people have to be lifted up in their Spirit with alot of MUSIC.

However, we also need to bring back the REQUIRED OPTION of having the beautiful reverent EXTRAORDINARY Latin Rite available to us to remind us who we are because it will allow Catholics to better see, hear and touch and learn from--JESUS CHRIST in His Eucharistic Substance because How HOLY MASS is emphasized and presented to God . The focus is More "Christ centered" and less "what is going on around you centered."DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ALL LOVE AND JUSTICE

The most important thing to remember is that The Holy Mass offered is also bringing the Divine Sacred Holy vaults of heaven to earth with all the angels and saints present around our Lord at The Altar. HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE

Every Mass is Holy in any style, culture, languge, music etc. but IN SOME AMERICAN CATHOLIC PARISHES, BECAUSE OF LACK OF ONGOING CATECHESIS, THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL DON'T REALIZE WHAT PERSONAL AND UNIVERSAL GIFT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY MASS BECAUSE our actions, predjudices, bias, preferences, actions and attitudes, music, dress HAS IN SOME CHURCHES REPLACED RESPECT REVERANCE AND HONOR AND GRATITUDE FOR THE HIGHEST DIVINE GIFT IN THE WORLD - THE BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST (THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.

WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE SO MANY PARRISHES PLACED OUR LORD'S BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINTY TO THE SIDE OR THE BACK OF THE CHURCH)

THIS EXTERNAL DECSION TELLS CATHOLICS THAT NOW OUR LORD IN THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT DOES NOT HOLD THE CENTER AND CENTRAL PROMINANCE LIKE HE USE TO BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH GOING ON NOW INSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND DURING LITURGY THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE GIVEN THE RESPECT HE DESERVES SO WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE HIM TO THE BACK OR TO THE SIDE SO HE WON'T BE DISRESPECTED BY KEEPING HIM IN THE CENTER OF THE CHURCH WHERE HE USE TO HAVE THE CENTRAL PROMINENT POSITION INSIDE OUR CHURCHES IN THE OLD DAYS.

IN OTHERWORDS, TOO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CHURCH WOULD MAKE IT LOOK AS IF WE WERE IGNORING JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PRAY AND ADORE HIM WOULD BE DISTRACTED BY THE DIFFRENT ACTIVITIES WE DO INSIDE OF THE CHURCH NOWADAYS.

The Catholic Church is experiencing a lack of unity among all the various groups of races, music, people, Now that we will have the option of the LATIN RITE MASS to attend this will restore remind catholics that we are TRULY ONE UNIVERSAL which translates to: CATHOLIC PEOPLE despite skin color, language, culture, race and music preference. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ABOUT LOVE

Every catholic church has a hall which would be a great place to have fund raisers by encouraging the different groups to have music concerts of all the beautiful array of races, cultures languages and styles.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE BECAUSE HE IS LOVE

THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. WE KNOW THAT CHRIST SUFFERED AND WHEN HE DIED HE DESTROYED DEATH AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF HE DIDN'T DIE AND DESTROY IT.

NOW IT IS GONE --IT IS A SHADOW THAT WE PASS THROUGH. WE NO LONGER GO TO DEATH BECAUSE JESUS DESTROYED IT--HE BLEW A HOLE RIGHT THROUGH IT AND NOT WE JUST HAVE TO GO THROUH IT.

HOWEVER, HOW WE DIE IS STILL PAIN AND SUFFERING --SOME PEOPLE DO DIE IN THERE SLEEP BUT I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUFFERED A LONG ILLNESS.

OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET ACTUALLY DIED LAUGHING, BUT I THINK SHE HAD A LONG ILLNESS AS WELL.

HOLY MOTHER CHURCH IS MADE UP OF HER CHILDREN WHOO LIKE THEIR BRIDEGROOM WENT THROUGH RIPPING TEARING APART OF THEIR BODY AND THEIR BLOOD AS DID JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS WHICH IS WHAT IS RE-PRESENTED WHEN THE PRIEST LIFTS THE CHALICE AND THE HOST WHICH MEANS WHEN THERE IS SEPARATION of OUR BODY FROM OUR BLOOD - THAT IS DEATH OF OUR BODY.

WHEN OUR LORD IS SHOWN IN THE CHALICE THAT CONTAINS THE WINE TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO HIS BLOOD AT THE HOLY DIVINE CONSECRATION FROM HEAVEN,

AND THE PATEN WHICH HOLDS THE BREAD TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO HIS BODY AT THE HOLY DIVINE CONSECRATION FROM HEAVEN REMEMBER THAT HE DID ALL THIS FOR LOVE - DON'T FORGET HOW MUCH HE LOVES YOU!

Being A Catholic, if you speak about Jesus, it is only right to speak about and honour his Holy Mother. Catholics always ask jesus' Mother to pray for them.

Think of Mary as the human proptype of What Holy Mother Church is and What Holy Mother Church means. Holy Mother Church is the Bride of Christ--

The Body of Christ who is it's Head. Holy Mother church only exisits because of Christ who is Her Bridgroom to exercise one of her missions which is to continue to bear fruit and propagate the Kingdom of God.

Try to find a catechism of the Catholic(universal) Chruch to better understand meaning of Holy Mothr Church. Are you beginning to see the parallels of Mary's role and relationship as a type of proptype of the meaning of Church.

Before I continue about The Blessed Mother who is Queen of All Saints, let me give you a better perspective on the Meaning of Holy Mother Church and her Children:

First of all she and her Offspring make up the vessel of Kingdom of God in her Militant State while She is on Earth.

In her State of Expectancy her children are in Purgation or cleansing State

and in her Glorious Victorious state she is in Triumphancy in Heaven. God's Holy Mother Chruch is a family of The Children of God and Communion of Saints of all who have heard the word and kept it in their hearts.

In Time - Our Holy Mother Church is called the Church Militant.

Outside of time: Our Holy Mother Church is called the Church Expectant (Purgatory- a type of journey of Souls destined to enter into Heaven .

Also Outside of Time: Our Holy Mother Church is called The Church Triumphant - At Holy Mass this is What is celebrated -Holy souls in the Expectant Church and those in the Triumphant Church join the Militant Church because the Heavenly Liturgy takes place in the Triumphant church and Many masses are offered for the souls in Purgatory who are awaiting to enter Heaven after their cleansing.

Again, I highly suggest anyone interested in some of this catechesis to obtain The Catechism of the Catholic Church which Pope John Paull the II (JPII) edited and revised for clearer understanding of Holy Truths.

And check some of the things I am sharing against the Catechism because I might have made some mistakes with some of what I am sharing with you. Don't forget I am saying these things from my catechesis over the years, and I apologize for somethings I might have said incorrectly, - I am not the Pope - I am just a little Catholic person. so do not blame him for something I might have said wrong in this very long "sharing of my faith with you" catechesis.

Back to Our Blessed Mother

Mary is the Daughter of God the Father;
Mary is Mother of God the Son and
Mary is Spouse of the Holy Spirit-

The Holy Church is a" Who is She" and a "What She does." Holy Mother Church is a Missionary Mother of Love always telling humanity to do what her Son-Bridegrrom tells you to do. Read the Wedding feast of Cana. Mary was referred to as "Woman" in this passage not Mother

She is a Bride, a Mother a daughter. She is feminine not masculine --This is why she needs men to apply the blood of Her Son through offering Sacrifce to wash us white in His Blood which they apply _The purity is Christ and His Bride which have no stain spot or wrinkle. The Children of Holy Mother Church are made up of sinners and saints. The sinners draw strength from the prayers offered by their sister and brothers who are Saints so that they can become saints and the Saints help to make reparaton for their brothers and sisters who are sinners so the blood Christ shed for them personally will not go unused. The Blood of Christ is there waiting to protect, save and cleanse them and strengthen them in their fight against the force of darkness pulling them away from anything that will influence them to keep them from entering heaven.

All of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH'S missions are what Her bridegroom does for her and what she does for her bridegroom.

Her Body gave birth to her Saviour conceived by The Holy Spirit. Her bridegroom is also her Altar and Victim of Sacrifice and Her Priest who offers Sacrifice for Her because he died for her and all of her offspring on the Altar of Sacrifice - The Cross.

Remember the Story of Father Abraham who was asked to sacrifice His Son.

Don't forget you cannot ever truly express the supernatural in the natural, but you can ponder and take inside of your heart the unfathomable revelations from The Love OF GOD. This is why you need a gift of the Holy Spirit called understanding because the things of God are above our ways

However always remember that God also is the author of little things and things so tiny you couldn't even fathom how he could create anything that tiny.

He only reveals to humble little ones who are not proud and righteous, but are like little children who he reminded all of us that heaven is made up of these type of souls, and anyone that hurts one of them it would be better if they hadn't been born themselves. He said their angels are always facing and standing in the presence of Almighty God.

We do not worship Mary - WE TALK TO MARY ABOUT HER SON WE CALL THIS THE HOLY ROSARY. We also know she prays that her Son's suffering and death would become appreciated more among mortals.

She prayed for her son her whole life and of course she still prays that his desires be fulfilled in each of us. Whatever he desires for each of us she is still praying for this but especially Love.

She prays that we Love Her Divine Son. If we don't, we can ask her to pray for us to receive the Grace which comes to us from the Holy Spirit through His Spouse, MARY.

The Body and Blood of Jesus her Divine Son who is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity came to save humanity through her Body and her Blood. The Word of God became incarnate in Mary. The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit conceives in us Grace to receive Faith to give birth to jesus in our Hearts.

She didn't conceive Jesus the way women conceive their children in their wombs. But she bore Jesus she gave birth to him In Her Heart and Her Body. We are suppose to look to Mary as our role model to bring Jesus Christ into the World the way she did.

She trusted she believed with her heart because of Love and Jesus took up his abode in her like he wants to do in us as she is praying that we look to her example of giving birth to Jesus in Our Love for inside our heart and Soul and Body so like her we can present him to the world .

Find a book on the Holy Rosary and what it means and look at the joyful mysteries of the Holy Rosary (The little gospel of the life of Jesuss Salvation for us and Mary's prayers for her son and for us (her children who her son died for).

Read and reflect on this prayer of the Most Holy Scriptures to help you ask Mary to pray for you to Love her son. Because we don't want to be separated from The LOVE and PRESENCE OF GOD - That would be HELL a place WITHOUT GOD and to EXISIT WITHOUT GOD IS TO EXIST WITHOUT LOVE. THERE IS NO LOVE IN HELL BECAUSE SOULS WHO ARE THERE PREFERED TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE LOVE OF GOD. NOBODY WANTS ANYONE TO END UP THERE. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO PRAY FOR EACH OTHER AND ASK MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS AND OUR MOTHER TOO PRAY FOR US NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. WE ARE HER CHILDREN TOO AND SHE LOVES US VERY MUCH BECAUSE HER SON GAVE HIS LIFE SO THAT WE WILL BE WITH HIM FOREVER IN HIS LOVE IN HEAVEN.

GOD BLESS WHOEVER READS THIS

AMEN

LOVE IN THE SACRED EUCHARISTIC HEART OF JESUS

tld

OUR VERY KIND AND LOVING HOLY FATHER IS NOT REPLACING THE WAY WE PARTICIPATE IN HOLY MASS NOW WITH THE LATIN RITE MASS ; he is only making it A REQUIRED OPTION THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE for catholics who miss the very very reverent latin rite.

AGAIN, He NEVER SAID HE WILL NOT ALLOW MASS IN ALL LANGUAGES. IN OTHER WORDS HE IS not taking away our regular ordinary HOLY Mass that parishes celebrate NOWADAYS. He is only ADDING the Extraordinary HOLY Mass of the Latin Rite in hopes to bring about more reverence and unity of WHO WE ARE WORSHIPPING. IT'S ABOUT LOVE - PLEASE DON'T FORGET LOVE.

To give an example: Some Parrishes in Los Angeles have so many cliques and ways of doing things at Liturgy it's as if they are communicating to The Lord and to the Congregation that:

We're here now doing things our way because we are close to the pastor and because we do alot of volunteer work for the pastor because he needs us with such a shortage of priests he let's us do this and do that, and Lord it's good you are also here too, but could you just move out of the way while we do things our way. Maybe you can sit over there on the side or maybe you can just disappear for a while until we call you kind of attitude. This is a very dangerous. HE IS ABOUT LOVE DON'T TO FORGET LOVE.

Many parrishes now reflect a particular style and culture over the sense of unity that we are all the same in the body of the Lord. HE IS ABOUT LOVE--DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

KEEP IN MIND AND REMEMBER our Holy Father is not eliminating the way catholics are worshipping nowadays.

He is just adding the ANCIENT Way to worship our Lord at The Extraordinary Mass which will instill in people ADORATION, AWE and REVERENCE that we are really in heaven at HOLY MASS and DO WE REALLY appreciate GOD'S PERSONAL GIFT OF HIMSELF which is the Highest form of worship in the World that God himself has given us His PERSONAL MISSION TO OFFER HIS SON BACK TO HIM? ARE CATHOLICS BEING REMINDED OF THESE TRUTHS OF OUR FAITH? HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

THIS MEANS HIS SON OUR LORD WHO SACRIFICED EVERY DROP OF HIS BLOOD FROM HIS MOST SACRED HEART IS PRAYING AND INTERCEDING FOR THE WORLD TO HIS HEAVENLY FATHR FOR EVERY HUMAN BEING IN THE UNIVERSE AT HOLY MASS WHETHER IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY HOLY MASS OR AN ORDINARY HOLY MASS THAT IS WHAT THE GREEK WORD CATHOLIC MEANS: UNIVERSAL. The Key word here is "HOLY" BUT REMEMBER: HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

Many young people and adults will be able to refocus and appreciate with gratitude such a beautiful gift to express as they give themselves to God without the usual distractions and excesses that have crept into Our LITURGY which do not foster or invoke Peace and Love because the attention shifts too much away from Our Lord --Too much movement going on instead of focusing on and pointing to Our Lord present in his BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY. HE IS ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE.

In our Hollywood culture and court room throughout this country: We seem to have more reverence and silence when a game show contestant is trying to get a right answer or win a prize when the host asks people to be quiet or the contestant might get distracted and loose what he is focusing on.

Also in any given court room, just try to make excessive movements, tell too many jokes and distract attention away from a court case, in this country you could go to jail for that.

So why do we think it's okay to be respectful non distracting and respectively quiet on a game show to take attention away from the contestant or inside a court room to take attention away from who is ever speaking, but not in God House of Worship - Is Too much movement and distraction in God's House in this country not as important as a gameshow , courtroom. Even on a movie set or in a newsroom.

Are American Catholics aware that any other movement than what is written down on the script is forbidden, talking on the set, or any other practice that might distract attention away from what is going into the camera lens can get one kicked off the set if they do it too many times.

Many individual groups of people and apostolates (relgious groups) give many catholics the sense of not fitting in when they come into the church and are there to worship God in His Body Blood Soul and Divinity. It's ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE!

There is too much attention AWAY FROM THE BLESSED SACRAMENT and what JESUS DID FOR US ON THE CROSS BY HIS SACRIFICE. Catholics need to be reminded of this at every Mass not just at the TRIDUUM. There seems to be a focu more on the people that are coming into the church instead of the purpose of The Holy Mass which is invoke the worshipers attention to Our Lord In The Blessed Sacrament. No usher ever points people or reminds them to spend some time adoring our Lord in the Tabernacle or pointing to Him in the Tabernacle or making comment about Him in the Tabernacle. Usher's never remind Catholics leaving to not forget to spend time with our Lord or make extra time to personally thank him as he is PERSONALLY THANKING GOD FOR US WHEN HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY ARE MAKING REPARATION FOR US AT EVERY CONSECRATION OF THE HOLY MASS.

We need this Required option of the Latin Rite Mass to be made available to Catholic Christians especially here in Los Angeles and America because there is no room to try to outshine The Lord DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - IT'S ABOUT LOVE.

We need our pastors and priests to teach us and catechize us in our Catholic Faith at Mass because so many adults and children need instruction in there faith when they come into Mass. FOR SOME REASON AFTER CATHESIM CLASS OF FIRST HOLY COMMUNION AND CONFIRMATION, ETC, CATHOLICS ARE NOT CONTINUALLY CATECHIZED AT MASS. They do not need to have an entertaining Mass replace a HOLY CATECHIZING MASS. IT'S ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE

We have Halls on the chruch property when they want to entertain and be entertained. Or when they want to have programs outside of HOLY MASS please do them in a HALL. THE CHURCH SHould ONLY be for HOLY MASS, WORSHIP OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR< PRAYER SERVICES and DEVOTIONS CENTERED ON THE LORD. ETC.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE HIM- HE'S ABOUT THE LOVE.

Many catholics fall away from there faith because there needs to be catechesis in the HOMILY along with the Biblical interpretation of the readings and nothing else. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ABOUT LOVE

Right before the end of Mass we have announcemnts which include what is going on at the parishes.

There is such richness of doctrines and truths in the Catholic TRADITIONS AND THE CATECHISM that is so beautiful that if instructed and explained to catholics coming to Mass--They would be so struck with awe and wonder they would radiate this LOVE out to others outside of Mass and after Mass. THEY would learn BETTER the true meaning of Love AND GOD'S CREATION COULD FINALLY EXHALE AND SAY - i think they got it! Now they are truly Christ's witnesses in a world that really needs TRUE TRUE LOVE.

The only person that shines out on all to worship Him is The Lord during a Latin Rite HOLY Mass. And It is all about LOVE LOVE LOVE only LOVE and Adoration of Him who Loves everybody despite race, color, culture, language, relgious group or religious denomination or religious belief because God created everyone.

However, there will have to be much deeper instructions and much deeper catechesis on the meaning of HOLY MASS to help foster and invoke total participation in The Holy Mass. Because if people don't understand they loose interests because they do not know what anything really means for them and what is happening on the altar and how they are apart of what is happening on the Altar. If they are not instructed, they will say this is boring not knowing they have just insulted HEAVEN.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE IS ALL ABOUT LOVE

But like I said earlier we need more instruction and catechesis at the ORDINARY Holy Mass that we are all participating in now as well as with the Extraordinary Holy Mass of the Latin Rite. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE HIM - HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE

Nowadays some Catholic parishes in the city of Los Angeles and parrishes across America have a buffet of styles with a cultural focus because the Mass is shared in many different languages. This is emphasized in music whether, rock, jazz, classical, R&B, folk. This is good because it reflects the Catholicity which means Universality, but it doesn't reflect unity. It reflects preference, style, and categorizes groups, youth, elderly, young adult, children. Children and youth need to be with there families because the family that prays together stays together.

When you start breaking the family into categories for Holy Mass you are defeating the purpose of UNITY at It's Core - THE EXtraordinary LATIN RITE OF MASS AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATES GROUP DISTINCTION BECAUSE WE ARE ALL THERE IN ALL AGES, GROUPS ETC FOR ONE REASON - THE LORD IN HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY.

AGAIN, WITH AN EMPHASIS ON JESUS YOU HAVE AUTOMATIC UNITY. IF WE JUST UTILIZE WHAT HOLY MOTHER CHURCH ALREADY HAS WE CAN STOP ALL THIS WASTEFUL TIME AND MONEY ON THE EMPHASIS OF SEPARATING PEOPLE BY AGE SPLITTING THE FAMILY UNIT AND CATEGORIZING THEM TO PARTAKE OF HIS BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINTIY AND WORSHIP AND ADORE OUR EUCHARISTIC LORD. PARENTS NEED TO BE A PART OF THEIR CHILDREN AND TEENS GROWTH AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR THEM TO SEE THAT THEIR FAITH HAS TAKEN ROOT BY THE GRACE OF GOD.

