NationStates Jolt Archive

Video of the Tridentine Mass (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6576441570193263735&q=tridentine+mass)


Tridentine text (http://www.latinliturgy.com/tridmass.html)

Who could possibly prefer the NO to that?

Video of the Tridentine Mass (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6576441570193263735&q=tridentine+mass)


Tridentine text (http://www.latinliturgy.com/tridmass.html)

Who could possibly prefer the NO to that?

People who don't hold their own emotions over God.

There is nothing theologically wrong with the novus ordo, if you want nothing to change forever join one of the Eastern churches.

There is nothing theologically wrong with the novus ordo

Sure, it's a valid mass. But that doesn't mean it's any good.

Sure, it's a valid mass. But that doesn't mean it's any good.

So, what makes it better besides nostalgia?
Nothing.

traitors is a bit strong...but the NO is incredibly lame compared with traditional mass. this easter I wanted to go to a traditional mass and had to go to an anglican church, because the catholic churches fealt like very low-church protestants...as a history buff and a great fan of traditional devotional practice, it was extremely disappointing. I can certainly understand why they've changed the practices though - most people don't speak latin or have enthusiasm about history and theology, so it's more accessable to most people. I suppose some people would find the hand-clappy sing-along service I left more engaging...I went with a friend:

him: "we have two options for holy week services, the catholic church or the anglican one"
me: "well obviously the catholic church, right? who'd want some lame watered down protestant version of mass?"
him: "well...we can visit both, but if you want a catholic mass, we should go to the anglican church. they're more catholic than the catholics are..."

he was very much correct, the catholic service had managed to strip itself of dignity and antiquity, but still remain conservative enough any more engaging modern elements were left out. instead of communicating ancient and world-changing mysteries, the service managed to convey simplistic modern prudery, poor musical taste, and not much else.

So, what makes it better besides nostalgia?
Nothing.

1) If the priest is facing Ad Populum rather than Ad Orientam, and the tabernacle is at the front and center of the church (as it should be), then he is turning his back on Christ almost the entirety of the mass.

2) It is as the sacrifice of Cain to the Sacrifice of Able. Rather, in the Tridentine...

"And now, O Lord, we, Thy servants, and with us all Thy holy people, calling to mind the blessed Passion of this same Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, likewise His Resurrection from the grave, and also His glorious Ascension into heaven, do offer unto Thy most sovereign Majesty out of the gifts Thou hast bestowed upon us: a Victim + which is pure, a Victim + which is holy, a Victim + which is spotless, the holy Bread + of life eternal, and the Chalice + of everlasting Salvation. Deign to look upon them with a favorable and gracious countenance, and to accept them as Thou didst accept the offerings of Thy just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest Melchisedech offered up to Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an immaculate Victim."

Compare that to the Novus Ordo, in which 3 out of 4 "memorial acclamations" suggest that the Sacrament is still bread and wine. For more, see here.

Fish Eaters (http://fisheaters.com/cainabel.html)

3) It destroys the sense of unity and consolidarity of the Church once had by the common Latin language.

4) There's plenty more than from where that came from. Check this out:

Ottaviani Intervention (http://www.fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html)

1) If the priest is facing Ad Populum rather than Ad Orientam, and the tabernacle is at the front and center of the church (as it should be), then he is turning his back on Christ almost the entirety of the mass.

christ does not live in a box...even if it's called a "tabernacle"

christ does not live in a box...even if it's called a "tabernacle"

According to the Catholic Faith, Christ's sacramental prescence is in the Eucharist.

traitors is a bit strong...but the NO is incredibly lame compared with traditional mass. this easter I wanted to go to a traditional mass and had to go to an anglican church, because the catholic churches fealt like very low-church protestants...as a history buff and a great fan of traditional devotional practice, it was extremely disappointing. I can certainly understand why they've changed the practices though - most people don't speak latin or have enthusiasm about history and theology, so it's more accessable to most people. I suppose some people would find the hand-clappy sing-along service I left more engaging...I went with a friend:

him: "we have two options for holy week services, the catholic church or the anglican one"
me: "well obviously the catholic church, right? who'd want some lame watered down protestant version of mass?"
him: "well...we can visit both, but if you want a catholic mass, we should go to the anglican church. they're more catholic than the catholics are..."

he was very much correct, the catholic service had managed to strip itself of dignity and antiquity, but still remain conservative enough any more engaging modern elements were left out. instead of communicating ancient and world-changing mysteries, the service managed to convey simplistic modern prudery, poor musical taste, and not much else.