TO CONTINUE TO CATEGORIZE AND SEPARATE INTO YOUTH, ELDERY, WHITE, BLACK, HISPANIC, ETC. IS DISPORTIONATELY DISTRACTING, RESTRICTIVE AND IT DOESN'T KEEP CATHOLICS FROM FALLING AWAY FROM PRACTICING THERE FAITH.

I BELEIVE THESE ARE SOME OF THE CAUSES FOR THEM ACTUALLY FALLING AWAY FROM THEIR FAITH TO THE NEAREST COOL CHURCH PROGRAM DOWN THE STREET.

ALL THIS CATHOLIC PARRISH CATEGORIZING AND PRIMPING AND PREENING TO WHAT SOMEONE WILL ENJOY IS CRIPPLING THE GROWTH OF FAITH INSIDE OF EACH HEART.

HOW? BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS WILL BE SPENDING THERE TIME PREPARING WAYS TO REACH OUT TO A PERSON BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE NOT WHO THEY ARE -AND WHO ARE THEY - THE BODY OF CHRIST - CHILDREN OF GOD.
DON'T FORGET THE LOVE - HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE!

GOING TO MASS AT SOME CATHOLIC PARISHES IN LOS ANGELES IS more like a concert WITH NO KNEELING TIME AND IT IS HARD TO HEAR INNER PRAYER OF YOUR HEART. This is okay because some people have to be lifted up in their Spirit with alot of MUSIC.

However, we also need to bring back the REQUIRED OPTION of having the beautiful reverent EXTRAORDINARY Latin Rite available to us to remind us who we are because it will allow Catholics to better see, hear and touch and learn from--JESUS CHRIST in His Eucharistic Substance because How HOLY MASS is emphasized and presented to God . The focus is More "Christ centered" and less "what is going on around you centered."DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ALL LOVE AND JUSTICE

The most important thing to remember is that The Holy Mass offered is also bringing the Divine Sacred Holy vaults of heaven to earth with all the angels and saints present around our Lord at The Altar. HE'S ALL ABOUT LOVE - DON'T FORGET TO LOVE

Every Mass is Holy in any style, culture, languge, music etc. but IN SOME AMERICAN CATHOLIC PARISHES, BECAUSE OF LACK OF ONGOING CATECHESIS, THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL DON'T REALIZE WHAT PERSONAL AND UNIVERSAL GIFT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM HEAVEN IN THE HOLY MASS BECAUSE our actions, predjudices, bias, preferences, actions and attitudes, music, dress HAS IN SOME CHURCHES REPLACED RESPECT REVERANCE AND HONOR AND GRATITUDE FOR THE HIGHEST DIVINE GIFT IN THE WORLD - THE BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST (THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.

WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE SO MANY PARRISHES PLACED OUR LORD'S BODY BLOOD SOUL AND DIVINTY TO THE SIDE OR THE BACK OF THE CHURCH)

THIS EXTERNAL DECSION TELLS CATHOLICS THAT NOW OUR LORD IN THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT DOES NOT HOLD THE CENTER AND CENTRAL PROMINANCE LIKE HE USE TO BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MUCH GOING ON NOW INSIDE OF THE CHURCH AND DURING LITURGY THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE GIVEN THE RESPECT HE DESERVES SO WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE HIM TO THE BACK OR TO THE SIDE SO HE WON'T BE DISRESPECTED BY KEEPING HIM IN THE CENTER OF THE CHURCH WHERE HE USE TO HAVE THE CENTRAL PROMINENT POSITION INSIDE OUR CHURCHES IN THE OLD DAYS.

IN OTHERWORDS, TOO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING IN THE CHURCH WOULD MAKE IT LOOK AS IF WE WERE IGNORING JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO PRAY AND ADORE HIM WOULD BE DISTRACTED BY THE DIFFRENT ACTIVITIES WE DO INSIDE OF THE CHURCH NOWADAYS.

The Catholic Church is experiencing a lack of unity among all the various groups of races, music, people, Now that we will have the option of the LATIN RITE MASS to attend this will restore remind catholics that we are TRULY ONE UNIVERSAL which translates to: CATHOLIC PEOPLE despite skin color, language, culture, race and music preference. DON'T FORGET TO LOVE - HE'S ABOUT LOVE

Every catholic church has a hall which would be a great place to have fund raisers by encouraging the different groups to have music concerts of all the beautiful array of races, cultures languages and styles.
DON'T FORGET TO LOVE BECAUSE HE IS LOVE

THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. WE KNOW THAT CHRIST SUFFERED AND WHEN HE DIED HE DESTROYED DEATH AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF HE DIDN'T DIE AND DESTROY IT.

NOW IT IS GONE --IT IS A SHADOW THAT WE PASS THROUGH. WE NO LONGER GO TO DEATH BECAUSE JESUS DESTROYED IT--HE BLEW A HOLE RIGHT THROUGH IT AND NOT WE JUST HAVE TO GO THROUH IT.

HOWEVER, HOW WE DIE IS STILL PAIN AND SUFFERING --SOME PEOPLE DO DIE IN THERE SLEEP BUT I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUFFERED A LONG ILLNESS.

OUR NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET ACTUALLY DIED LAUGHING, BUT I THINK SHE HAD A LONG ILLNESS AS WELL.

HOLY MOTHER CHURCH IS MADE UP OF HER CHILDREN WHOO LIKE THEIR BRIDEGROOM WENT THROUGH RIPPING TEARING APART OF THEIR BODY AND THEIR BLOOD AS DID JESUS CHRIST ON THE CROSS WHICH IS WHAT IS RE-PRESENTED WHEN THE PRIEST LIFTS THE CHALICE AND THE HOST WHICH MEANS WHEN THERE IS SEPARATION of OUR BODY FROM OUR BLOOD - THAT IS DEATH OF OUR BODY.

WHEN OUR LORD IS SHOWN IN THE CHALICE THAT CONTAINS THE WINE TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO HIS BLOOD AT THE HOLY DIVINE CONSECRATION FROM HEAVEN,

AND THE PATEN WHICH HOLDS THE BREAD TRANSUBSTANTIATED INTO HIS BODY AT THE HOLY DIVINE CONSECRATION FROM HEAVEN REMEMBER THAT HE DID ALL THIS FOR LOVE - DON'T FORGET HOW MUCH HE LOVES YOU!

Being A Catholic, if you speak about Jesus, it is only right to speak about and honour his Holy Mother. Catholics always ask jesus' Mother to pray for them.

Think of Mary as the human proptype of What Holy Mother Church is and What Holy Mother Church means. Holy Mother Church is the Bride of Christ--

The Body of Christ who is it's Head. Holy Mother church only exisits because of Christ who is Her Bridgroom to exercise one of her missions which is to continue to bear fruit and propagate the Kingdom of God.

Try to find a catechism of the Catholic(universal) Chruch to better understand meaning of Holy Mothr Church. Are you beginning to see the parallels of Mary's role and relationship as a type of proptype of the meaning of Church.

Before I continue about The Blessed Mother who is Queen of All Saints, let me give you a better perspective on the Meaning of Holy Mother Church and her Children:

First of all she and her Offspring make up the vessel of Kingdom of God in her Militant State while She is on Earth.

In her State of Expectancy her children are in Purgation or cleansing State

and in her Glorious Victorious state she is in Triumphancy in Heaven. God's Holy Mother Chruch is a family of The Children of God and Communion of Saints of all who have heard the word and kept it in their hearts.

In Time - Our Holy Mother Church is called the Church Militant.

Outside of time: Our Holy Mother Church is called the Church Expectant (Purgatory- a type of journey of Souls destined to enter into Heaven .

Also Outside of Time: Our Holy Mother Church is called The Church Triumphant - At Holy Mass this is What is celebrated -Holy souls in the Expectant Church and those in the Triumphant Church join the Militant Church because the Heavenly Liturgy takes place in the Triumphant church and Many masses are offered for the souls in Purgatory who are awaiting to enter Heaven after their cleansing.

Again, I highly suggest anyone interested in some of this catechesis to obtain The Catechism of the Catholic Church which Pope John Paull the II (JPII) edited and revised for clearer understanding of Holy Truths.

And check some of the things I am sharing against the Catechism because I might have made some mistakes with some of what I am sharing with you. Don't forget I am saying these things from my catechesis over the years, and I apologize for somethings I might have said incorrectly, - I am not the Pope - I am just a little Catholic person. so do not blame him for something I might have said wrong in this very long "sharing of my faith with you" catechesis.

Back to Our Blessed Mother

Mary is the Daughter of God the Father;
Mary is Mother of God the Son and
Mary is Spouse of the Holy Spirit-

The Holy Church is a" Who is She" and a "What She does." Holy Mother Church is a Missionary Mother of Love always telling humanity to do what her Son-Bridegrrom tells you to do. Read the Wedding feast of Cana. Mary was referred to as "Woman" in this passage not Mother

She is a Bride, a Mother a daughter. She is feminine not masculine --This is why she needs men to apply the blood of Her Son through offering Sacrifce to wash us white in His Blood which they apply _The purity is Christ and His Bride which have no stain spot or wrinkle. The Children of Holy Mother Church are made up of sinners and saints. The sinners draw strength from the prayers offered by their sister and brothers who are Saints so that they can become saints and the Saints help to make reparaton for their brothers and sisters who are sinners so the blood Christ shed for them personally will not go unused. The Blood of Christ is there waiting to protect, save and cleanse them and strengthen them in their fight against the force of darkness pulling them away from anything that will influence them to keep them from entering heaven.

All of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH'S missions are what Her bridegroom does for her and what she does for her bridegroom.

Her Body gave birth to her Saviour conceived by The Holy Spirit. Her bridegroom is also her Altar and Victim of Sacrifice and Her Priest who offers Sacrifice for Her because he died for her and all of her offspring on the Altar of Sacrifice - The Cross.

Remember the Story of Father Abraham who was asked to sacrifice His Son.

Don't forget you cannot ever truly express the supernatural in the natural, but you can ponder and take inside of your heart the unfathomable revelations from The Love OF GOD. This is why you need a gift of the Holy Spirit called understanding because the things of God are above our ways

However always remember that God also is the author of little things and things so tiny you couldn't even fathom how he could create anything that tiny.

He only reveals to humble little ones who are not proud and righteous, but are like little children who he reminded all of us that heaven is made up of these type of souls, and anyone that hurts one of them it would be better if they hadn't been born themselves. He said their angels are always facing and standing in the presence of Almighty God.

We do not worship Mary - WE TALK TO MARY ABOUT HER SON WE CALL THIS THE HOLY ROSARY. We also know she prays that her Son's suffering and death would become appreciated more among mortals.

She prayed for her son her whole life and of course she still prays that his desires be fulfilled in each of us. Whatever he desires for each of us she is still praying for this but especially Love.

She prays that we Love Her Divine Son. If we don't, we can ask her to pray for us to receive the Grace which comes to us from the Holy Spirit through His Spouse, MARY.

The Body and Blood of Jesus her Divine Son who is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity came to save humanity through her Body and her Blood. The Word of God became incarnate in Mary. The Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit conceives in us Grace to receive Faith to give birth to jesus in our Hearts.

She didn't conceive Jesus the way women conceive their children in their wombs. But she bore Jesus she gave birth to him In Her Heart and Her Body. We are suppose to look to Mary as our role model to bring Jesus Christ into the World the way she did.

She trusted she believed with her heart because of Love and Jesus took up his abode in her like he wants to do in us as she is praying that we look to her example of giving birth to Jesus in Our Love for inside our heart and Soul and Body so like her we can present him to the world .

Find a book on the Holy Rosary and what it means and look at the joyful mysteries of the Holy Rosary (The little gospel of the life of Jesuss Salvation for us and Mary's prayers for her son and for us (her children who her son died for).

Read and reflect on this prayer of the Most Holy Scriptures to help you ask Mary to pray for you to Love her son. Because we don't want to be separated from The LOVE and PRESENCE OF GOD - That would be HELL a place WITHOUT GOD and to EXISIT WITHOUT GOD IS TO EXIST WITHOUT LOVE. THERE IS NO LOVE IN HELL BECAUSE SOULS WHO ARE THERE PREFERED TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE LOVE OF GOD. NOBODY WANTS ANYONE TO END UP THERE. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO PRAY FOR EACH OTHER AND ASK MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS AND OUR MOTHER TOO PRAY FOR US NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. WE ARE HER CHILDREN TOO AND SHE LOVES US VERY MUCH BECAUSE HER SON GAVE HIS LIFE SO THAT WE WILL BE WITH HIM FOREVER IN HIS LOVE IN HEAVEN.

GOD BLESS WHOEVER READS THIS

AMEN

LOVE IN THE SACRED EUCHARISTIC HEART OF JESUS

tld

Hi Viejita - I purposely left you out of my question to David, because I'm interested in his general perceptions - not his perceptions of you or any individual.

David - are you going to address my questions? No oblications, of course, but I would appreciate knowing if you intend to.

John M - same thing. I see you gave a long explication of Mary's biblical role, without directly addressing my question to David. Are you going to do that too? I'd just like to know your intentions.

Thanks

John, I think your cultural chauvinism is at least as strong as the pope's. There are logical fallacies in many of your statements, and I don't get the idea you really care why anybody practices their faith differently to you.
I like to argue, but I'm not one to bang my head against the wall or speak to empty rooms. I don't mean to be rude: I have much respect for the depth of your faith, and I'm glad the rules you follow work for you.

John M.
Who ever said they prayed to Mary?

Here are my thirteen reasons not to pray to Mary:

1. God tells us to pray to Him only. (See the Old Testament, and see John 14:4.)
If we have access to the Creator of the Universe, why would we need to pray to anyone else?

2. God promises to provide for us. (See Philippians 4:19 and again John 14:4.)
To doubt that He will provide for us betrays a lack of faith in God.

3. Jesus said the way to inherit internal life was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5, Luke 10:27)
How can we be giving all our heart, soul, mind and strength to God if we are splitting our prayer time between Him and someone else? If we do that, we risk eternal life.

4. God calls praying to anyone other than Him adultery. (See Jeremiah chapter 3.)
God refuses to accept worship from us if we are worshipping another. He punished Israel for this adultery.

5. God is omniscient, so He hears us and sees us if we pray to Mary. If He is going to hear us anyway, why not pray to Him in the first place?

6. God says He will not share His glory with another. (Isaiah 42:8)
If we pray to Mary and have our prayer answered, won’t we want to thank her? If she keeps answering our prayers, won’t we begin to praise her? God says He won’t give to another what is due Him.

7. One of Mary’s many Catholic names is “Queen of Heaven”. God says He absolutely hates the Queen of Heaven. (Jeremiah 7:18) He brought desolation on Israel for praying to her. Should we want anything to do with anyone called by that name?

8. In order for Mary to hear everyone’s prayers throughout the world at the same time, she must be omnipresent. But, how can she be everywhere at once? Isn’t that a quality only God possesses?

9. In order for Mary to hear the prayers we say in our hearts, she must be able to read our minds, which means she must be omniscient. But, how can she know everything, even my deepest thoughts? Isn’t that a quality only God possesses?

10. In order for Mary to answer our prayer, she must be omnipotent. But, how can she be all powerful? Isn’t that a quality only God possesses?

11. Praying to God and depending on Him alone builds a stronger, more intimate relationship with Him. Praying to someone else damages the purity of that relationship, if we can even have a relationship with Him while praying to another.

12. The Bible never tells us to pray to Mary. So, if we do not pray to her, God cannot hold us responsible for not doing what He never told us to do.

13. The Catholic Church has given many titles to Mary that should only belong to God. They call her “Mother of Divine Mercy”, “Advocate”, “Morning Star”, “Ark of the Covenant”, “Joy of Israel”, “Mediatrix”, “Queen of Mercy”, “Queen of Peace”, “Glory of Israel”, “Help of Christians” and “Gate of Heaven”, among other titles.
A Vatican-sanctioned prayer to Mary by Alphonsus De Liguori includes these words: “I thank thee for the many graces… in particular for having delivered me from hell… I promise to serve thee willingly forever… I place in thee all my hopes for salvation… I pray thee to assist me always, but most of all at the last moment of my life. Forsake me not then, until thou shalt see me safe in heaven, there to bless thee and sing of thy mercies through all eternity.”
We ought to be saying these things to God and God alone!

Pope John Paul II said that he prayed to Mary at the moment he was shot in an assassination attempt. He later gave her the credit for saving him from death. He dedicated his term as Pope to her. He had an ‘M’ (for Mary) placed on his coffin. He put his faith and trust in Mary.

So, he did not pray to Jesus in his time of need? He did not give Him credit for surviving? He did not think to put “JC” on his coffin? Tragic.

This is a very grave issue, not to be taken lightly. Also, this is not just a Protestant attack on Catholics. When I was a Catholic, I never prayed to Mary or any saint. I reasoned as a teenager that if God were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, we should pray only to Him. And, I know many Catholics who refuse to pray to Mary or recognize her by any of those Catholic titles.

In summary, praying to Mary is at the very least not necessary, and at the very worst an abomination to God. A prayer to Mary will not be heard by her, but will be heard by God. I pray that anyone who reads this and currently prays to Mary would beg God for forgiveness and give Him the glory only He deserves. Only He can answer your prayers. Only He can make you whole again.

Viejita,

Thank you for allowing me to ask you questions. I know you may find me offensive at times, but of course whenever someones faith is challenged that can end up feeling that way. Sorry if I disagree, but I must.

I'm curious why you think Christians make an idol out of the Bible. I definately don't worship the paper, but I do worship the One who divinely inspired it. And if we are not to trust the Bible, then who do we trust?

Just so you know, I don't find your answers unsatisfactory, but I do find them surprising at times. Thanks and God bless

David - I'm curious, do you think that someone who prays to both Mary and Jesus is in danger of eternal damnation because because the Bible doesn't mention praying to Mary?

If so, who would make the decision? Jesus? Do you think that he'd be so mad that someone prayed to his Mom, that even if they were also praying to him, he'd still send them to Hell? If God makes the decision about who goes to hell, do you think he'd do that to someone who, in addition to praying to his son, also prayed to the woman he specially selected to be his son's earthly mother?

David
I know this will worry you even more, but I think too many Christians make an idol of the Book.
What is really happening here is that we have come to the essential differences between your faith and mine. You understand my position and I respect yours. How about we let the Lord carry us each forward as He sees fit....
I do thank you for your good questions and I trust you to keep asking them even when you find my answers unsatisfactory or alarming.

Viejita,

Thanks for your response.

I guess I should ask you if you think the Bible is the standard of truth and if we should seek what the Bible says concerning matters of faith. I know Jesus says that Christians hear HIS voice and follow HIM, right? I have to say Viejita, I'm a little scared for you only because of what I know what the Bible says. The Bible says there is only ONE mediator between God and men, that being Jesus Christ. Not Mary. I'm a little scared for you in that I believe that when you pray to (or through) to Mary you are worshipping her. And considering your last post, it seems that you really do consider her some sort of god. There is not one mention of praying to or through Mary in the Bible, or that we should actually be focusing on her at all. Now, since that is biblical fact, should you or anyone take that risk of focusing on Mary as a god or someone equivolent to Jesus if not greater? That's risky because you fall into the fine line of worshipping other gods. I really can't imagine Jesus accepting anyone who would worship Buddha and Jesus. I believe the same goes for Mary as well. She falls into the same category as anyone else. Rom 3:23.

And what is this "feminine" aspect of God? Where is that in the Bible and why do you say "we are afraid" to acknowledge this? When was God ever referred to as a "she"? I really hate to sound argumentative, but I'm afraid for you in this aspect of worship. Is it worth considering to look Biblically for answers to this? Or are you willing to accept the risk involved of putting up Mary as an equivolent to God or one like a god?

Like I said, I'm afraid for you Viejita. I can tell you are a woman with a lot of faith, but that faith is only as good as who you put it in, not to mention that it's faith alone IN JESUS that saves us. Just Jesus Viejita. You should know this.

God bless

David et alia
I'm not not well-versed in the teachings about purgatory since I've always considered that whole process to be beside the point. I think purgatory may have arisen to some question about penance, which was a big counter-Reformation hangup. Don't quote me on that because I really don't get it.

The focus on Mary, though, is one of the reasons that I am Catholic. It may be that John Paul II wanted to make her the 4th person of the trinity (would it then be a quadity?) but I think there may be more or less to that view.
I think you would would agree that Jesus, as the second person of the trinity, is familiar with all human sensations, not just those that would have been experienced by a Jewish man in his early thirties. So in a way, Jesus is his own mother. Similarly, G-d the father is really G-d the parent, both mother and father. The example of Mary is an appeal to the feminine part of the trinity, which is very much a part of the divine gestalt.
Mary is how Catholics acknowledge and express respect for the feminine in G-d. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that JPII wasn't trying make her a 4th person, just to acknowledge her presence in the other three. I'm not saying that other Christians don't respect the feminine, but they seem to be afraid to talk about it.
That fear is understandable since there is a touch of paganism in the whole enterprise. The Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans here would say that Mary is their Great Goddess in Christian clothing. I would say that their Great Goddess is our One G-d in feminine clothing. It's weird, coming from a structure that limits its highest ministry to celibate males, but acknowledging Mary makes me feel more respected as a woman.
Don't get me wrong. I served in the Legion of Mary at my old parish with people who I would have trouble describing as Christians. Some people have real difficulties with the idea that Christ, as G-d, can be all things to all people.

Viejita,

I can see that you truly love the tradition of the catholic church and that's where your heart is at and by means of those traditions you feel secure in your worship of God. I appreciate that. We all have our differences in worship. I believe God loves all the different types as well. I DO consider you a Christian and a sister in Christ. I think John M broke it down perfect. It's not about where you go on Sundays because all the many denominations have Christians, some true, some not. I guess being that we are on this thread so often, it would also seem that we are all passionate about Jesus as well. This of course could very well be a sure sign of true "Christianity". I don't know too many "casual" Christians that would spend their time on threads such as these.

I would hope that we could not argue over the small things in our differences but focus on the things that matter. First off, I've never been catholic and my understanding of their traditions are limited. I do however have a few questions regarding certain doctrines in the RCC that I think could lead people away from God. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is purgatory basically stating that Christ's work on the Cross was not sufficient enough to forgive sins by faith alone that one must "purge" their sins for a certain length of time before being accepted into heaven?

Why so much focus on Mary? Isn't Jesus the one we should focus on? It would seem fitting that if we are called CHRISTians we should focus whole-heartedly on Christ unless we change our name to MARYdians. And are you aware that John Paul II tried to make Mary the fourth member of the Trinity? I guess it wouldn't be "Trinity" after that, but you get what I mean. I read about that the other day. Of course you can't trust everything you read, but if it's true then that sure is a sure sign of danger.

I think certain doctrines in the RCC seem to suggest that Christ's work wasn't enough. This is what I'm feeling on the matter, even though I may be wrong. It seems to me that tradition in the RCC has taken over Biblical truth. I would hope that you could clarify that for me. Thanks.

God bless

Daniel - Please try to calm yourself and stop with the straw-man arguments. I didn’t say “absolute goodness” and neither did you, until your last post. I also didn’t say it was scientifically proven. I am aware of a study showing morality in chimps and other higher primates, but I did not refer to it because I wasn’t making a scientific argument, just telling you what I thought (as you were) and being mindful about not speaking for other atheists. Plus, I avoid scientific arguments with believers about matters of belief to which science does not pertain. If you want to pursue the scientific arguments on your own or with other posters here, the research I was thinking of is the work of primatologist Frans de Waal, “Primates and Philosophers – how morality evolved” Princeton University Press, 2006 http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691124477/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4295438-7603865#reader-link

I think humans are capable of doing both good and bad things, of being moral and immoral. It’s that simple and there’s plenty of evidence for it. As I do not think there are gods (or devils), I don’t think in terms of an absolute source of good (or evil), so I won’t pursue that line of thought with you.

As for Hitchens challenge to Gerson, it was NOT, as you say, “to come up with a thought or act which is moral that an atheist cannot come up with” it was to “name one ETHICAL statement made, or one ETHICAL action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.” [Caps added for emphasis]. See the difference? Your response “religious people have the noble thought that no matter how evil a religious person is he at least has the belief in God from which ultimate goodness emanates--and an atheist obviously cannot have that thought” is not an ethical statement, it’s a “noble thought” based on belief. It’s a nice thought, but has no basis in ethics – just in a belief that goodness comes from God.

Hitchens went on to make another challenge: “Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?” See the full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301461.html

I agree with you that this is an important discussion to have. I think one of the most important things before we (meaning people in general) go on with it, is taking care to understand terms and attitudes and to not presume knowledge of other people’s points of view.

For instance, your statement: “the atheist struggles anyway toward goodness in something of a tragic outlook on life--in fact true atheism can be only tragedy freely chosen, a terrible struggle down through the centuries to somehow exist and to hope to be good even though there is no evidence of God or ultimate goodness.” Does not describe my attitude or that of any atheist I know (and I’ve come to know quite a few lately). I felt OK while I was Christian and even better now that I’m not. I think the tragedy is in people who are encouraged to believe in supernatural gods and ancient mythology as facts by clergy who themselves do not believe that. But that’s another discussion. I’m afraid we’ve already hijacked this thread Daniel -- though I have enjoyed talking with you about all this.

Concerned:

You wrote:
"There is no religion in the Spirit State aka Heaven. The Gate is open to anyone of good standing with or without the assistance of B16 and/or Latin Masses."

This is absolutely not a Christian statement. Yesterday I ticked off ten things you believe, and you agreed. You don't believe in the Resurrection, or that Jesus was God, or that He died on the Cross for our sins. You don't believe God can tell the future, or perform miracles, or answers prayers, or have a personal relationship with me.

So, what is your basis for believing in heaven?

I get my notion of heaven from the Bible. And, what does it say about heaven? Well, Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through Him. But, I'm sure you would say that's just the author making that up, or even a later editor tinkering with that gospel. John also wrote that those who accept Jesus have eternal life but those who do not accept Christ are condemned. But, I'm sure you would also discard those verses as a later addition. Luke records Peter saying that Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved. But, I'm sure you would deny that Peter really said that, or that it was even actually part of the original Book of Acts. Peter himself wrote that salvation comes from Christ's resurrection. But, I'm sure you would say that Peter never wrote anything. A later unknown author was having fun with the quill. And, I'm sure you would scold me for forgetting that there was no resurrection. Paul said Christ is the only means of salvation multiple times in his epistles. But, I'm sure you would say that he just invented that, or that someone writing under the name of Paul wrote that, or that a later editor was messing with the text.

You say “The Gate is open to anyone of good standing.” Jesus said the gate that leads to life is narrow and few find it. But, I’m sure you would say Matthew and Luke made that up, or that those mystery editors were at work once again. In fact, Jesus said He Himself was the gate. But, again, those scripture graffiti artists were at work, I’m sure.

And, what exactly do you mean when you say, “The Gate is open to anyone of good standing”? What is good standing? Who gets to decide that? How do we know? If God has never revealed Himself to us, how do we know how to obtain good standing?

Being in good standing can’t be anything that we do, because the Bible says we are not justified by our works. Oh, but I am sure you would say that all of the many Scripture authors who wrote that made it up, or maybe one naughty scribe changed all of the books that say that.

So, Concerned, it seems that all of the verses I could show you can be discounted by your professor friends, although there is not one bit of evidence. The evidence, of course, would be manuscripts that are lacking all of the verses I just mentioned. You’re big on demanding evidence from posters to validate their points. So, I ask you, where are these manuscripts? Has anyone ever seen them? Without this needed proof, you are purely speculating, even imagining. (In fact, the earliest N.T. manuscripts we have, dating at 125AD, are identical in content to our modern Bibles.)

These liberal professors you keep touting do not read the Bible and make clear observations. If they did, we would all agree with them. No. They don’t start with the Bible; they start with their assumptions. They assume that God cannot perform miracles. So, they discount any passages that describe supernatural events. They assume God cannot foretell the future, so they discount all of the hundreds of prophesies found in both Testaments. They assume that God cannot interact with us, so they discount all of the passages that deal with God intervening in human history and all of the passages that deal with prayer and a personal relationship with God. They assume God could not become a man, so they discount all of the verses (including the O.T.) which point to the divinity of Christ. They sneer at the idea that a blood sacrifice is necessary for salvation, and they indignantly refuse to accept that the Father would send His Son to die, so they discard all of the many portions of scripture that mention sacrifices, and the Cross.

Concerned, after you are done removing all of this content from the Bible, WHAT IS LEFT???

How do we know God exists? How do we know heaven exists? How do we know we can go there? On what basis are you saying, “The Gate is open to anyone of good standing”?

The problem is that you can’t trust anything the Bible says if you can’t trust all of it. So, how do you know that what you believe is true?

Here’s the real deal, Concerned: you want to go to heaven but you don’t want to follow God. You don’t want to give up control of your life. You don’t want to do whatever He tells you to do. You are not willing to trust Him, and not yourself. You want to escape the Bible, so you eagerly accept what these knucklehead ‘scholars’ are offering you.

You say you are ‘liberated’. What exactly are you liberated FROM? I say it’s GOD. You have freed yourself, or so you think, from His control over your life, and you have freed yourself from thoughts that you ought to be following Him.

Just before my daughter was two years old, she used to think that she was invisible if she closed her eyes. She thought I couldn’t see her because she was choosing not to see me. That’s you, Concerned. You think that because you have closed your eyes, God can’t see you. But, HE CAN! You think that because you have rejected His Word, He can’t judge you. But, HE WILL!

You can call yourself ‘liberated’, but you aren’t really free at all. You won’t be free until you stop resisting and accept Jesus and what He did for you. Jesus said, “if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” Now, you can say He never said that, but that doesn’t change the fact that HE DID.

John,

I believe you are are right about most of what you said. But you need to be careful when you say "depend on Him for everything". I am sure God will take care of all your needs. but what you NEED is very little. Do we all want to live in the jungle? How hard is it to find out what you really want. If all you do is wait around for "heaven", you are not doing God's work. We all have special gifts that are right for this world. And we need to learn the Words possibley global Words to make our contribution.

Now I am not saying that you are not doing enough. It is clear to me that your calling is to spead the Word. But someone elses calling may be something very scientific and just needs to be guided by the Word.

Changing Religion

Here is a novel approach to tradition (from a web site)

imagine a religion without original sin, judgment, a wrathful God, a multitude of gods and saints, an eternal hell, Satan, a sense of guilt, a personality cult, idolizing a book, a blood sacrifice for atonement, a rejection of personal experience, holy wars, hypocritical rules, sexism, a cultish mindset and constantly asking for money. Luckily, a religion without all of this negative baggage does exist and is called Shin Buddhism.

Shin Buddhism is an 800 year old religion and a way of life dedicated to manifesting the endowed purpose of every human being to realize enlightenment. This is a natural path open to everyone; it is especially geared to ordinary working people involved in daily responsibilities and worldly entanglements. It is called a natural path because it is devoid of superstitious dogma and is based on personal experience and reality-as-it-is. It uses everything as a vehicle on the journey to enlightenment. It never forces itself onto others and maintains a gentle but persuasive demeanor. What’s more, it does not have a blind eye to what it is to be a real human being but it fully accepts the human condition with all of its limitations and potentialities.I

Again the important point:

There is no religion in the Spirit State aka Heaven. The Gate is open to anyone of good standing with or without the assistance of B16 and/or Latin Masses.

To E Favorite from Daniel. I find your reasoning disastrous--truly shocking. And now I can understand why at least some atheists believe a person can be moral without a belief in God. You believe in some sort of innate goodness--and this in turn I suppose is why many people are fanatical about socialism. But unfortunately E favorite, what you have described is a belief and not at all something based on scientific evidence. A religious person believes in God from which an absolute source of goodness emanates. An atheist such as you rejects God but believes in some sort of absolute goodness without God, and this goodness you locate in humans. But there is no such evidence of this goodness in humans! All people are flawed to some extent! And to deny this is to walk back into religion by a type of backdoor--in fact your innate goodness is what religious people declare of Christ or saints! Essentially you are saying we all are Christlike or saintly! Tell that to the atheist Dawkins with his notion of the selfish gene! And I would like to hear what Sam Harris has to say about your notion! --Or Hitchens for that matter! But I am not against atheism as much as you might imagine--I simply want to get the argument truly squared away, an honest assessment. Hitchens challenged Gerson to come up with a thought or act which is moral that an atheist cannot come up with. I said the obvious answer to that is that religious people have the noble thought that no matter how evil a religious person is he at least has the belief in God from which ultimate goodness emanates--and an atheist obviously cannot have that thought. You counter it but actually match it by saying atheists do not believe in God but that ultimate goodness does exist and resides in humans--which once again is a type of belief, sheer faith! My advice to Hitchens would be to reply (should Gerson reply to Hitchens with my above observations) that the atheist can be as noble as the religious precisely because although not believing in God or an ultimate source of goodness--in fact that we all are flawed--the atheist struggles anyway toward goodness in something of a tragic outlook on life--in fact true atheism can be only tragedy freely chosen, a terrible struggle down through the centuries to somehow exist and to hope to be good even though there is no evidence of God or ultimate goodness...I really think we need to be totally honest about this argument. This is the future of the whole human race we are talking about. This is no mere parlor game.

John M.
Amen to that. I admit I'm someone who can argue endlessly about the non-essentials, but I would hate to think that drives anyone away from Christ.

Doubter:

I think you may have missed our point. It is not at all rare for Christians to agree when their focus is the Bible. The Corinthian believers were divided over many things. Paul said that when he was in Corinth he decided to only know Christ and Him crucified. To avoid further divisions, and to promote unity by example, Paul chose to limit his comments to the central truths of the Gospel. That is what David just explained. It is very simple. The Greek word that we translate as "Gospel" literally means "good news". In my experience, people are not looking for good news unless they are stuck with some bad news. The bad news is that we have all chosen to live our lives for ourselves and ignore God. The punishment for our sin is an eternity apart from God. The good news is that we can have an eternal relationship with God because He came as a perfect man to die for us. His death, burial and resurrection mean that we can be forgiven for our sins when we turn away from our selfish lives and turn to Him and depend on Him for everything. He died for us, so in response we die to live for Him. It's simple.

I think if we could take Paul's lead and just focus on the Cross, we would all get along much better. I lead a Bible Study with students at the university where I teach, and we have Christians from all denominations (including Catholics, Viejita!), and each week I make sure my lesson centers around the Cross. I tell you, amazing things happen when we put aside all other non-essential matters and focus on the Gospel.

Now, let me get a little risky. The Gospel is simple, but if you read the gospels and take seriously what Jesus said, coming to Him really involves a lot more than calling oneself a Christian and going to church every Sunday. Jesus said that the way to salvation is narrow and few find it. About 2 billion people in the world would call themselves Christians. I don't think one third of the world constitutes 'few'. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not judging anyone. I am just quoting Jesus. He also said that unless you are willing to turn away from your loved ones, you cannot be one with Him. Now, He wasn't saying I have to abandon my family, but that I may have to lose some friends, or even family, if they reject me or persecute me for my faith. He also said you have to take up your cross DAILY. By this, He meant that I have to die to my own desires and live for Him. He also said that if I am embarrassed by Him, He will be embarrassed by me.

I also don't want anyone to think that I am teaching that we have to work our way to heaven. The Bible is clear in saying that there is nothing we can do to earn eternity. At the same time, being Christian means complete devotion to God. Jesus said that the most important commandment is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. He also said that the world would know who His followers are by their love and the fruit they bear.

I say all of this to make the point that when you see two Christians at odds with eachother, there is a possibility that one (or both) of them is not a Christian. When you see a Christian judging others ruthlessly and condemning them, there is a possibility that person is not a Christian. There are so many critics who often post on this site the fact that Christians have been responsible for so many wars. I'm not sure they were Christians. That's not just a nice way out; it's true. I would have to question the heart of anyone who is willing to force someone to convert or kill them in the name of God.

To answer Viejita's question, I believe there are some Christians in the Catholic church. I also believe there are some Christians in the Baptist Church, and the Lutheran church, and the Methodist church, and the Presbyterian church, and non-denominational churches. In fact, the Pope is right in saying that these should not be called churches, although it goes for the Catholic church, too. The Church is made up of all of the truly devoted believers in all of the local churches in all of the denominations around the globe.

So...if we are all members of the Church of Jesus Christ, let's act like it. Instead of looking at eachother, let's look UP. Let's look to the Cross.

Mr. Ratzinger's suggestion about more use of Latin will go down in history as another old-fashioned idea by an antique-loving intellectual who happened to reach an influencial position, just a few centuries too late.

Please don't take me wrong. I think more knowledge of Latin would be a good thing for individuals and for society, as it opens our eyes to major periods in human history.

I am just reading an interesting book "Athens on Trial" which describes Athenian democracy in detail and compares it to other democracies and other forms of government. At some point, the author mentions how a few Reinassance scholars in Venice and Florence began to learn Greek, then engaged themselves in the obscure task of studying ancient Greece works, and thus made the Greek civilization available to the modern world.

I guess this is the message Mr. Ratzinger is trying to convey: learn from our past. Which I deeply support!

However, the more I read the Bible, the more I find IT to be a major source of misunderstanding bigotry and violence in the world. The same can be said about the Quram.

Do you want to understand why some people send their children to kill and die in the name of some God? Just look for the fable of Abraham and Isaac.

Do you want to understand why some people justify every evil action in the name of some God? Read the story of King David.

The Bible, the Quram and other religious books should be read by more people. But it should be a critical, informed, educated reading, not an exercise in blind faith, taking it as "the word of God".

David, I've always believed that you, John M., and quite a few others on this site are Christians.
I think we also share a conviction that it is not up to us as individuals to judge others. But have you an opinion?
My question was whether you believe that I, who accept most (but not all) of the accoutrement of the Catholic Church, can also be a Christian. I grant you that there are may be Catholics -- who put the church's miracle and authority above the teachings of Christ -- who cannot properly be described as Christians. What about those of us who find the statements of your second graph not only unobjectionable but necessary, but who also find spiritual solace in many traditional Catholic practices?

Viejita,

I guess a proper question to ask you is what a "true" Christian is? I should ask you since I disagree with the many extra-biblical doctrines of the RCC, that if I do not believe in praying to Mary or the saints but God alone, or do not believe in purgatory, or believe that all the statues of the saints and mary are somewhat idolatrous, that the pope is not infallible, that the pope is not the head of the church but Christ is....am I a Christian? Also, if I believe that there is no "true" church that consists of an organization of men headed by a man, but that the "true" church is the body of believers in Christ with Christ as the head of the church....am I a Christian in your eyes?

Here's what I do believe. I believe that Jesus died, was buried and resurrected on the third day. I believe in the Trinity as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the three persons that make ONE God. I believe salvation is a free gift given to those by faith alone, which no man can earn. And of course I do believe Christ will come back again....soon..maybe. The way this world's going, it's looking pretty close....but that's just an opinion.

So, Viejita, would you consider me a Christian?