The Catholic Church has valid sacrament and a true priesthood, which the Anglicans do not. I mean they have women priests and you can probably find an Anglican church where whatever crazy thing you do will not be questioned.

I go to the Catholic church for God, not for some fancy show.

The Catholic Church has valid sacrament and a true priesthood, which the Anglicans do not. I mean they have women priests and you can probably find an Anglican church where whatever crazy thing you do will not be questioned.

I go to the Catholic church for God, not for some fancy show.

And here I thought people went to church to connect with god in the way they found best, even if that means listening to *gasp* a woman.

What? There are different types of mass? I'm so happy I bailed on catholicism.

And here I thought people went to church to connect with god in the way they found best, even if that means listening to *gasp* a woman.

Women are not meant to be priests. Christ had female disciples but they apostles were all chosen from men. The tounges of flame came upon the apostles and that's why we have apostolic succession etc.

I'm not saying anything against female preachers, but for any religion that believes in apostolic succession (as the Anglicans do), female ordained clergy is an impossibility or it undermines the whole idea of how apostolic succession works.

What? There are different types of mass? I'm so happy I bailed on catholicism.

OHNOES! You are now a "traitor!"

Women are not meant to be priests. Christ had female disciples but they apostles were all chosen from men. The tounges of flame came upon the apostles and that's why we have apostolic succession etc.

I'm not saying anything against female preachers, but for any religion that believes in apostolic succession (as the Anglicans do), female ordained clergy is an impossibility or it undermines the whole idea of how apostolic succession works.

I will repeat, without any alteration, my initial statement.

And here I thought people went to church to connect with god in the way they found best, even if that means listening to *gasp* a woman.

Assuming God has a gender you are.

Assuming God has a gender you are.

I feel that I am able to make that assumption since in all Abrahamic religions God has a distinctly masculine identity and is expressed as a Father, a Son, and referred to as 'He'.

I will repeat, without any alteration, my initial statement.

And here I thought people went to church to connect with god in the way they found best, even if that means listening to *gasp* a woman.
I would prefer if you addressed my statements in some way, but whatever suits us both. :)

People who don't hold their own emotions over God.

There is nothing theologically wrong with the novus ordo, if you want nothing to change forever join one of the Eastern churches.

NO should have been optional rather than imposed. And one of the reasons to prefer the traditional Mass (and there are many) is that some things ARE eternal and need not change just to meet some putative criterion of "relevance" or whatever. And then there's the sense of continuity with Catholics of ages past in participating in the same liturgy.

Change for change's sake is mere motion without purpose.

BTW: another reason to prefer the traditional LATIN Mass is it makes it a lot easier to follow along when you're traveling abroad.

I much prefer hearing a mass and homily in a language I can understand rather then nodding dumbly and responding by rote without knowing what is going on.

I much prefer hearing a mass and homily in a language I can understand rather then nodding dumbly and responding by rote without knowing what is going on.

Get a prayer book with English (or whatever your local language is) translation accompanying the Latin. That's what we used to do in the old days. And the homily was always in English.

Better yet, learn what the Latin means so you don't just have to "respond by rote without knowing what is going on."

Women are not meant to be priests. Christ had female disciples but they apostles were all chosen from men. The tounges of flame came upon the apostles and that's why we have apostolic succession etc.

I'm not saying anything against female preachers, but for any religion that believes in apostolic succession (as the Anglicans do), female ordained clergy is an impossibility or it undermines the whole idea of how apostolic succession works.


Actually, in the early days of Christianity, there were quite a few female priests.

And what the hell is this NO? I hate when people keep talking about acronyms for things without every saying what it stands for.

Actually, in the early days of Christianity, there were quite a few female priests.


Sources?




By 'NO' he means the Novus Ordo mass, the standard of the mass promoted in the Vatican II council.

The Catholic Church has valid sacrament and a true priesthood, which the Anglicans do not. I mean they have women priests and you can probably find an Anglican church where whatever crazy thing you do will not be questioned.

I go to the Catholic church for God, not for some fancy show.

sounds like you go to church to make sure you follow the legalistic rules of your religion.

I feel that I am able to make that assumption since in all Abrahamic religions God has a distinctly masculine identity and is expressed as a Father, a Son, and referred to as 'He'.

You think an all powerful, all knowing being that transcends space and time and has created all of reality...has a penis?

Because someone wrote it that way 2000 (or more) years ago?

And having NOTHING to do with the fact, nothing at all with the fact that it was a remarkably male dominated society?