Attn: Mr. Robinson

I agree with the Pope that there is only one true church. Is my hope that the Pope and I can find that church one day.

Did someone say icecream ?

strawberries ?

Attn: Mr. Robinson

I agree with the Pope that there is only one true church. Is my hope that the Pope and I can find that church one day.

Did someone say icecream ?

strawberries ?

Attn: Mr. Robinson

I agree with the Pope that there is only one true church. Is my hope that the Pope and I can find that church one day.

Did someone say icecream ?

strawberries ?

Attn: Mr. Robinson

I agree with the Pope that there is only one true church. Is my hope that the Pope and I can find that church one day.

Did someone say icecream ?

strawberries ?

John M and David:

it's nice that you agree on what the Bible means. It seems to happen so rarely.

Of course I meant "methods and/or theology." This keyboard drives me nuts. If I weren't so cheap I'd replace it.

Jason,
As saddening as it is to see this exclusivist view of Catholicism reiterated, it is nothing new. As bad as this teaching is for Catholics, it seems to be a commonplace among many contemporary Christians. How many of the rest of you are willing to admit that you think some other church's methods and/theology are incomplete or disordered?
For instance, do you consider Catholics "real" Christians?

I strongly believe that the pope has lost his ever-loving mind. The pope is no more than any other man. He has the position of no more than a ruler of the Catholic church. For him to say that no other denomination has the means of salvation is blasphemy. He apparently hasn't read the bible at all and thinks he has the authority to determine who is worthy of grace and who is not. Grace is the unmerited favor of God. No man can merit it. There is no work any man can do to get into heaven. There is no pugatory and once you transend into the afterlife there are only two places for you to go; heaven or hell. For a man such as the pope to assert that no one has the ability to obtain salvation but those who are members of the catholic church is absurd. He really needs to read God's word and ask forgiveness for this henious sin.

Mo:

Your posts are full of shi'ite..

revival of melankolia.
jeudo-christian cult is rooted down deep in the paganism melankolia of the greco-romanism.in order to go back to root ,revival of the greco-latino language is a must,exactly like singing isis and osiris you need revival of the hieroglyphic???.the church of christianity is not only inviting to cultuerism but also beating the drum for divisionism and anti monotheism, and digging in the relics and the junk yards of fallen opressors among mankind.
a couple of month ago they were digging in the relics looking for the remmnants of jesus .now they saying the pray in latino!!!.
worshiping god is a state of the heart befor its a speech of the tongue ,what is in your heart certainly will come on your tongue ,if your heart full of folk lores and tales of the ancient your tongue will mass the tales of the ancient. the language ,the tune and the music of the mass would not matter.sugaration and decoration of the corrupted creed is no more no less than beautifying a dead body at the funeral home .

A wonderful day to all!! A day the Lord has made for ALL of us to either be righteousness in or go the sinful road. Paganism is not a good thing for someone who has beliefs. The "Author of Life" has put us all on this Planet to "test" the waters of direction. With the exception of God's mindless children, young and old, WE MOST DEFINITELY KNOW WHAT WE DO IN THE CATEGORY OF WRONG-DOINGS!! SO, there shouldn't be any misunderstanding of the consequences that will follow should your direction be the wrong road. YES, GOD LOVES ALL OF HIS PEOPLE, but, WHO actually get to see the "PROMISED LAND"? THERE ARE VERY MANY DO-GOODERS IN THE WORLD, even though it seems like the "BAD GUYS and GALS" world is more sizable, and that they seem to be winning! NOPER!! IN THE END, THEY WON'T WIN! LASTLY, LIKE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE ON EARTH THAT DO NOT BELIEVE OR TAKE KINDLY TO OUR BELIEFS. This is a world of free opinion and allowances, and as we'd expect those to "respect our likes and dislikes, our approvals and disapprovals, we must oblige those people who has an opposite opinion than ours. These serviceman and women are doing us a service by losing their lives, and fighting a war of questionable reasons and purpose to me, and they "DESERVE" to have whatever religion or non-religious services they so choose. There should be more than one religious leader in the armed forces anyway! Everyone don't believe the same form, shape, or fashion- basis of religion, and all should be accomodated "regardless to how we feel. REMEMBER THAT THE BIBLE SAYS TO NOT JUDGE UNLESS YOU PLAN TO BE IN THE SAME POT! THIS WORLD IS GROWING WEARY, AND WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP AND PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IT IS TELLING US!! GLOBAL WARMING, WAR, POVERTY, GANGS, SENSELESS KILLINGS IN THE STATES IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF SOME OF THE END. FIRE! GOD BLESS US ALL!!

David:

Very nice post.

I think B16 is supposed to be the Pope (Benedict the 16th, get it?)

Concerned,

Who is B16? I keep reading this but I'm not sure what it or he/she is.

Also, who do you consider as "leadership" as you say, among Christians?

John M,

Bullying? How is asking the Muslims of the world to come to grips with the foundations of their religion any form of bullying????

Catholics/Christians also should come to grips with their religion to include their current religious "leadership".

And to reiterate:

At least B16 has not enlisted any terrorists to further his cause of "sole soul" salvation and/or a return to the language of the Roman Slave Empire. Of course, his operating manual preaches peace on earth unlike the Muslims and their book of death.

Doubter,

Like John M said, we are seperate people. I do like how John said that it may seem that way because we believe in the Bible wholly and therefore have the same outcomes. I actually find it a compliment in someone thinking that we are the same person. Just goes to show that when taking the Bible seriously and studying it, people who never met can have the same conclusion. I just wish everyone could read it for themselves instead of taking the opinion of some man and applying it to the meaning of the Word.

Another thing to point out (if anyone knows how this is applied biblically) is that I've never met John M or Amanda but we are the church. We don't go to the same church and I have no idea where each person lives, but yet we are the church. It's not about where you go to worship God, it's about who you are and if God is in you. Paul tells us that our bodies are the temple where the Holy Spirit indwells in us. Rom. 8:9-14; Gal. 4:6. And that our bodies are part of Christ's bodies. 1 Cor 6:15. So if our bodies are temples which in turn make the complete body of Christ, then those of us who have faith alone (Rom 5:1) in Jesus are the church! I truly wish Pope Benny would teach the truth on this instead of claiming that catholicism is the "true" church when really it's the body of believers. It kind of upsets me that anyone can hold the claim to hand out salvation or that their system of religion is the only way to Christ. I'm not saying that catholics are cultish but it is a consistent pattern among the cults to lead people in the claim of "the only true church". Ex: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Branch Davidians, etc..

"Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105)

Shouldn't we all believe in this?? Not the popes or anyone elses word, but God's Word.

Daniel, you say “the religious believe in an ultimate source of goodness--namely God--while the atheist believes in no such source and therefore every thought and act of the atheist is automatically tainted with evil no matter how good while the religious no matter how evil have the noble thought that at least there is a source of goodness.”

First of all, I don’t see how you can speak for atheists, saying they believe in no source of goodness, just because they do not believe in god. Speaking for myself as an atheist, I say that people have innate goodness. We ourselves are the source of goodness. The source of our goodness comes from within – not just us personally, but in all people. I assume other atheists feel this way, because many atheists are humanists and this is a humanist point of view. Of course the society reinforces it with civil laws, which in the US and many other countries, does not involve religion and belief in deities.

I also don’t see how you can make the leap of logic -- that because atheists don’t see God as the source of goodness, it therefore means that all our thoughts and acts are tainted with evil. While you may perceive atheists as being intrinsically tainted with evil, that doesn’t mean we are, or that we see ourselves that way, or that we act accordingly. It sounds more like your own difficulty in thinking outside the Christian box of good and evil in which an unseen deity directs us from heaven.

This is why I wish more atheists would “come out” – so Christians could see that some of their nicest friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers manage to be very moral without having a belief in any God. It would help people change their preconceptions of atheists and reconsider the source of human morality and goodness.

Concerned:
Would you PLEASE stop bullying people?

Victoria,

Be an inspiration to us by coming to grips with the mytical angels in your life.

thank you mo-
your poems are always an inspiration

Doubter:
No. David, Amanda and I are separate individuals who have never met. It is uncanny, though, that people who take the Bible seriously and read it for themselves would be of the same mind!

Please. Take a moment to remember Marlette:

http://dougmarlette.com/pages/06Best.html

http://dougmarlette.com/pages/brookfall.pdf

Terrible loss. May God comfort his family and friends.

"What would Marlette drive? The self-evident, unalienable American model of democracy that we as a young nation discovered and road-tested for the entire world: the freedom to be ourselves, to speak the truth as we see it, and to drive it home."

Doug Marlette (12.6.1949-7.10.2007)

As previously posted:

B16's "new" book is simply the NT rehashed once again. For a better buy, see Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997 (878 pages). The book is "Catholic" approved (imprimatur and Nihil obstat) and more than likely was used by B16 to prep his book (416 pages). Father Brown also reviews the historical Jesus movement in more than two pages.

Another "view from a recent review":

"For this reason, Crossan's new book _God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now_ (2007) represents far more forward-oriented thinking about Christian tradition than does Ratzinger's well-publicized new book. "

John M, Amanda and David - are you all the same person?

Worth repeating:

Answering Janet on Pamela Taylor's page,

You noted: "1. I do NOT believe that all Muslims are murderers and terrorists."

That is a given for all of us non-believers. The problem is how do we tell the "good guys from the bad guys" especially after the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers , the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics i.e. a summary of the War on Terror-the Muslim "who are the bad guys" Problem.

At least B16 has not enlisted any terrorists to further his cause of "sole soul" salvation and/or a return to the language of the Roman Slave Empire. Of course, his operating manual preaches peace to earth unlike the Muslim book of death.

pre-civilization!.
is god food eater and bathroom goer???does he have son or daughter???or both?is he organic ?is he hole-y or solid?is he incarnated in his son???or his son incarnated in him ???does he go thru phases and stages like mankind or his cyclelation is different?what is the difference?is he mortal or eternal?what food makes mortal ?and what food makes eternal?what is the difference between god and man?why god take a son for ?why god incarnate in a human son?why god sacrifice and nail his only begotten son on the cross ?what is the difference between god who nailed his son on the cross and the roman emperior who nailed spartakos on the cross ?do they have bathroom in the vatican?or the pope eat heavenly ?what is the difference between the lord human jesus! and the infallible pope???what is the (blues monologue) that the church of christianity is singing and broadcasting to mankind for the last 2000+years?what is the diference between melodrama and melancholy?why mankind in his right mind go to the place of worship and praise an image or a delusion?why man in his right mind go to another man like him who eat food and use the toilet and make him holy and recive his unquestionable guidance? what is the difference between the fossil man and the man in the 21century?the fossil man knew for sure that the creator almighty lord is not organic nor he begt no son .
jesus son of marry (may ALLAH exalt both names till the last day)are no more no less than human beings who they use to eat food, but chosen and honored by the almighty god to carry the true bible to man kind.the song of the song that jesus and his mother were singing and still ,praise the creator lord .
the mass of the masses is ,praise the creator lord who created heavens and earth and mankind period, in latin in english in french in spanish in swaheely in arabic in ordu in russian in sign language in any what so ever comunicable human languge .
a huge light came to mankind more than 1428 years,
liberat your heart and mind and follow the light.

Regarding the 'historical Jesus' nonsense that CONCERNED THE NON-CHRISTIAN and his liberal professor buddies are selling, here is what the Pope wrote in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth:

"...But the situation started to change in the 1950s. The gap between the “historical Jesus” and the “Christ of faith” grew wider and the two visibly fell apart. But what can faith in Jesus as the Christ possibly mean, in Jesus as the Son of the living God, if the man Jesus was so completely different from the picture that the Evangelists painted of him and that the Church, on the evidence of the Gospels, takes as the basis of her preaching?

"As historical-critical scholarship advanced, it led to finer and finer distinctions between layers of tradition in the Gospels, beneath which the real object of faith—the figure of Jesus—became increasingly obscured and blurred. At the same time, though, the reconstructions of this Jesus (who could only be discovered by going behind the traditions and sources used by the Evangelists) became more and more incompatible with one another: at one end of the spectrum, Jesus was the anti-Roman revolutionary working—though finally failing—to overthrow the ruling powers; at the other end, he was the meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief. If you read a number of these reconstructions one after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon that has become obscured over time, they are much more like photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold. Since then there has been growing skepticism about these portrayals of Jesus, but the figure of Jesus himself has for that very reason receded even further into the distance.

"All these attempts have produced a common result: the impression that we have very little certain knowledge of Jesus and that only at a later stage did faith in his divinity shape the image we have of him. This impression has by now penetrated deeply into the minds of the Christian people at large. This is a dramatic situation for faith, because its point of reference is being placed in doubt: Intimate friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at thin air."

Finally, a non-Evangelical theologian speaks out in agreement with Evangelicals! I have been saying for some time that the 'historical Jesus' is the Jesus of the Bible. That's pretty much all we have on Him. Those gospel accounts are historical. The historical Jesus and the Jesus of the gospels are one and the same. Any other Jesus is a product of our imagination.

I don't agree with most of the Pope's theology, but he hit this one out of the ballpark!

What B16 is doing is simply an exercise in anthropology. He is paying heed to the principle of diglossia - the human tendancy to reserve a "sacred language" for worship. Catholics have their Latin liturgy. Russian Orthodox pray in Old Slavonic. Anglicans have their Elizabethan English prayer book. The Arabic of the Quran and the mosque is archaic and nothing like the language of the Arab street. Jews pray in Hebrew, and the adoption of Hebrew as Israel's official language was considered a sacrilegious denigration of "God's language" in the early days of the state. Many campaigned for Yiddish or some other colloquial language to be the official tongue. In Jesus' time, the common people spoke Aramaic or Greek; few Jews understood the Hebrew of the Temple and synagogue.

To on faith: we really need to ask some more questions on atheism. This is a hot topic and many aspects of it--the whole religion versus atheism argument--need to be worked out. In the Washpost today Hitchens replies to Gerson (who wrote yesterday a piece on atheism)--in fact challenges Gerson--to name a moral act or thought achievable by religion that an atheist cannot achieve and then essentially says anyone can name an evil act done precisely because of religion. I would reply to Hitchens that the advantage is toward religion on this one simply because the religious believe in an ultimate source of goodness--namely God--while the atheist believes in no such source and therefore every thought and act of the atheist is automatically tainted with evil no matter how good while the religious no matter how evil have the noble thought that at least there is a source of goodness....

Please more questions on atheism--we really need to get this worked out, everyone reflecting on it as it is supremely important for the future of civilization.

Pope Benedict is encouraging wider use of Latin mass. What elements of tradition--including language--are essential for worship?

Taking the Catholic church first--for it seems the Pope Benedict situation inspired the true question which is the second sentence--I would have to say that I find the use of Latin mass in our day and age troubling for the simple reason that now we are in position to observe that the heyday of the Catholic church occured at the midpoint between the decline of the Roman Empire and the birth of the modern world, science, the Renaissance, etc. in Italy and across the rest of Europe.

In other words, we are now in position to observe that it seems concepts derived primarily from circumstances in Jewish history were introduced into a civilization (Roman) and then acquired their greatest strength all through the long decline of the Roman Empire and before the modern world was born. It is extremely tempting to observe that Catholicism is not a religion proper but rather a combination of concepts primarily derived from Judaism to express the death throes of the Roman Empire--thus at the end of the Roman Empire all that was expressed in Latin was the church...And we can go further and examine all manifestations across all civilizations of the "dipping point", end of cycle, as civilizations collapse and new ones are born.

Trying to reintroduce the Latin mass is something of a return to an impossible to hold static point in Western history--in fact the dark age--when one civilization was ending and the modern world was just being born. Better to return to the Roman Empire itself or not return at all. In fact it is something of an insult to Latin to return to where all that was being expressed in it was the church...But I can understand the temptation...it was a bewitching age. Particularly do I find myself fascinated with the paintings which stretched from Giotto up into the modern world. We have this ambiguous time where we have the death of one world and the upswing into modernity and it is difficult to tell from paintings whether we are dying or arriving in heaven. I remember lying in bed this morning thinking "I believe in angels because I believe in Leonardo; I believe in heaven because I believe in Corot; and I believe in God because I believe in Rembrandt".

We should hope that when we in the modern age find ourselves at the end of the civilizational cycle that we are in that we will imagine as powerfully even if not dipping back into the particular imaginings which occured between the dark ages and birth of the industrial revolution. It concerns me deeply that we seem not to be imagining at all and instead we have an arid tone of merely wishing to discover answers--an atheism and secularity to the point of not having imagination which is necessary for creativity but rather an expectation that we will just find the answer in a pure discovery, arid scientific manner.

In other words, even if we reduce the Catholic church to an end of cycle, a civilization's death throes, an absurd fantastic hoping (belief in Christ, resurrection), still it was imagination at work and we arrived at the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, and modern world. If civilization fails again--truly does operate in cyclical fashion--we must be prepared in a sense for a new "Catholism", end of cycle imagining, and be prepared to drive ourselves upward into a new renaissance, a new modernity, a new and so far unimagined civilization.

Now to answer the question proper, what elements of tradition--including language--are essential for worship, we can see that if Catholicism was something of the ritual, the funeral of the death of the Roman Empire and hope in its rebirth (or the rebirth of some sort of City of God), then it makes little sense to preserve traditions and instead we must constantly create society anew in constant attempts to gain more insight into the rise and fall of civilizations and defeat rise and falls or at least endure rise and falls better if indeed we cannot help developing society, civilization, in cyclical manner.

And language of course must not be preserved but constantly developed toward greater precision and understanding. Therefore we can see that really all religions so far are inadequate. We have Catholicism wanting to have certain concepts derived from primarily Jewish history expressed in Latin; we have Islam wanting its certain concepts always expressed in Arabic...Probably the best religion will be that of pure concept which enters all languages and best navigates the rise and fall of civilizations...So far it seems religions are inadequate to describing this cyclical process. Catholism arrived at an end of cycle. Islam was a process of ascendance with its birth by Mohammed and rapid spread, but it seems not to know how to navigate a dip in cycle because the dip it is now going through seems to inspire terrorism and nothing more. Perhaps Islam cannot dip at all and either must always exist as is or be destroyed by other civilizations better able to navigate cycles. Catholicism was perhaps easier to overcome than Islam is now because Catholism was an end of cycle and no one wants to remain in an end of cycle--kind of like no one wants to hang around at a funeral.

Buddhism is an interesting religion. It seems to be neither end of cycle--a dip--or a pure ascendance. It seems equally comfortable being a religion which expects peace, aquiescence,--passivity--or conversely the violence expected of the Samurai. Perhaps Buddhism is superior to most religions for navigating civilizational cycles. Judaism is another case in point. The Jews just seem to go on no matter what. Interestingly the Jews rejected a clear dip in their civilization by rejecting Christ. They seemed to navigate the cycle by becoming more intellectual--and still do prefer to deepen intellectual depth at moments of crisis.

To sum up I would say that both traditions must evolve into increasingly sophisticated behavior and that language must become more precise--and that we must move into a new religion of pure navigation of civilizational cycles--and best of all break the cyclical process and constantly develop in an upward, ascending fashion. But this is religion understood as not anything of religion we would understand today. Maybe only Far Easterners or the most sophisticated in Western society will understand...

Concepts must always develop. And we must always invent a new language.

John M,

Nice summary much of which is being taught in the theology classes of many large Catholic universities.

And keep in mind as per James Somerville, a retired philosophy professor from Xavier U (Cincinnati), there is no religion in Heaven. The gate is open to anyone of good standing with or without the assistance of B16 and/or Latin Masses.