I would prefer if you addressed my statements in some way, but whatever suits us both. :)

Fine. here's how I address your statements. Religion should be about one thing and one thing only, ones personal choice as to how he or she wishes to seek enlightenment and reach an understanding of the divine. If certain rules work for you, then they work for you. But never presume to tell another how he or she should make that journey him/herself.

if certain rules work for you, then you should seek your enlightenment under them, but don't presume to tell others how they should seek it for themselves.

I suspect that regretting your sins, believing in Christ and living your life in peace is enough for Him. Afterall, He said it was. ;)

Sources?




By 'NO' he means the Novus Ordo mass, the standard of the mass promoted in the Vatican II council.

History.


Ah. I see. Does it really matter what language the mass is in? I don't think latin is any "holier" than English, it just happened to be the language of the powerful at the time.

Who could possibly prefer the NO to that?

Is that you back again, Servus Dei/Tenete Traditiones/Defensor Fidei/Jemell?

History.


I find that a bit vague.

sounds like you go to church to make sure you follow the legalistic rules of your religion.
The 'rules' of my religion are how I show reverence to God, by obeying Him.


You think an all powerful, all knowing being that transcends space and time and has created all of reality...has a penis?

Because someone wrote it that way 2000 (or more) years ago?

And having NOTHING to do with the fact, nothing at all with the fact that it was a remarkably male dominated society?
Well Jesus had a penis. He also had arms and legs as part of his human identity. God exists in a way we can't understand but He has repeatedly revealed Himself to have a masculine identity.
If the bible was written incorrectly because of a male dominated society then it is not completely correct, therefore not divinely inspired as I believe it to be. So, if you don't believe that the bible is what I believe it is we would have different perspectives on the issue.

Also, I think that if God had a plan to reveal His genderless nature to us then He would have done so with Jesus. Jesus said all kinds of things that people said "absolutely not, that is completely contrary to our society". Yet he came as the Son, and taught reverence to the Father.




Fine. here's how I address your statements. Religion should be about one thing and one thing only, ones personal choice as to how he or she wishes to seek enlightenment and reach an understanding of the divine. If certain rules work for you, then they work for you. But never presume to tell another how he or she should make that journey him/herself.

if certain rules work for you, then you should seek your enlightenment under them, but don't presume to tell others how they should seek it for themselves.
I respect that point of view very much, but personally I believe (I mean who doesn't) that my religion is the correct one. And within my religion, unity in belief and worship is very important historically since we believe that absolute Truth exists concerning the spiritual world.
I'm not trying to bring Anglicans back in line even, all the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox churches say they have invalid sacraments, and haven't had apostolic succession for a while now.
I'm just trying to warn Catholics that while the Latin Rite Catholic church and the Anglican Church may appear very similar in some ways, their belief system and how they determine moral values are completely different.
Some people get a nasty shock if they're in one Anglican parish and it mostly agrees with their beliefs and then they go to another one that has considerably different beliefs that the person believes contrary to the bible. If the person goes back to his home church he will usually find that they're well within the Anglican belief system which in some of the parishes (especially in the USA) seems to be 'anything goes'.
So, all I'm saying is that 'All that glitters is not gold.'

I much prefer hearing a mass and homily in a language I can understand rather then nodding dumbly and responding by rote without knowing what is going on.

Yeah, but Latin sounds much more beautiful when sung.

NO should have been optional rather than imposed. And one of the reasons to prefer the traditional Mass (and there are many) is that some things ARE eternal and need not change just to meet some putative criterion of "relevance" or whatever.

I'm not sure that I agree with you there. The NO was essentially just an act to appease the Protestants. We should be declaring Crusades and Inquisitions against the Protestants, not changing our Liturgy to appease them more comfortable with us.

Whatever the case, I hear that His Holiness Pope Benedict the XVI will be issuing modu promptu (I think that's the name for it) allowing everyone to perform the Mass of All Times. The only condition is that the bishops DON'T ban it. (Basically the opposite of an indult).

You think an all powerful, all knowing being that transcends space and time and has created all of reality...has a penis?

God is Jesus. Jesus is a male. Therefore, God is male.

Yeah, but Latin sounds much more beautiful when sung.

I agree that Latin hymns are quite brilliant... but I'm also a fan of traditional-style hymns done in a traditional manner i.e. proper choir and organ. My old school had a great choir for doing those things in church.
As it stands my current church at home has some very happy-clappy music. Not a fan, it sounds cheesy.
But the church I go to in university has a proper choir and organist, singing in a mixture of Latin and English in the vernacular service... all good stuff really. And when Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor came to visit, they pulled all the plugs out, combined both the Latin and English service choirs, and had a horn section too. That was trully impressive :)

sorry clip too boring. why is it ofensive?
by the way. catholic god is male.