What a happy event that Catholics might return to the original Latin worship. Oremus. Anus Dei que tolis pecata mundi. Miser re nobis.

It would be wonderful if women returned to wearing mantillas and hats to cover their heads. Each religion has their own unique way of worship. I do not condem them for that.

For a time, I was away from the church due to a divorce. When divorced catholics were allowed to take communion I returned. I did attend other churches and went to a Baptist church for some time. I learned a great deal about the bible from them and enjoyed singing their songs. I also studied with the Jehovah Witnesses, but I felt something drawing me back to the Catholic faith where I felt comfortable.

I love Pomp and Circumstance.

To Concerned the NON-Christian Now A DEIST:

You say, "Matthew 28: 16-20 was not said by the historic Jesus as per Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen but was an embellishment to make the early Church more appealing to the Gentile and Jewish first century CE populations."

Umm, yeah, that's really cute, but that would make the New Testament authors LIARS. That might be okay in your world, but it would make the Bible useless to those of us who trust it as the Word of God.

You say only one-third of what Jesus said is actually from Him. Well, John ends his gospel by writing, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."

So, the whole world could not have space to record all that Christ said and did in three short years, and we have the 'highlights' recorded in just four gospels, but (according to you) two-thirds of those accounts are just made up. So, the earth doesn't have room for all of the things Jesus did and said, but we have room in the gospels for fictitious garbage?

Concerned, from your many (painfully repetitious) posts, and from a conversation we had on a thread some time ago, here are the things you and your professor friends believe:
1. Pretty much the entire Old Testament is one big myth. None of those people existed. None of those events actually happened.
2. Only about one-third of the New Testament is factual. Many of the books were actually written by people who only claimed to be the authors they said they were (like Paul and Peter and James).
3. Jesus was an illiterate rebel. He was not God.
4. There was no resurrection.
5. Jesus' death does not resolve anyone's sins. The idea that God would send His Son to die is just sick and twisted.
6. Prophesy is not possible because God cannot see the future.
7. Prayer is useless because God cannot interfere with human history now that it is under way.
8. Miracles are not possible.
9. Angels do not exist.
10. It is impossible to have a relationship with God.

Nice belief system, pal. You can have it.

The crazy thing is that you call yourself Catholic and actually go to Mass weekly. WOW.
Dude, here's a newsflash: you're a neoDeist!

BTW thank-you Concerned and John M. (and Monkeyboy over on the Jacoby thread) for reminding me why I want to stay Catholic -- as in Church of Rome -- in spite of Joe Ratzinger's pretensions.

John M
I'm glad you find your mega-church authentic. That wasn't the vibe I got at those churches (I tried several) at all. Bottom line, the community I'm in is the family that nourishes me. If I made a change it would be to go more traditional, not less.
As for us "spending so much time on musical style and personal preferences," I took the lead question as being about just that.
Phil
So you are saying that the composer has to be Catholic himself for the music to be played in a Catholic church? I guess I'll throw out all my Mendelsohn. I agree that music has to be well-taught, but the old traditional stuff is easier to learn, and more forgiving of mistakes, than this pop-style stuff.

Matthew 28: 16-20 was not said by the historic Jesus as per Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen but was an embellishment to make the early Church more appealing to the Gentile and Jewish first century CE populations. e.g. www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

this is such a dumb topic, who really cares, i.e., Worship God with all your Heart, Mind, and Soul..........this is all that is needed!

Concerned,

What is your obsession with Crossan?? Is he your second person in your trinity?

1.Darwin
2.Crossan
3.Dawkins

All equal your god??

Your claims about how Crossan thinks things happened differently than recorded in the Bible are purely assumptuious. I think I'd rather take the accounts of the people that actually witnessed the events, than some guy named Crossan.

John M,

Analyses of Matt 28: 16-20 by many NT exegetes have resulted in the conclusions that this passage was not said by the historical Jesus but was a later embellishment to win converts to the early church. e.g. www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

David & Amanda:

Thanks for the kind and encouraging words, which mean so much to me. David, I felt the Spirit as I wrote. I thanked God after I had posted.

If my postings on this thread seem real, it's because I have been living this question for some time now. My heart and my prayers go out to all Catholics, that they would desire to clear out the distractions and place their focus squarely on Jesus. He will reward anyone who diligently and desperately seeks Him. That reward is complete forgiveness of sins. That reward is freedom from bondage to the flesh. That reward is an eternity spent in heaven. That reward is the peace that transcends understanding. That reward is a love that surpasses knowledge. But, above all, that reward is God Himself!

"And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age"
Matthew 28:20

"That's kinda my point. Palestrina and Brahms can be used.."

Brahms was a skeptic and was baptized a Lutheran. He never wrote any Catholic music. Palestrina would be a good choice though. Occasionally you hear some of his stuff. Of course, you have to have a good choir who can learn it... In this day and age, well, good luck.

John M,

Once again you have an awesome post (July 13, 2007 3:26 AM)

After reading what you wrote earlier, I felt the Spirit from your words. I do believe God is using you and He is doing a great job through you. Thank you so much for that because I've learned so much from you. It seems that when we leave our humanly opinion out of it and subscibe only to His Word for truth, the truth comes out. I love how you do this every time and every time the truth cannot be argued. God bless you in all your works. Thanks again brother.

VIEJITA & HUSTLER:

I can't believe you are spending so much time on musical style and personal preferences.

Hustler, you wrote: "It is just so troubling that so much emotional energy is wasted over silliness about Latin, when the Church's serious problems are so structural."

So, discussing Latin is a silly waste of time, but talking about musical style is a good use of your time?

Look, I am not trying to judge either one of you. I myself had a tough time when I left the Catholic church and started attending a non-denominational megachurch. The music was modern (and loud), they had cameras and movie screens, there was a stage in place of an altar, and there were no stained glass windows (which I love). There were no recited prayers and no readings. The pastor read scriptures as he preached. The first church I attended did not feel like church at all. They sang strange songs for about thirty minutes. I was sure I didn't like it and was thinking of heading back to Mass the next week, but then...
The pastor got up and started preaching. He read one verse, and then said, "Stop there." What? We Catholics never stop in the middle of a reading! What is this guy doing? He went through every bit of the few verses he read and explained everything. It was amazing. Someone was interpeting, not just reading, the Bible and making it practical to me. It was wonderful. (You can't get that with a canned Latin Mass!)

Early on, I was going to church to "get something out of it". That was my spiritual level of maturity. I waited all week for Sunday to come. Now, six years later, I still look forward to Sunday, and I still learn a lot from our sermons, but the focus for me is much more on GIVING back to God. I am there to worship. We do that by singing, praying, giving our tithes, and studying His Word.

I really pray that both of you could get past all of what you see and hear at church and focus on the One you came to worship.

Here's what the Book of Ephesians says:
"Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (5:19-20)

That passage doesn't say what STYLE of music we should sing. We have to get away from the idea that God is some old man who likes old-fashioned traditions. What image of God are we portraying to God's people if we mumble rehearsed prayers to Him and sing ancient music to Him? How will anyone think God can help them with their modern problems in the modern world if He is so out-of-date and out-of-touch?

God is timeless! His Word is also timeless. He is always relevant, so our worship should be relevant as well.

It took me a lot less time that I thought it would to get used to a new style of service. I easily forgot about my beloved stained glass windows. I traded them for authentic worship among Christians whose hearts were focused on Jesus. I'll never go back.

Nothing wrong with OCP in itself. Some of its competitors seem intent on monopolizing the music industry. Another days blog.

Like anything else, the guide should be a resource not given the status of a commandment. I used it for years, and some Sundays never used many of its recommendations. Other Sundays a different story.

Of late, too many musicians approach liturgical music as 'performance', not prayer. Regardless of GIA, WLP, OCP, if all you are doing is showing off and not being 'one' with the folk in the pews, what's the use? And then there are those who have given up and figure no one cares and they play whatever with little consderation to prayerfulness.

People pick that up quickly and get alientated. It means nothing to them. There was a reason for Vatican II. Remember my comments about the 4 folks in the pew with their noses firmly planted in their missals. Same problem coming out of the 1950's.

Attendance was dropping. That translates to fewer envelopes in the basket. What most Bishops care most about.

Sorry for sending my post twice, my computer malfunctioned.

Viejita del Oeste - If that's what you think you should go ahead, you don't need my blessing any more than we need the Pope's blessing to be saved.

Bravo John M on your post this morning! I totally agree with every word you said. Totally agree!

I take everything that comes from the vatican/pope as hog wash. Catholicism is a false religion based on rituals and traditions and they don't stand upon the word.

Matthew 28:19 says: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Jesus solemnly commissioned us to go forth among all nations. The salvation we are to preach, is a common salvation; whoever will, let him come, and take the benefit; all are welcome to Christ Jesus. Christianity is the religion of a sinner who applies for salvation from deserved wrath and from sin.

1 Corinthians 2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God

We need to stop looking to a man (the Pope) for answers and start looking to the Word of God and search it for our answers.

Those who believe what the Pope says, shame on you for following him and not the Son of God!

Gee, Amanda,
Now that I've got your blessing, I'll run right out and join the local snake handlers.

Bravo John M on your post this morning! I totally agree with every word you said. Totally agree!

I take everything that comes from the vatican/pope as hog wash. Catholicism is a false religion based on rituals and traditions and they don't stand upon the word.

Matthew 28:19 says: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Jesus solemnly commissioned us to go forth among all nations. The salvation we are to preach, is a common salvation; whoever will, let him come, and take the benefit; all are welcome to Christ Jesus. Christianity is the religion of a sinner who applies for salvation from deserved wrath and from sin.

1 Corinthians 2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God

We need to stop looking to a man (the Pope) for answers and start looking to the Word of God and search it for our answers.

Those who believe what the Pope says, shame on you for following him and not the Son of God!

So let us all work on the final 3 goals.

give up control
learn to trust
learn to love

That's kinda my point. Palestrina and Brahms can be used -- so why aren't they? I guess that is rhetorical in this setting.
We don't need a new/old mass, we need liturgists with better taste. The OCP mass planner that my parish receives and distributes to volunteer choir directors very rarely recommends anything written before 1970. So like the priests of your acquaintance who mislead on the "bigger" issues, the music professionals are dumbing down everyone's experience -- for their own advancement? I'd like to think not. Then again OCP is a major publisher of modern liturgical music.
Better go earn my keep.....

Viejita del oeste

Sadly, Since I sort of grew up in the 'business', I have known alot of priests....many good, dedicated, true ministers. I've also seen many too many indifferent or on the "underground railroad" avoiding SNAP.

At this point, there are too many former good priests living in schismatic "ecumenical" churches because of wives, or disagreements with the way things are handled by church leadership. And there are so many indifferent or arrogant sorts carrying on, alienating people with lack of sensitivity.

And true to the Peter Principle...they get promoted to Bishop.

BTW who says you Palestrina and Brahms can't be used appropriately in the current mass format. 'A time for every purpose....'. No difference between meditative classical or meditative St. Louis Jesuits when done for the right reasons.

It is just so troubling that so much emotional energy is wasted over silliness about Latin, when the Church's serious problems are so structural.

Hi there,

With approximately one minute to think about it ......

There is simply no part of Tradition that is ESSENTIAL.

The only thing that is essential in a ceremony is a deep reverence for God and an understanding of how much we, as humans, constantly need him in our lives.

All else is window dressing.

Dominic.

Why were we created?

If we remove the concept of an all powerful God.
I think the real question would be who created us?
I believe it was some thing simmilar to a machine but not created by electronics or any other power source we know.
Something outside of our universe.
Thier purpose seems clear if you really look at our history.
We were created for war. For the amusement of these creators.
The king and queen of my faith. Knew the potential of our race.
Saved us all, and created this universe to protect us while we learned the power of love.
We can build any type of world we want.

By the way, I've been lucky enough to be able to connect with priests of varying ages and backgrounds in the parishes I've attended. Maybe it's a regional thing, maybe cultural. Or maybe it is truly just luck. It's not me, I know that. I'm personally a pain in the neck.
So even though I keep reading about the crisis in the priesthood, it's still an abstraction for me. For me the problem has always been the music.

Chi Town
It sounds like we basically agree. I certainly wouldn't be sounding this supportive if I thought my own parish was about to revert to Latin.
But what about the "Meaningless lyrics, unsingable keys led by vocalists who only want to hear the sound of their own voices."? Is there any way to go back to Palestrina and Brahms without ditching the vernacular altogether?

1. I know 'church' is not spelled 'chirch'. No spell check.
2. Last line was cut off. Should say "Sorry. Problem does not have alot to liturgy or doing masses in the vernacular. It has everything to do with engaging the flock, not the smell of insense and a priest droning on in language no one understands."

Viejita del oeste

I am a minister of music. Respect all types and recognize the style is not as critical as the substance. Folk is nice. So is a well done hundred. Good quality, engaging, uplifting liturgy is a challenge. Somehow going back to wallpaper music covering a priest mumbling at the spead of light (to get folks out quickly) in a language they don't understand is fundamentally wrong. BTW. I started before Vatican II. My father was a chirch organist for 30 years before Vatican II. I remember the liturgies. I played them at 6 in the morning, in December, with only 4 people in church. Priest intoned something in latin and I gave him back in Latin. The four people had there noses buried in their missal.

Also go to alot of the masses the people here are complaining about. Alot of self focused musicians playing alot of tripe produced by the Catholic music/composer mills. Gotta pay for the scandal somehow. Meaningless lyrics, unsingable keys led by vocalists who only want to hear the sound of their own voices.

The real problem is a disconnected priesthood. They show up (if they are unlucky enough not to have found an associate to sub). Do a mass. Holmily regurgitates whatever they read in Sunday's NY Times (if you're lucky) and are never seen again until next Sunday. Heck. Working with the folks in the pews? that's the deacon and lay minister's job.

And then there are the Bishops. I won't go there.

I contend our problem is institutional arrogance. Not lack of Latin.

Sorry. Problem does not have alot to

Chi Town
Have you been to any modern American masses lately? There is definitely a stylistic disconnect between many of the things that go on during the service and the feeling of awe that people remember from childhood.
The longing for the old mass is a lot like the popularity of oldies radio stations. If only the sounds and smells were more like those of our childhoods, maybe we would suddenly wake up tomorrow getting younger, not aging.
The odd thing in both cases is how many young people listen to classic rock and the rat pack and seem to really appreciate the old-fashioned mass.

John M
One of the things I like about the current pastor at my parish is the way he applies his homilies (i.e. sermons) directly to the scripture readings. Some of my fellow parishioners have complained that his comments are too long, but I suspect these are the same people who feel that it is their right to doze through most of the service and to be dismissed quickly enough to make a noon tee time.
For those of you who may be unaware (John M, I'm sure you know this) each Catholic mass has two sections. The first "half," The Liturgy of the Word, includes at least one reading each from the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Gospels, as well as a homily from the priest or deacon and a general profession of faith. This is usually more than half the mass in respect to time spent, unless there is a confirmation or some other ceremonial section. In that case, the Word isn't cut short, we just stay longer.
The parish I attend has a liberal congregation but the last two pastors have been quite conservative, which I think creates a good balance. We'll see how and if Benedict's latest is going to change any practices on the ground.
A Catholic liturgy is not a proper mass if it does not include both the Word and the Eucharist. There are still people who arrive right before communion and cut out as soon as they have eaten Christ (to use Anthony Burgess's great evocative phrase) and who feel that doing this counts as attending mass.
I would say, counts for what purpose?
Anyway, I don't always agree with my priest's interpretations -- he is big on tradition and context -- but that just sends me to my Bible to think about it more myself, which could not be a bad thing.

The quality of discussion is a stunning reflection of why the Catholic Church is increasingly marginalized and losing members to the Evangelicals hand over fist. The focus on mysticism, mass-as-art-form, and pining for worship in a language that excludes 99.9% of Catholics(I'll wager most of those who fondly demand Latins resurrection never got past "Britannia est Insula" in the Latin I book.)is ridiculous in the context of our being mandated by Jesus to be a missionary faith-Apostolic I believe the word is.

If the Church remains an exclusionary 'boys club'arrogantly dismissing the spiritual needs of its flock, it is doomed. No rationalization that Mother Church has survived 2000 years...a non-sequitur

At some point the Lord has to say "Enough of this Horse Hockey". You folks didn't do what I told you to do, and wasted all of your time arguing about a language I barely remember!"

Catholics are supposed to be the 'Light of the World', not the ones hiding the Light.

Qui vult dare parva non debet magna rogare

You guys figure that out.

Miguel @July 11, 2007 9:17 PM: The New Testament was originally written in Aramaic and Greek. So why use the Latin translation?

KMB,

Professor Crossan's conclusions about Christian atonement theology and well worth repeating and seriously thinking about: (Professor Crossan is an On Faith panelist)

From his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

And as Karen Armstrong (another On Faith Panelist) likes to say: "Are we not all the Sons and Daughters of God " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone realize that the reason for Latin was so that the undeducated could feel good as a previous post stated. It also kept the scriptures out of the hands of the same folks who couldn't read Latin. That way only a few could interpret scripture and the masses just had to believe what they were being told as they were led straight to hell. Catholicism is the woman on the beast. The bible even says they wear scarlet robes. There is so much fundamentally wrong with Catholicism it amazes me how it isn't seen by the millions that practice. Oh wait- that's because they don't read their own bibles and instead allow it to be interpreted for them. Jesus died for our sins and is now an Advocate for us with our father. He did away with the need for a priest to intercede for us and when we confess our sin to Him, not a priest, we are instantly forgiven. The whole say ten hail Marys thing is just another way of giving a sacrifice like in the Old Testament and Jesus did away with that. He is the only one who is infallible not a man called a pope. Wake up people and start stockpiling bibles in English because one day they will be outlawed and even if you want to know about the true God it won't be available. Babylon and the Anti-Christ are coming soon.

I have for sometime now been developing a theory that there are many people who worship God who really don't want to understand what God says. For them God is best mysterious, and unknown. The Latin Mass and the King James Bible both help in this cause. While the KJB is beautiful poetry and has a tug on our memories, it is not a good version to use for study and understanding. If we don't understand something, then we have an excuse for not doing what we are being instructed to do - namely to make this life and this world, both supreme gifts from God, better because we were alive and trying to do what is morally right.

I have for sometime now been developing a theory that there are many people who worship God who really don't want to understand what God says. For them God is best mysterious, and unknown. The Latin Mass and the King James Bible both help in this cause. While the KJB is beautiful poetry and has a tug on our memories, it is not a good version to use for study and understanding. If we don't understand something, then we have an excuse for not doing what we are being instructed to do - namely to make this life and this world, both supreme gifts from God, better because we were alive and trying to do what is morally right.

Poor, poor Victoria!!! Again she continues to "duck" the issues about her religion's foundations. Maybe it is that demon of the demented in her???

Another observation about Victoria:

Victoria also suffers from her brainwashing in Islam and can't even make a clear escape from the significantly stupid concept of angels ("pretty wingie talking thingies") because she knows full well that if angels go so goes any contact "big Mo" had with the Big Guy.

And the parallel observation:

B16 also suffers from his breeding, birth and brainwashing in orthodox Catholicism and can't even make a clear escape from the significantly stupid concept of limbo because he knows full well that if limbo goes so goes original sin, one of the dogmas and guilt trips of orthodox Catholicism.

correction:
Jesus said, "SEEK and you will find".
sorry

Do you know how many Catholics I know who are disenchanted with the sermon/homily they hear each Sunday? There are three readings and a Psalm at each Mass, yet most priests miss the mark and go on about something that is either miniscule and esoteric or too vague to be useful.

If you could change that one thing, you would be on to something. Of course, that assumes that every priest would actually have to UNDERSTAND the Bible passages being read and that the priest would actually have something practical and relevant to share with his flock.

Also, this notion that the Mass is for one's enjoyment first and foremost is out of focus with the idea of worship. Again, do you have any idea how many times I have heard Catholics talk about how they are not 'getting anything out of' going to church? Is it supposed to be about us?

Toward the end of the Old Testament, God tells His people that He is no longer pleased with their sacrifices and festivals. These were the very sacrifices and festivals that God Himself prescribed, but they were offensive to Him because the people's hearts had drifted from Him. They were living wicked lives apart from God, but they showed up at the Temple expecting to go through the motions and somehow please God.

How DO we please God?

Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

The kind of faith that pleases God comes from searching for Him. The Greek word translated 'earnestly seek' can also be rendered 'diligently seek', 'beg' or 'crave'. God wants us to beg for Him, to seek Him out, to crave Him with all that we are. And, how does He reward those who seek Him in this way? He gives us Himself! Jesus said "Ask and you will find". The Greek would be better translated "Keep on seeking and you will keep on finding". The truth is that God is infinite, so there is always more to know about Him, and we can always go deeper in our relationship with Him. This, and only this, will please Him.

"Doing Church" is NOT about me. It's NOT about my preferences. It's about worshipping my Heavenly Father. It's about spending quality time with Him. It's about helping others and sharing our faith with our Christian brothers and sisters, to encourage them.

The issue is not the language of the Mass but the purpose of the Mass. The expressly stated goal of the Catholic Mass is to offer Jesus up as a sacrifice for our sins, in an attempt to obtain forgiveness and grace. This is misguided since Jesus died once for all of my sins. That's why He said on the Cross "It is finished". Once I accept His gift for the forgiveness of my sins, I don't need to offer any sacrifices. Now, He only wants me, and He wants all of me.

This notion that we have to put Jesus on the Cross over and over and over is what has led to the utter irrelevance of the Catholic Mass. Is it any wonder that so many Catholics don't 'get anything out of the Mass'? It's all about this continuous ritual that is not only unnecessary but actually offensive to God.

Show people Jesus and they will come back. But, to do that, you have to know Him. You have to seek Him. Sadly, most priests don't. They are so focused on the ritual that they completely miss the God they are supposed to be worshipping. And, they lead their flocks along with them into godless meaninglessness.

i guess some of my old frustrations and discontents seeped through there-

i try really hard not to be critical of other religions in any deep way that may be too, well painful or hurtful.

it was sort of a sensory deprivation when i became muslim- specifically for the austerity of the surroundings and the lack of any images or sights sounds smells to latch onto.

all attention and energy is focused pointedly and only on the prayer-
the act of worship and giving of energy without supplications or asking or taking- even seomthing as simple as images-

but the result is for me (as i can only subjectively observe) absolutely liberating.

and there is a palpable connectedness and unity- to god and my sisters and brothers in islam.

in a way i think people sense this unified front, if you will, of muslims and since the only ones advertised or 'sold' are the fringe and outrageous elements-

i guess people naturally transfer their intuitive sense of our galvanized intentions (to worship god alone and fully) and transfer some of the crazier intents onto all muslims as a whole.

in a way, the paranoia and fear expressed by some is a testament to the solidity of the ummah(worldwide community).

of course muslims come from the most varied and diverse countries and cultures and political social etc--- backgrounds imaginable-
dont 'think' as one giant leviathan and agree with each other at all-

but were still like the cells in a body, and if one of the cells is or sick- it affects the health of the whole body, or ummah.

ive gotten away with my point (i do ramble on)

i really always appreciate the level heartedness and innate fairness you display in your posts

it is this longing for connectedness that is satisfied most deeply with islam-
the fact that it already wisely contains a base language for all mankind and has its own rich traditions is icing on the cake for me.

pax vobiscum
(peace be with you)

now let us turn to our neighbors and give them the sign of peace

Mary :

I think it is important to understand your history so you do not make the same mistakes. Do we need to return to history to do that? Or do we just need to teach our children and encourage them to think for themselves?

Victoria,
I think the nostalgia for the Latin Mass reflects just how disconnected and silly the contemporary mass has become -- not everywhere or all the time, but often enough to frustrate a significant number of congregants.
In many cases, the blast from the past will constitute a step forward, not backward. Now if they could do something about the bad modern music we're expected to sing...
Latin is not the original language of our scriptures, but it is separate enough from our daily lives to have retained an air of the sacred.
It would be great if our religious observances reflected the best of American (or other local) culture. Trouble is, I'm not sure there is anything worth borrowing in contemporary American culture. We get enough pop music and self-help salesmen outside the sanctuary.

it is interesting to note (from my perspective).

all of the postings ive read in favor of the latin mass over the different panelists blogs seem imbued with some sentimental longing for a nostalglic feeling of pleasure and connectedness to the past through ceremony.

i have not seen one panelist or poster who has made any argument in favor of the latin mass that seems to include any edification of their spiritual state.

art is wonderful, but eliciting emotional responses is not the purpose of spiritual growth.

it is not all feeling good and enjoyinment of the sensory stimuli-

other than those elements- i think the return of the latin mass would only divide further christians in the world-

its late in the game to try to recapture the incense flooded cathedral atmospheres of our youth-

what happens to the searching soul when the incense clears and the chanting fades?

faith has to have a more inclusive and powerful effect

its not like god is sitting in church waiting for people to come in and notice her/him.

The Latin Mass was and remains a work of art. I'm very bored with the bashers who never fail to show us how narrow minded and prejudiced they are when it comes to cherised aspects of traditional Catholicism. They are the pseudo intellectual storm troopers of this age! The Russian and Greek Orthodox rites have sustained their ancient and beautiful masses and we honor them. The Maronite, Coptic, and Byzantine rites still conduct traditional liturgies and they are enobling. All of these liturgies are worth saving and experiencing.
The Tridentine Roman rite is worth preserving too. Think about that next time you enjoy Mozart's Mass in D Minor.

In A.D. 312, Constantine, Emperor of Rome was marching against Maxentius from France into Italy. The story goes that he had a vision in which he saw a cross, or perhaps the letter, “X” the initial of Christ. With this was the inscription “conquer by this.” He determined that if he was victorious he would make Christianity the legal and official religion of the Roman world. So, taking this as the sign of God, he did as he was told. On his banner and on the soldiers’ shields he put the letters “X” and “R” for the initials of Christ. He was victorious and he issued the Edict of Milam which made Christianity the official religion. All persecution of Christians stopped and being a Christian became the vogue of the day.

What actually happened was the name “Christianity” was given to the pagan Babylonian mystery religion with but a few necessary changes. The temples became the churches, the priests and nuns became the leaders of Christianity. The statues and festivals were given new names, but it was the same system with a new name. Only the names were changed to deceive the innocent. Astarte or Cybele became Mary, and Tammuz, Baal or Bacchus became Jesus, etc.

In the days of Julius Caesar the emperor became the high priest of the Babylonian cult and wore on his crown the name “Pontifex Maximus.” “Pontifex” means “the bridge maker,” i.e., between God and man. “Maximus” means the “greatest.” So this became the title of the high priest of mystery Babylon. Today the Pope wears the same title and calls himself the sovereign pontiff of the College of Pontiffs and the successor of Peter. However, the truth is he is the successor of Babylonian high priests. He is not the successor of the Apostle Peter, but the direct successor of the high priests of the Babylonian mystery cult, the servant of the fish god, Dagon, whose ring (the fish ring) he wears just as did his successors. Even the keys he wears which he claims came from Peter, came instead from the heathen Babylonian gods of Janus and Cybele who bore keys in ancient Babylonianism. Not until 431 A.D. did Roman Catholicism publicly lay claim to the possession of Peter’s keys (Matt. 16:19).

Ancient religious Babylonianism (the mother of harlots) which began in Babel (Babylon), today resides in Romanism which is headquartered in the ancient city of Rome and is spread practically all over the world. This is undoubtedly the religious Babylon of Revelation 17:18.

RCC.....Woman on the beast???

oh jesus maria pleeze why should anyone pay attention to this stupid dude?? when young this pope was a member of the hitler youth movement now that he is grown-up he runs around in full drag each and everyday. now he wants to change our mass into a language that no one speaks or understands!! oh jesus maria what a joke what a scam it seems that more and more churches are run by mostly homophobic moneygrabbing priest/ministers etc. IS RELIGION THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER??? I HAVE DECIDED IT IS THE PROBLEM ITS JUST HOKUS POKUS . THANK YOU MS JESUS.

oh jesus maria pleeze why should anyone pay attention to this stupid dude?? when young this pope was a member of the hitler youth movement now that he is grown-up he runs around in full drag each and everyday. now he wants to change our mass into a language that no one speaks or understands!! oh jesus maria what a joke what a scam it seems that more and more churches are run by mostly homophobic moneygrabbing priest/ministers etc. IS RELIGION THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER??? I HAVE DECIDED IT IS THE PROBLEM ITS JUST HOKUS POKUS . THANK YOU MS JESUS.

anon:

here's some latin 4U.

utinam barbari spatioum proprium tuum invadant

Victoria,

Without oil, Arabic would be like Latin, no longer needed or desired as Islamic terrorists would have to crawl back into their caves and only hallucinate about days of terror.

And again, what about those angels? Did Gabe speak Arabic, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic or some kind of "spirit speak" that only Mohammed, B16, Moses, and Jesus could understand?????

In LATIN???

What, is Pope Benny "frickin' nuts?"

So now I suppose, all the Roman Catholic illegal immigrants will not only need English as a Second Language (ESL) courses, but something new - Latin as a Third Language (LTL) classes too.

Quick - time to recruit up more teaching nuns!!

Donde esta, Semulus Populus Quem Romanus??!

;)

Here's some latin for ya.....

SOLA SCRIPTURA!

oops not latin. Oh well, I made my point.

REQUIEM: DIES IRAE (DAY OF WRATH)

"What horror must invade the mind,
when the approaching Judge shall find
and sift the deeds of all mankind."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nl-wRbJoWVA

Who cares what the pope thinks. He puts his pants on the same way I do, one leg at the time. He's just an ordinary guy who has been close to power most of his life and now has wormed his way into a position of power. He's 80 years old and soon, he too, will return to dust the same way all his predecessors have done.

If the Catholics could drop their heresies - they could indeed end the schism - and go back to their Orthodox roots.

The Jews rejected Him. The gentiles condemned Him spat at Him, mocked Him, beat Him, whipped Him, pounded nails into His hands and feet hung Him up to die, and cursed Him. You know what, were still doing it.

I'm latino

I think they oughta use pig Latin.

Ellshay out the ucksbay, umpchays.

interesting points daniel-
language really is a glue that holds people together, you left out islam, which arose in arabic and is still alive and unifying its adherents from every corner of the world.

perhaps the pope is trying to accomplish what is already extant and flourishing for almost 1500 years.

B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church. The problem is that when one closely evaluates the scripture that he depends on for this "God-given" role, it falls heavily on the side of embellishments made by scribes trying to "sell" Catholicism to folk accustomed to being led around by the swords of kings, queens and emperors and their "Divine Rights". Enter democracy and education of the masses about 200 years ago and things are now rapidly changing.

More and more priests and men are opting for marriage. Priests who do remain have significant issues with sex. Nuns what few are left are demanding installation in the priesthood.

What do many of the contemporary NT scholars conclude about scriptural approval of said papacy ??

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

What do we expect from a Pope 1) who was raised in Hitler's Germany, 2) who claims that Christianity did nothing but good for the millions of Native Americans that European Christians killed, 3) who hates gays, and 4) who claims evolution, the central tenet of biology established through years of observation and experimentation, is a myth? Next thing we know Pope Benedict will probably promote the re-introduction of feudalism (he can't re-introduce the Christian Crusades against Muslims; Bush (according to Benedict, a heathen non-Christian) already beat him to the punch. If Jesus actually existed, he's probably roll over with a belly laugh at what his followers claim is God's will.

tbrucia

Mass is a celebration of Eucharist in Christ's Community....not something mystical, magic and secret. Leave that to the Druids and PreChristian Egyption high priests.

We are Christ's people and it is incumbent on us to know what we are saying...not mouthing words for some sense of sacred elegance.

David,

LOL, I put it in quotes, I thought everyone knew it was you. Do I have to site a source if it is on the same page?

It's been many decades since I attended Mass in any language, but the Latin still gives me a nice feeling. I enjoyed such classic hymns as O Salutaris, and Tantum Ergo -- belted out vigorously by tone-deaf Italian widows. I vividly remember the monstrance, the ceremonies surrounding the putting on of the alb, chasuble, etc. And who can ever forget the smell of incense, or the ringing of the bells at critical points in the ceremony.... Latin was not a means of communication as much as a celebration of the mysterious and nostalgic. I was sorry to see it sunk in a morass of modernization. --- Curiously, I have attended Jewish services (in Hebrew) and Greek Orthodox services, and got the same tingling sensation there as in my childhood with Latin. If only to revisit times long since past, I'd attend Latin Masses -- not so much for the religious significance (none of a non-believer such as me), but simply for the art!

Daniel et al who contend that "... the original language a worship is born in is most important for its survival unless the worship can jump languages."

Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic (of sorts I understand). Latin did not achieve precedence until Constantine.

So if success in our worship's survival rests on its original language....what's left of the seminary system better add Aramaic. If I am not mistaken from my freinds who still are involved with Seminary education, Latin is not mandatory anymore either.

But the primacy and necessity of Latin seems to be a sentimental favorite solution to the Church's ills. My father, a died in the wool pre Vatican II liturgical musician, refused to say the responses in english, prefering to mouth the Latin. Strange. He had no training in Latin and didn't have a clue what he was saying...but he felt is was absolute to maintaining 'worship'.

Homines libenter quod volunt credunt

If we stopped worrying about museum quality languages and the church focused on repairing the detached church leadership at all levels (perhaps detached from reality) the pews wouldn't be so empty.

Hey Mary you stole my "poop benny" line. How dare you.....

Pope Benedict is encouraging wider use of Latin mass. What elements of tradition--including language--are essential for worship?

Reflecting on the first sentence first--which was not a question--I simply observe that Pope Benedict's project is doomed to fail for the simple reason that Latin was the language of the Roman empire, and trying to return half-way to the Roman empire--essentially to the middle ages between the empire and the vernacular Italian which arose in Italy--is essentially the attempt to return to the age of a dying empire and before the scientific revolution and modern world was born. If at all the Pope is trying to promote Latin to resurrect the church let alone counter Islam, then that is most silly. Better a total return to the Roman empire itself or continued thrust forward into the democratic and scientific age and the promotion of the English language. What is most amusing about all this is the notion of the Catholic church as the bearer of tradition and foundation and civilization in Europe. The great glory of the Catholic church occured between the death of one civilization--was essentially a combination of the concepts of the Bible with the language of a dying civilization--essentially the death throes of a dying civilization--and birth of the modern world. Trying to resurrect that world would be a disaster for the West--essentially a replay of the death of the Roman empire.

In this sense and to answer the question proper--what role traditions--and especially language--play in worship, I would have to say that with Christianity what we have is the endurance of certain concepts rather than language, for the concepts have passed, as everyone knows from Hebrew to Aramaic to Armenian to Greek to Latin to Russian to English, etc. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS IF THERE IS A CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE CONCEPTS PASSING INTO A LANGUAGE AND THE DEATH OF THE CIVILIZATION WHICH HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO THE LANGUAGE. In other words we have the Greek mass but the death of the Greek classical world. We have the Latin mass but the death of the Roman empire...And we have the salvation of the Jewish world by the explicit rejection of Christianity...

The Pope's resurrection of Latin can be helpful only if it makes us more classical, more learned about the Roman empire. It cannot make us more learned about the concepts known as Christian passing through all languages. In this sense the Pope's actions are harmless (if taking religion only). The question is the mischief done by trying to resurrect the Roman empire...But of course we cannot resurrect the Roman empire so--and to turn around--perhaps the greater mischief is trying to resurrect Christian concepts when they were most powerful...But resurrecting Christianity when it was most powerful is perhaps equivalent to resurrecting merely the death throes of a particular civilization! Or even better, getting a front row seat at the virus of Christianity at its most virulent!

I would say that the original language a worship is born in is most important for its survival unless the worship can jump languages. But then we have to ask if in jumping languages it is enriching the "infected" civilizations or corrupting them. What modes of thought jump languages and enrich all languages? What modes of thought jump languages and corrupt civilization? Christianity seems to arise at the death of civilizations. Judaism, Buddhism, science seem to arise at moments of flourishing...

Relationship of thought to language to civilization.

One more note, I believe anyone who listens and follows a dream they had while sleeping. They are following their own fears.

Yes, I think "poop beni" was dreaming.

Before you can discuss what elements are required for worship you need to define who or what is being worshiped.

If the object of worship is a vainglorious, self-centered arrogant and vengeful deity then you can never know what it expects. Such a deity would have so many personality flaws as to make it impossible to predict what would placate its ego at any given moment.

If the deity is the Christian deity the see above:

If what you worship is life and the wonder of the universe that you are free to seek your own method of expression.

If there is no deity out there to worship then there is no need of worship.

Because of the insight of our founding fathers we are free to choose who or what we worship if anything.

However, I fear that there is a movement afoot that would like nothing better than to restrict all of us to one and only one method of worship.(See the Pop's latest remarks although he is not alone in this cause.)

Hopefully none of the holier than thou religious extremists groups out there succeed in forcing any one religion down our throats.

His Holiness' may seem counterintuitive but it is entirely consistent with trying to return to a more traditional church where the folks in the pews role was not to understand, but keep the cash and checks coming in.

As a liturgical musician trained just before and then during Vatican II, It is nice to see that I will once again have use for all that old music stashed in basement file cabinet.

Seriously. Just another example of institutional arrogance-the reason the Catholic Church is being marginalized to the point of irrelevance.

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

or maybe more appropriate

"Bene, cum Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare."

Regarding Susan's Jacoby's comments, I am somewhat befuddled. Why is it that the Jews can practice rituals in Hebrew, have a homeland where Hebrew is the national language, while she criticizes the leader of the Catholic Church for issuing modest guidance that encourages bishops to celebrate more Tridentine Masses?

Perhaps Ms. Jacoby's rich background in secularism gives her a perspective I am unaware of. But, if she had truly thought the issue using secularism as her guidepost, she would have been comforted by the thought that, given the flagrant independence of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Tridentine Rite is is no danger of sweeping the nation.

That said, supporters of Pope Benedict realize that his recent guidance on the Latin Mass of old might mean, finally, an alternative to the empty, gather-round-the-campfire Mass that has become the joyless standard in all too many parishes.

In other words, the Tridentine Mass will restore the centrality of God, Jesus Christ and reverence for the same to the ritual. Benedict's message, in short, is that the Mass is assuredly not "all about me." Dixi.

.
.
.
.

I think in the future the Vatican should say NO to anymore NAZIS wanting to be POPE.

READ MY LIPS: NO NEW NAZIS!

.
.
.
.

I remember saying prayers in Latin as a kid. It offered a certain reverence. It was all the nonsense I heard in English, which caused me to blow off the Catholic Church.
Talk about out of touch. Reverting to Latin is almost as good as the recent proclamation that all other Christian denominations are wounded and wrong. Next, they’ll be stoning people. Thank God almighty; I’m free at last.

while communicating with god does indeed transcend language barriers, communication between people in any congregation who are struggling sincerely to become aligned and unified in their intentions, their spiritual growth and their worship necesitates a common language.

latin is not a living language- no one speaks latin to each other to communicate- its a dead language.

to try and galvanize into a unified whole the catholic (which actually means universal) population with a crystallized and inflexible mass in latin will only become a futile exercise in automatonic and robotic response without understanding.

even if through rote repitition the congregants learn to ape the proper response, it will be completely without understanding.

vain repitition is disavowed in the bible.
because it is unconscious.
with the death of pope john paul II pope benedict has some very large spiritual shoes to fill,but it is a peculiar device for him to use to try to make his mark in history.
pax vobiscum

I'm reminded of the scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" with the monks chanting "Pie Jesu Domine. Dona eiis requiem." Then hitting their foreheads with their Bibles.

The only good thing that I can think of with bringing back the Latin Mass is that so much lovely liturgical music has been written over the centuries. Maybe now the Catholic Churches will get decent choirs that can sing that music again, instead of some wanna-be soprano or tenor that's in love with their own voice leading the music.

AC, nice post. That is exactly right. How can anyone disagree with that.

Nonny,

Concerning Peter being the "rock". Jesus says on "this" rock... Not you are the rock. Even Peter later testifies to who the "rock" is.

1 Pet 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK OF OFFENCE, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy

This Peter is the "rock" thing is what catholics rely on to deem themselves as the only "true" church, but according to peter himself, Jesus is that rock. Therefore catholics are not the "true" church, but that the "church" is the body of believers heades by Jesus, not the pope. I see this as the way they lead people to deception. Too bad

It is sad really, like any other country that shut it's door to the rest of the world, they will become stagnant. Pride will do that that to you.

The more Latin the better -- it emphasizes that the Catholic Church is the last remnant of a decadent Roman Empire. It also points out that real Christianity had nothing to do with Rome, certainly Jesus did not. Catholicism is a creation of the Italian mind, like pizza. But a lot more indigestible.

I think the pope's bible is missing the page where it says, "Judge not lest you be judged".

I can't seem to get my Shift Key to work when I type the words pope or bible.

Okay okay, so let me see if I have this straight. At a time when there is a lot more religious tension in the world than "normal," the pope -- the freakin' POPE, mind you -- comes out and declares that all the other Christian churches, well...aren't. And, oh yeah, all those other so-called religions? Not. Do I have that right? That's about what he said? Sounds like the kind of bonehead statement that might incite a huge bar brawl. Um...so cue those Guinness guys, huh? ...brilliant!

Since it's all jabberwocky, anyway, what real difference does it make?

Although I tend to agree that having it in Latin does seem to camouflage the absurdity a bit.

I think it is ironic that Benedict is creating a truly postmodern church, a church that has something for everybody. He's smart enough to appreciate what he's doing, and he doubtless understands what his motu means in the context of a postmodern world. My guess is that this is the start of smorgasboard Catholicism on an international scale. Benedict seems to be a radical who is tapping into the cutting edge of philosophical thinking prevalent in our own day and age. Perhaps he is a Pope John in wolves' clothing. Liturgy was heterogeneous in the west until Trent, so the church is returning to its roots. My bet is that there are going to be a variety of contradictory reforms if this Pope lives long enough to make them.

Why should anyone be shocked at Benedict's insistence that the Roman Church over which he presides has a monopoly over salvation, and is thus the only true church? As a Jew and a medievalist who specialized in church law and theology, to me there really seemed no room for the Roman church built as its hierarchy is upon both the primacy of the pope and the salvific primacy of his church's sacraments to view matters any differently.
That Benedict also is endorsing the Latin mass is just another way of saying that the road to Damascus runs only through Rome, or that its my highway or hell.
This must make atheists ecstatic. So much for ecumenical dialogue.

Please go to Foxnews.com and read Father Jonathan's piece on the comments the Pope recently made concerning other Christian religions. Additionally, many of us Catholics WELCOME the Latin mass. It is the language of our ancestors and it is more close to the mass of Jesus's time than the present day Catholic mass. As for all the anti-Catholic sentiment, do not forget that your religions evolved from the Catholic faith (ex. The Episcopal Church broke away for issues as secular as divorce). Jesus told Peter that he would be the "rock" on which the Church was build (hence, we have the Pope). I do not believe my Catholic religion is BETTER than any other, just different. And I do believe that at a time in life when the "Holy War" is looming (current events highlight it), ALL Christian religions need to unite and celebrate our sameness, not concentrate on our small differences. "United we stand, divided we fall." God bless and please leave the Catholic faith to us Catholics; I won't pretend to understand fully your protestant religion (nor dis it:).

Please go to Foxnews.com and read Father Jonathan's piece on the comments the Pope recently made concerning other Christian religions. Additionally, many of us Catholics WELCOME the Latin mass. It is the language of our ancestors and it is more close to the mass of Jesus's time than the present day Catholic mass. As for all the anti-Catholic sentiment, do not forget that your religions evolved from the Catholic faith (ex. The Episcopal Church broke away for issues as secular as divorce). Jesus told Peter that he would be the "rock" on which the Church was build (hence, we have the Pope). I do not believe my Catholic religion is BETTER than any other, just different. And I do believe that at a time in life when the "Holy War" is looming (current events highlight it), ALL Christian religions need to unite and celebrate our sameness, not concentrate on our small differences. "United we stand, divided we fall." God bless and please leave the Catholic faith to us Catholics; I won't pretend to understand fully your protestant religion (nor dis it:).

It was stupid of them ever to toss Latin. It always served the vital function of awing the uneducated.

I personally don't care what the Pope or the Vatican says. I only care what the Word of God says and what the Pope is spouting is heresy. John 14:6 (Jesus speaking) I am the way, the truth, and the life no man cometh to the Father except by me. Ephesians says Jesus is the head of the church and that we, His followers, are the body (church). This is exactly what's wrong with Christian society. Too many Christians expect the pastor, priest, or pope to read the Word of God for them and tell them what it says. And then they trust their interpretation instead of reading it for themselves. If you read the Bible for yourself you'll see he has no authority to decide who is the real church and who isn't because Jesus has already decided that. You'll also realize, Catholicism is pure heresy. A religion fully based on traditions.

I'm a Catholic and all I can say is 'Who cares?'

It should make sense that the Pope endorses the Latin Mass... I mean he is the 'Bishop of Rome' after all. But really, what impact does anything he says have on us as individuals? Not much. Yes he's a leader, yes he's the visible head of the Church, but he's not going to be holding your hand at Mass or when you pray. If you want to sing and pray in Latin, great, do it. If you don't? Then don't.

Personally, I think the Mass texts/hymnals should be printed in both Latin and English; Latin is a great language to learn or understand - it can help tremendously with French and Spanish.

Offering the Mass in Latin also connects to the 'universality' theme of the Church if there really is a common language.

Beyond that though I really see no cause for alarm or concern. And to all those people running around shouting 'the sky is falling!' - please, grow up.

Hippitus Hoppitus Deus Domine

What Benedict and other conservative Catholics forget is "why?". Why did St Jerome translate the Bible from the original Greek into Latin? Why were early services in Latin after the 4th century? For the same reason Luther wanted the Bible and services in German. So that the people could participate and understand. The Latin here is not the high blown Latin of Cicero but the "vulgar" Latin of the people of the 4th century. While the world went by and new languages developed the conservative, traditionalist church forgot its roots and stayed stuck in the mud. The very word "hocus pocus" is from the Latin said by the priest during the Eucharist because the people did not understand the words.

Hippitus Hoppitus Deus Domine

What Benedict and other conservative Catholics forget is "why?". Why did St Jerome translate the Bible from the original Greek into Latin? Why were early services in Latin after the 4th century? For the same reason Luther wanted the Bible and services in German. So that the people could participate and understand. The Latin here is not the high blown Latin of Cicero but the "vulgar" Latin of the people of the 4th century. While the world went by and new languages developed the conservative, traditionalist church forgot its roots and stayed stuck in the mud. The very word "hocus pocus" is from the Latin said by the priest during the Eucharist because the people did not understand the words.

What kind of Power would you have if you could see the future and you had the Power of Love on your side?

My king and queen do not require worship, they are just fighting evil for our benefit and it is halarious to them and all who can see what's really going on. It is evil who is sick, but if it cannot touch you because you are always a step ahead, it is funny. And with all their trickery my king and queen can accomplish phenomenal progress in seconds. It is funny.

*Necessary* for worship? How about naive credulity? Faith in a Pink Unicorn?

Actually I meant to say, you cannot function.

I know, I know, Freudian slip. you can actually function but it takes years of practice.

Now I am not saying language is not important. Because if you get locked up in your own thoughts, you can function.

There is a story I read once that said we all live in a dark cave, afraid to come out of the dark. We are afraid of what it is out there. A few brave souls ventured out into the light and saw amazing, truly wonderful sights. But if they returned to the cave to try to tell the inhabitants of the cave what they saw. The cave people considered them lunitics and either killed them or locked them away in a crazy house.

Once you learn to communicate on a different level. You will find there is no language barrier.

As a Pagan, my prayers are often spoken/chanted, but not so much for the sake of any deities who might be hard of hearing as for keeping myself focused on my intent.
I believe that a silent or whispered prayer/meditation/wish is just as effective as a spoken or shouted one, and it matters not whether it is Latin, English, Farsi, or Esperanto. Ultimately, what counts is what is in your heart - that is what determines the vibration you send out.

My choice. B out. Neither A nor C. Between these ones but far enough from B. It was a magistral lesson.

What would your response be if someone slaps you?

A.- I slap him using the same force he used before.

B.- I killed them. A slap on me is equal to death on him.

C.- I would offer my another cheek.

Your choice?

If worship is a process attached to a thing called a church then the Vatican has the answer:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070711_pope_only_catholics_go_to_church/

“In a move that strikes some as proprietary ecclesiastical politics, the Vatican released a statement Tuesday claiming that the Catholic Church is the only Christian organization eligible to use the term church to describe itself.”

Since the Catholic “Church” is the only church then all of the requirements for worship can be found there and no where else.

Too bad for all of the heathen who attend all of the “false churches” that Satan has created as fronts for recruiting souls for his pleasure in hell.

And what about all of those pagans out there who may not even have a “false church” to attend? I guess they are just out of it all together.

My question is this, why does such an all powerful god allow such confusion when the consequences are so devastating?

My guess is that this god thing does not exist or it has a sick since of humor. If it is the first then there is no need of worship and if it is the second, who would want to worship such a sicko?

"Aren't our beliefs based on God's Word?"...
Of course they are. And Jesus is the Word for someone calling Christian himself.

Viejita,

Thank you for your response. I suppose I should clarify my position concerning tradition.

I feel that if tradition works for you that's great. There is absolutely nothing wrong and nothing anti-biblical about it. I believe every church that I have ever attended had some form of tradition as well. Whether it be the order of the service, the type of music, when we pray, etc. These can all be considered forms of tradition. But, the Bible says not to let the traditions of men conflict with the Word. I listen to what the Word tells me. Aren't our beliefs based on God's Word? So I listen. I seek His Word for truth and guidance. I know myself that I cannot discern the truth from falsehood on my own due to my sinful nature, therefore I need God's Word to guide me. God's Word says plainly that tradition cannot conflict with scripture. And so I examine the traditions of men to determine Biblically if they pass the Bibilical test. Otherwise, GO TRADITION!

No, I do not believe the book was inspired by angels like the mormons think about the BOM. I believe the Bible was inspired by God. And when you say that the early "church father" were the ones that decided what books to include, you need to be more specific. I might want to remind you that Paul and Peter both referred to the scriptures containing the gospel in the NT. If you would like I can find those verses for you. Also, in 2 Peter, Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture as well. So, evidently "scripture" was already well known way before the RCC declared an official canonization. This is a common misconception with who created the Bible. Historically it also does not fit in that the RCC was not a "church" more than two centuries after the last apostle. Until the reign of Constantine (I believe around 324 a.d.??) were Christians finally not persecuted by Roman rule. So two centuries gone by since. What did Christians pre-RCC teach then? What did they base their beliefs on? Obviously the books of the Bible including the NT. Are you aware that there were 24,000 copies of the NT by 125 a.d.? The same NT that we have today?? So 324-125=199 years of the early Christians pre-RCC with the NT. Just because it was not made into a single book but were just a bunch of scrolls does not mean that it was not canon.

Viejita, I can tell that you have your frustrations with the catholic church as of lately. I will keep you in my prayers that you will remain faithful to God regardless of how catholic you feel. I promise you that you need not be catholic to be saved. That is anti-biblical. Jesus saves, not any man or any organization of men. I'll leave you with this..

Eph 1:22-23

"And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all," (Eph. 1:22-23).

...the church, which is His body..

God bless

I don't really have time to follow up on this right now, but the attitude toward our admittedly human traditions is one clear difference between the Catholics and most other Christian denominations. We -- I'll use we for now although I'm not sure how Catholic I am -- think it makes scripture more powerful to be able to go to the commentary of learned people. (OK, they're almost all men.)
As I understand your remarks, David, you feel that the exact wording of scripture supersedes anything anybody might say, write or explain about it. I'm not sure about the mechanics, since you appear to be reading an English translation. Let's assume for the sake of argument, though, that you read Hebrew and Greek. Even so, there was a human action involved unless you believe that the Bible was inscribed by angels like the Book of Mormon. By the way, it was the early Catholic church fathers who determined which of the many "scriptures" floating around the culture were fit to be included in the canon. Still, it's a real doctrinal difference, and I won't try to convince you to see tradition the way a Catholic does.

John M.
I am inclined as well to continue to include in the community those who merely enjoy the association, in the hope that certain faith essentials and ethical standards will rub off on them. That is one of the things that worries me about this pope, that he is so eager to purge wrong thinking that he will throw out the baby with the bathwater. The reason I'm not sure whether to call myself Catholic at this point is that he has made so many statements that I find unacceptable.
But I'm loathe to give up the rituals, the culture and, yes, even the attachment to tradition that the Church offers.

David :
Thank you. I forgot that bronze-age scripture is infallible and relevant.

Can we go out and stone some people this Sunday for missing church or for being adulturous (psalms)?

I look forward to it.

I guess instead of dogging each other, I'll just put in my two cents concerning tradition in the church.

Matt 15:3-6

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7:8-9

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions

Col 2:8

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

I think Col 2:8 is the best at pretty much saying that tradition cannot conflict with God's Word.

2 Thess. 3:6,2 Thess. 2:15, and 1 Cor. 11:2 seem to favor tradition, but according to the previous passages I posted, tradition is fine as long as it does not conflict with the true word of God.

So next is to decide if the catholic church's tradition is in conflict with scripture. I'll leave that up to the individual to decide. But as for me, I think it does.

God bless

Viejita:
Your comment about dead wood makes sense, to a point. There are real Christians in every denomination. The rest are there to feel good or to pretend or for tradition or for show or to check things out. But, to 'trim' them away may not be a good idea. I don't think we should throw people out of a church, or even wish they will go away. If someone wants to show up every Sunday and repeatedly hear the Gospel, let them come! They might come to a point when they accept it and begin to live it.

That brings us back to the subject at hand. If I hear the Gospel in a dead language that I don't understand, will it do me any good? :)

Not defending, just explaining. I have my own problems with Benedict's teachings.

Btw, the Pope lives the life of an aristocrat.

If the pope were following the teachings of Jesus, wouldn't they live a subsistence existence?

Instead, Benedict lives in a guilded, Bernini- designed palace... and you defend him.

Pure hypocracy, if I've ever seen it....

Moral rectitude?

How can a human preach morals when they live in absolute luxury in the center of Rome?

You must be joking....

Anon (Kenneth?)
I'm not making that up. He really has indicated a willingness to prune away dead wood, so to speak, or at least to let the dead branches fall away. He feels that is the way to strengthen the Church of the future and restore its role as a beacon of moral rectitude.
I think he feels that by drawing a line in the sand, he will make those who stay with him feel more secure. It's better than trying to be all things to all people, which certainly doesn't lead to strength or numbers.

God loves you unconditionally.

Unless you don't believe in him... in that case, you burn in hell forever. But he loves you.

Kenny boy,

Your a sick individual. You need you some Jesus man. I think a bowl of God's grace with a side of repentance might taste good to you. What do ya say.....wanna try an Elohim burger?

Kenneth
It may surprise you to know that Benedict sort of agrees with you. He's not looking for a weaker Church, but he has admitted that he would be happy with a smaller, purer community. So I don't htink he's losing much sleep about having once again offended American Catholics.

Yeah, I'm sure he wants the Catholic community to shrink during the 5 years he serves as pope. Right.

Also, he probably loves the fact that Catholicism is shrinking in Europe.

I can't take credit (or blame) for the trashing Jesus comment. I was quoting John M. Actually I'm not sure we could call Him white trash. His earthly father was a skilled tradesman.

Kenneth
It may surprise you to know that Benedict sort of agrees with you. He's not looking for a weaker Church, but he has admitted that he would be happy with a smaller, purer community. So I don't htink he's losing much sleep about having once again offended American Catholics.

Viejita del oeste :
"Can we answer that instead of trashing Jesus?"

Come to think of it, Jesus was relatively white-trash.

I never thought of that.

David :

So Kenneth you look forward to the day that the pope is dead??? C'mon man, have a heart. I'm not catholic and I sure don't agree with mr. popalicious saying I'm not a Christian, but I would never hope for the day he would be dead. Have some compassion man!

In my eyes, anything that weakens the Catholic Church is a good thing.

Why would we ever want a stronger Catholic Church?

Enlightenment = good
Dark Ages = bad

John M. wrote:

'We are way off subject. The thing about the Pope and the Latin mass was just an INTRO to the question:
"What elements of tradition -- including language -- are essential for worship?"

Can we answer that instead of trashing Jesus?'

Nicole, you at least made an effort to answer this question and I thank you for that. How about the rest of you? To use Nicole's phrase, What floats your boat?

BTW, John M., I'm happy to see you back on this thread. We may not always agree, but your opinions and examples seem thoughtful, not knee-jerk. I've been attending a Catholic Church for almost 20 years now and most of the people I've met there are at least as well versed in the Bible as the Protestants here. But you already know that if you go to Catholic Bible study. We do have priests and bishops who like to assume no one but them is familiar with the Gospels, and Catholic school graduates tend to be weak on the Old Testament.
Anyway, I'd love to leave the bickering behind and talk about what acts and experiences everyone finds transcendent, and how they can be incorporated into a liturgy.

Compassion for a conservative-religious figurehead?

To mourn a Pope is the same as mourning an Ayatollah.

Compassion for a conservative-religious figurehead?

To mourn a Pope is the same as mourning an Ayatollah.

So Kenneth you look forward to the day that the pope is dead??? C'mon man, have a heart. I'm not catholic and I sure don't agree with mr. popalicious saying I'm not a Christian, but I would never hope for the day he would be dead. Have some compassion man!

"John M. Quote: Oooh!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!"

If you were 12 or 13 years old, a large number of Catholic priests would "pick you", if given a chance.

We all know its true.

Viejita:

You wrote: "Does anyone on this thread actually know anything about Catholicism?"

Oooh!!! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!

Seriously, try me. I was raised Catholic, I have done a lot of research into Catholicism, I have watched Catholic television, and I attend a Catholic Bible Study with my wife. I love Catholic people, I just can't swallow Catholic doctrine. I had to leave when I started reading the Bible. That tends to happen...

I see your point, but with so many religious people around, it feels like I'm surrounded by idiots.

Do you realize that some people actually take him seriously? In my eyes, they are children, hoodwinked.

Kenneth wrote:

I rue for the day when Pope Benedict is a corpse, collapsed on the floor (like Falwell).

...there's no need to talk bad about Benedict, his ignorance is apparent. Let him speak and allow Catholicism to become an (even more) third-world religion.

Unfortunatly, no matter his demise, another chaste fool will take his place.

I rue for the day when Pope Benedict is a corpse, collapsed on the floor (like Falwell).

Does anyone on this thread actually know anything about Catholicism?

No religious sect accepts that followers of another sect have a chance to reach heaven; starting with the samaritans in juadaism to nowadays sects.
To judge the pope for saying what all other christian sects say about catholics is a non starter.
All religions are monopolistic and catholicism is no exeption.
About latin; what is so bad about this? if the congregation wants latin o.k. otherwise local language.
Jews have hebrew; the original language in which the torah was written .
Moslims have arabic, it's original language.
Why can't christians learn latin and aramaic too; so we delve deeper into the source and it's original meaning.
What i find funny are the christian sects, who take a translated bible literally.

John M,

Oh your welcome brother. When I read that yesterday I just about dropped. It's funny because I just got finished with a book called 'Woman on the beast, the Roman Catholic Church and the last days' by Dave Hunt. A lot of historical information on the RCC. He relates that to the woman on the beast in Rev 19. Or is it 17? One of those. I guess considering the topic, I would suggest that book for further insight.

What the pope has done with the mass and of course most currently with discrediting our salvation because we do not recognize a 'Vicar of Christ' it is consistent with the RCC's history. It's quite upsetting to me because shouldn't Christians be leading people to Christ, not the pope?

I'm with you all the way John M. It sure is news to me that the pope is the means to salvation. Where exactly is that in the Bible??? HMMM......

Thanks, David, for the link.

I also found the actual document that the Pope approved, and several news pieces on it.

This document introduces nothing new, although I am surprised that anyone would want to publicize it.

According to this doctrine, non-catholic denominations are "not true churches" and they lack the "means of salvation". Silly me, I thought Christ was the means of salvation, not any man-made organization!

Mary:
Thanks for your comment. I realized after I posted that my response to Nicole was rather callous. That was not my intent, and I do apologize. I get rather frustrated at people's notions of how things should be, rather than discovering how they really are. Life is difficult and the universe owes us no favors. That's a very scary notion, and I should have worded my post a little more carefully.

Scott,

Thank you.

""This is a quantum, chaotic universe where all sorts of things happen. Galaxies collide, stars go super nova, creatures die while others are fed, and humans can't stand for one bit not being in control of this."

You know recently lightening struck a chapple in Baltimore. Now if we start adding meaning to that, we would drive ourselves Crazy.

B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church. The problem is that when one closely evaluates the scripture that he depends on for this "God-given" role, it falls heavily on the side of embellishments made by scribes trying to "sell" Catholicism to folk accustomed to being led around by the swords of kings, queens and emperors and their "Divine Rights". Enter democracy and education of the masses about 200 years ago and things are now rapidly changing.

More and more priests and men are opting for marriage. Priests who do remain have significant issues with sex. Nuns what few are left are demanding installation in the priesthood.

What do many of the contemporary NT scholars conclude about scriptural approval of said papacy ??

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

Oh by the way thank you Nicole you got it right no. Sorry for the confusion I proposed.

Densbtly,

Acts 2, 1 Cor 13 and 1 Cor 14 contains information on speaking in tongues.

The important thing is looking for the spirit of Jesus. This is specially difficult after so much history of interpolations and external influences. Nothing is clear enough. Different approaches could occur. Languages, tongues? Any. But a Christian cannot ever think that himself is another way to God as Jesus is.

Oh by the way thank you Nicole you got it right no. Sorry for the confusion I proposed.

Densbtly,

Acts 2, 1 Cor 13 and 1 Cor 14 contains information on speaking in tongues.

Nicole wrote:
*** i.e. Someone in Hawaii can be riding along and someone was supposed to hit their car and for some "UNKNOWN" reason it didn't happen it was just a fender bender. That person could have been killed If I failed to obey the Holy Spirit and speak in My "HEAVENLY LANGUAGE".***

What an inflated self image you must have. This is something that I cannot abide with this type of superstition. This is a quantum, chaotic universe where all sorts of things happen. Galaxies collide, stars go super nova, creatures die while others are fed, and humans can't stand for one bit not being in control of this.

** Now Satan can't understand Tounges. Speaking in tounges is direct communication with God and Satan can't stand it when we do that. So it is only beneficial to you to pray the PERFECT PRAYER to God while speaking in tounges.***

Encrypted prayer? What's satan going to do, send malicious code? Is this a new Symantec product or something?

Blithering credulity?

Hey John M,

Here's the article from yesterday.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html?iref=newssearch

Oh I shoudl refute my own words when I referred to "speaking in tongues" This of course is a gift from the Holy Spirit to believers and the Holy Spirit would never praise satan, therefore if a priest is speaking latin and worshipping satan it would not be the Holy Spirit speaking through him. But my point was that should anyone really speak any other language than the common language of the people in attendance? How can one know what the priest is saying much less who they are worshipping. This can lead to deception, can it not?

Sorry about the "speaking in tongues" reference. My fault.

"What elements of tradition -- including language -- are essential for worship?" First. Believing in God. Second. Believing in Jesus' revelation. Third. Following Jesus`revelation to reach God.

No, no, no. Faith on God is the first thing a Christian needs. But it is not enough because Jesus of Nazareth was not only asking for faith. He wanted to show the way to God by means of his teachings and revelation. Yes. He finally died.

We are way off subject. The thing about the Pope and the Latin mass was just an INTRO to the question:
"What elements of tradition -- including language -- are essential for worship?"

Can we answer that instead of trashing Jesus?

Nicole said:

"Now Satan can't understand Tounges. Speaking in tounges is direct communication with God "

Nicole:
I'm having trouble figuring out the source on this, though I'm sure I've seen it before.. What is that from?

Correction: Moreover. It is not possible to be a son of Jahveh not being Jew and so believing in what the Mosaic religion recognizes as holy revelation. Anyone can ask any Jew on the matter. The important thing to be Christian is believing that a New Deal exists and it was reveled by Jesus of Nazareth.

Yeah, thats the most important thing to God is that you must BELIEVE in him.

If you don't believe in him, he get very angry and sends you to hell.

Speaking in tounges is the "unknown" language of those who don't understand or do not speak in tounges. Speaking in tounges can only be done so by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit which you must ask for to receive. Jesus commanded that we be filled with the holy spirit which he left us upon his death and resurrection.

now for those that call themselves speaking in other tounges and the spirit of the Lord (the holy spirit) is not directing you that is Blasphemous and agains God.

I speak in tounges everyday but it is to build myself up on my most holy faith according to Jude. Now that type of tounges is not so it should be interpreted by man. It is direct communications with God so that I may intercede on someone elses behalf. i.e. Someone in Hawaii can be riding along and someone was supposed to hit their car and for some "UNKNOWN" reason it didn't happen it was just a fender bender. That person could have been killed If I failed to obey the Holy Spirit and speak in My "HEAVENLY LANGUAGE". Now i.e. in church when the Spirit of the Lord is really moving in the sanctuary if someone starts speaking in tounges out loud and everyone shuts up, they know that that speach is to be interpreted by another member of the church or the pastor. Now if no one interpreted that tounge then it wasn't meant to be so loud for the whole world to hear.

Now Satan can't understand Tounges. Speaking in tounges is direct communication with God and Satan can't stand it when we do that. So it is only beneficial to you to pray the PERFECT PRAYER to God while speaking in tounges. Now if you don't and you are saved, I beseech you brethern by the mercies of God that you receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Now.

Now the Language that the pope is talking about is the WORLD"S LANGUAGE not the Language of the Holy SPirit. So that isn't what they are talking about. Just another way to confuse those that practice Catholicism.

Moreover. It is not possible to be a son of Jahveh not being Jew and so believing in what the Mosaic religion recognizes as holy revelation. Anyone can ask any Jew on the matter. The important thing to be Chrisitian is believing that a New Deal exists.

"Poop Benny"... haha.

A better nickname would be:

"Conservative old man who will not be mourned when he dies"

I look forward to hearing the news that he died, much like I celebrated the news of the passing of Jerry Falwell.

I see no difference between Jerry Falwell and the Pope. I can only imagine what Christopher Hitchens will have to say about Benedict.

Theres a second possibility. Lord and Jesus are one. If so then Lord Jesus where not different things but a simple redundancy. But there's a kind of contradiction. Why the Lord is able to destroy cities and alien civilitations while his Son, being another expression of the Lord, is speking in a very different way? Perhaps because Jesus came to make a war. Father against son. Son against mather. It is called the New Deal.

Sorry, wrong speech

Vercinget makes no sense.

"Thanks Christh for your sacrifice. By means of it I can forget all you said while you were living. What different if you would not die in that way! Yes. I can believe in You even unknowing who you are! So big is my faith."

David wrote:

"Thank you Lord Jesus for your sacrifice."

Just an observation:

If a person believes in a "Lord Jesus" and God, that would make a person bitheistic.

If the person also believe in saints, they would be polytheistic.

By definition, anyone who believes or prays to Jesus and God are not monotheistic.

David wrote: "Please remember, when speaking in tongues (other languages) it must be translated correctly for all who speak the common language within that congregation."

************

'Speaking in tongues' is NOT speaking in 'other languages'. In the bible, the 'gift of tongues' meant that anyone could understand your speech, no matter what language they spoke. For example, someone who had the 'gift of tongues' could be speaking to a crowd in Greek, and people who DID NOT UNDERSTAND Greek would hear and understand the speaker as if he were speaking in their own language... just like they had a 'babblefish' stuck in their ear, as in "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy."

Somewhere along the line, Christians got the idea that if they babbled incoherently, they were 'speaking in tongues'... and being touched by the Holy Spirit. It is actually just hysteria-induced gibberish.

Of course, just like the 'babblefish', this is pure nonsense. It was nonsense in biblical times... it is nonsense now... it will still be nonsense tomorrow.

John M.

This is as close as I can get.

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/09/translation-of-benedicts-speech.html

David:

Good comments.

Where can I read for myself what the Pope declared yesterday?

Andrea,

Yep. "Poop Benny". :)

By the way the "poop" just declared yesterday that I am not a Christian because I am not catholic. He also mentioned because I do not recognize the papal authority that I am not part of "the church". It just so happens that "the church" is a body of believers, not some organization of men. And guess what? Christ is the leader, not some dude with a funny hat. So now that everyone has to speak latin during this thing called mass, how will anyone know what the priests are saying? Does that mean that it will now become a requirement to learn latin for every catholic? Please remember, when speaking in tongues (other languages) it must be translated correctly for all who speak the common language within that congregation. Otherwise how would you know your priest isn't worshipping satan and you follow with an amen?

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

That would be Jesus folks! Not the man with the funny hat.

By the way, I thank Jesus every day for my blessings and the love he shares with me.

Thank you Lord Jesus for your sacrifice. I know you are the only way for truth and life. Please bless your children in the light of your word so that we may proclaim the true gospel which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Please help us to discern the truth from the falsehood spoken by man through your word. Amen.

Can I get an Amen from the believers??

Kenneth

Probably Catholics over the age of 65 who were very upset by Vatican II

To me, Pope Benedict is a disgusting human being.

Are there really that many naive people in the world that follow and believe what this old man says?

" now preaches the message of Jesus
with one voice in one tongue."

One tongue that only the elite understand....

There are probably more common people better versed in 'Klingon' than Latin...

Frankly, this whole thing doesn't bother me at all.. churches are nothing more than private clubs anyhow.. make whatever rules you like, handshakes, icons, secret signs and org charts... Knock yourselves out... I hope the 'pope' knows that things like this though they tend to solidify the conservative base isolate the commoners.... And that comment about the 'one true church' ouch!.. that's gonna do nothing but infuriate the non-catholic christians.. generally allies... so go ahead squabble amongst yourselves...

The use of the Latin Mass makes the Roman
Catholic Church an Universal and Global Church
that it is. It now preaches the message of Jesus
with one voice in one tongue.

The great Italian maestro Arturo Toscanini once remarked that, "tradition is the memory of the last bad performance."

True for music, possibly more true for religion.

Actually, when it says confess your faults one to another, that doesn't mean tell everybody your sins that you have commited. What it means is that when you have done something wrong, let your family in Christ know so they don't make the same mistakes. Basically using your life as a testimony to prevent the body of Christ from doing the same thing. Yes if I have done wrong to someone then I must ask for their Forgiveness but it's left up to them to give it to me or not. Unlike God who is just and faithful to forgive me of my sins.

i.e. Say for instance I have commited an unknown sin. Simply something I am doing or have done that I didn't know was a sin and then before I partake of Holy Communion, I say to God forgive me for my sins known and unknown that I have against you, anyone else or myself. Then God as a loving father that he is has already forgiven me. I don't have to go to the priest or to my "bretheren" to be forgiven.

What you are unaware of is that even if I went to that bretheren it is up to them to forgive me or not but if God be God, he will always forgive me so why should I not partake of holy communion because my bretheren didn't forgive me. NOT that's not biblical.

What I meant by saying I take a look at myself simply means, I examine myself as the bible declares. I look in my heart for any unforgiveness that I may be having, or any sin in me that I may not have asked for forgiveness for. Then I can partake but if I didn't my days could be numbered upon the land (bringing damnation unto myself).

I can do that in my house at any time I feel. I don't need the "Bishops" blessing to do so. I can have my piece of white bread or wafer and some Welch's grape juice and bless it myself and ask the Lord Jesus to bless it as well. I am a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everyone who becomes born again can minister, I don't have to be ordained by any bishop or priest to be blessed by God However, I know the boundaries of a "Disciple of Christ" and an ordained minister I know not to cross those boundaries.

Now because my Pastor is an Ordained pastor of the Christian Faith he is blessed and the laying on of his hands on me can transfer the blessing of the prosperity that is in his life. But if I did not have that the bible says I am stilled Blessed and Highly Favored of the Lord because I have kept his commandments, and have done good, and have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into my life.

Now, when you put the "traditional rituals" above the one who is the reason for the holy communion then my friend, that is Not Biblical. It is not biblical that most Catholics seem to put more emphasis on Mary than Jesus. If it had not been for Jesus where would you be the bible says. It doesn't say if it had not been for Mary. Because if Mary wouldn't do it, the Lord would have had someone else to do it.

It is not Biblical to pray to anyone but God through his son Jesus and via the Holy Spirit yet it seems as if praying to the "Saints" is what you call "biblical" that is incorrect. Nowhere in the bible does it say Pray to St. Thomas or St. Equinas, or St. Luke, or Mother theresa. The bible says you pray to the Creator God through his son Jesus and when praying in other tounges via the Holy Spirit. So that my friend isn't biblical.

I Can't believe I'm doing this...
1 Corinthians 14 v7-9 KJV:
"And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

-Taking of the Sacriments is worship and the Bible says do it as often as I feel is necessary. And I don't need the Pope's or Bishops permission. I check myself, I make sure I repent of my sins To GOD and then I partake of Holy Communion.

-- Again, that's not very biblical, since Christ commanded us to repent to our brothers, and he also gave authority to the apostles. But go with where you are spiritually fed.+

Nicole wrote:
I check myself, I make sure I repent of my sins To GOD

-- that's not very bibical.

David,

Did you really mean to say "poop benny"?

Is it arrogance to not believe in fairies or unicorns?

I can't imagine its conceit not to believe in Zeus.

Therefore, if someone trully believes in fairies or unicorns (or that a God sent his "son" to mankind to be tortured to death), they are by definition, a twit.

Twit: someone who has done something rather silly or stupid.

Well that's not very nice Kenneth. I guess to counter your statement I might say that arrogance is for unintelligent knuckleheads. One thing we can agree on is "who cares what poop benny says". He's just a man like anyone else.

Who cares what Pope Benedict has said?

Religion is for guillible twits!

Who cares what Pope Benedict has said?

Religion is for guillible twits!

Mary,

Do that! I'll be waiting to hear of your victories!

Thanks Andrea, don't worry. My songs have a little more depth. I wrote songs called:

Control, Small Town Blues, Walk of Shame, and Simplicity

If I win any singing bees, I'll let you know.

;-)

Mary,

I think you're right. But you won't win the Singing Bee with those lyrics!

Bringing back the Latin Mass? Roman Catholicism is the "true faith"? What's B16 going to come up with next, selling indulgences?

I think it is important to understand your history so you do not make the same mistakes. Do we need to return to history to do that? Or do we just need to teach our children and encourage them to think for themselves?

"Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright. They just seem a little strange. Surrender, but don't give your heart away."

Tonio, there have been articles in the last year or so (in the Catholic press and elsewhere) comparing Benedict to Muslim and evangelical fundamentalists. The comparison is very easily made.
I agree with the effort to try and bring a bit of awe back into the mass, which in too many cases has become faddish and disappointing. But other parts of Cardinal Levada's statement are troubling.
I guess I'm not really Catholic. Normally I read in the press about some Vatican statement that appears outrageous and chauvinistic on its face. Then, upon further examination, the reasoning and intent behind the statement turn out to be -- well -- reasonable. This latest sounds like nonsense. I guess I can be either a red-blooded, anti-clerical, suspicious of authority American or a Catholic. The former is in my bones, so I'll be giving up the latter.
I guess I'm really just a cradle Congregationalist with a devotion to Mary and the saints.

I'm not Catholic so I can't say much for catholic worhship. But I will say that I worhship My Lord and Savior the Creator God in the way he would want "ME" to and that is in any way I see as in the order or will of God.
I can:
-Sing
-Dance
-Lift My Hands
-Be Silent
-Pray in the Holy Spirit
-Taking of the Sacriments is worship and the Bible says do it as often as I feel is necessary. And I don't need the Pope's or Bishops permission. I check myself, I make sure I repent of my sins To GOD and then I partake of Holy Communion.
-Doing God's will is Worship.

There are so many ways to worship why pinpoint one particular way and make it mandatory. I say go with what floats your boat. If you find that the church you are in is hindering your worship experience then leave. My worship doesn't begin and end in the sanctuary. I worship when I want, how I want and where I want. In the bedroom, in the bathroom, at work, in my car, etc.

On Faith is kind of missing the bigger story here, I think. The pope has also reasserted the primacy of the Catholic faith; the rest of you aren't "real Christians" according to Benny.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/234618

" Basically a restatement of bedrock Vatican doctrine that was contained in the controversial 2000 document "Dominus Iesus" – introduced by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now the Pope – the release of the text yesterday was prompted "because some contemporary theological research has been erroneous or ambiguous," the Vatican said.

Benedict made unity with Protestant and Orthodox churches a priority of his pontificate in his first message as Pope in April 2005.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants, but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the document said.

Only Catholicism could be seen as the one "Church of Christ," it said, and it was "difficult to see how the title of Church could possibly be attributed" to other Christian denominations."

The question completely ignores any examination of Benedict's broader agenda. From my perspective, his goal seems to be not preserving tradition but opposing modernism, particularly Vatican II. Yesterday, the Vatican described non-Catholic denominations as "wounded" because they did not recognize the primacy of the Pope. This effectively dismisses the ecumenical progress made in recent decades. The same is true with the anti-Semitic language of the Latin Mass, which suggests a negation of John XXIII's repudiation of the concept of Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus. Oddly enough, Benedict reminds me of Protestant fundamentalists in America and their hostility to both modernism and humanism.

My Grandfather was a Mennonite preacher. He used to say that one could only understand the Bible if it was read in it's original language...German.

Then he would fall off his chair laughing...Grandpa loved his little jokes and often used them to keep his flock humble.

I don't really know what to say about this except, if my family's pastor suddenly started preaching in German, they wouldn't have a clue what he was saying unless he was swearing or asking what was for dinner.

Change is good. Change in religion is even better. Why take a step backward?