God is Jesus. Jesus is a male. Therefore, God is male.

awww, your naivite amuses me. Let me ask you another question. You assume that when jeus assended to heaven (assuming it occured) he retained all physical characteristics.

You assume in a reality based on eternal existance and eternal life, jesus retains a physical body?

You think that "up there" jesus is actually up and walking around, his wang fully intact?

Does jesus have sex in heaven? Does he get an erection? Does he pee? Does he defacate? Does he ejaculate? Does he shave? Does he sweat? Does he shower? Do his toenails grow? Does he cut them? Does heaven even have showers? What about toilets?

Does he breath?

Does heaven have air?

Even if you take everything about the Jesus story at face value, at best he was god born into a male vessel. A male vessel that would serve no purpose in heaven. The idea that he retained any human characteristics is simply silly.

The idea of Jesus getting up in the morning, taking a leak, then jumping into his heavenly shower, and maybe rubbing one off while he's in there is amusing to me. It is likely amusing that he retained any definitivly human characteristics in the slightest.


Unless you want to argue that Jesus (and thus god) is, at this very moment, up there, fully entact, fully human biology, at best all you get is that god, at one point in history, for a very brief time, either inhabited the body of a male, or took the form of a male. There's bacteria in the lining of my stomach currently inhabiting the body of a male, doesn't mean they're male. Likewise if god simply took the form OF a male, it has no substantive form of its own, and to call it male because for 40ish years out of 10 billion it looked like one is...silly. And if you DO want to argue that Jesus is up there, fully male, RIGHT NOW...well...

once you argue that an ascended Jesus has a penis, you likewise admit to an ascended Jesus taking a shit.

And that's an image of god that doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

awww, your naivite amuses me. Let me ask you another question. You assume that when jeus assended to heaven (assuming it occured) he retained all physical characteristics.

You assume in a reality based on eternal existance and eternal life, jesus retains a physical body?

You think that "up there" jesus is actually up and walking around, his wang fully intact?

Does jesus have sex in heaven? Does he get an erection? Does he pee? Does he defacate? Does he ejaculate? Does he shave? Does he sweat? Does he shower? Do his toenails grow? Does he cut them? Does heaven even have showers? What about toilets?

Does he breath?

Does heaven have air?

Even if you take everything about the Jesus story at face value, at best he was god born into a male vessel. A male vessel that would serve no purpose in heaven. The idea that he retained any human characteristics is simply silly.

The idea of Jesus getting up in the morning, taking a leak, then jumping into his heavenly shower, and maybe rubbing one off while he's in there is amusing to me. It is likely amusing that he retained any definitivly human characteristics in the slightest.

Once you state that an ascended Jesus has a penis, you likewise admit to an ascended Jesus taking a shit.

And that's an image of god that doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

'god' is refered to as 'he' in the bible sometimes.

'god' is refered to as 'he' in the bible sometimes.

That's nice, it does't answer my question.

Does god shit in heaven? Male is a biological definition, thus if god is male, god is biological. if he's biological, he has biological needs. Biological creatures expel waste to survive.

So if god is male, and thus biological, he takes a dump now and then.

So...does god shit in heaven?

awww, your naivite amuses me. Let me ask you another question. You assume that when jeus assended to heaven (assuming it occured) he retained all physical characteristics.

I am not assuming anything.

Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"

Also, it says in the bible, though for the life of me I can't find the exact verse at the moment "As you see the son of man ascending, so too shall the son of man descend."

You assume in a reality based on eternal existance and eternal life, jesus retains a physical body?

Likewise, I believe that, after the Day of the Lord, that we shall all be reunited to our bodies.

Does jesus have sex in heaven? Does he get an erection? Does he pee? Does he defacate? Does he ejaculate? Does he shave? Does he sweat? Does he shower? Do his toenails grow? Does he cut them? Does heaven even have showers? What about toilets?

Getting an erection, having sex, and ejaculating are not things that are necessarily even part of being male while on earth. That said, you presume that having a body in heaven necessitates having those bodily functions.

Ah. I see. Does it really matter what language the mass is in? I don't think latin is any "holier" than English, it just happened to be the language of the powerful at the time.


The Latin alone isn't the point. The point is the mass itself.

Getting an erection, having sex, and ejaculating are not things that are necessarily even part of being male while on earth.

Wanna bet? Go ahead and find one male who has never in his life had an erection and/or ejaculated...even if unintentional. Nocturnal emissions and all that. And if he's not going to have sex...well...why would he keep his penis around, he's god he can get rid of it.

That said, you presume that having a body in heaven necessitates having those bodily functions.

I assume that having a body PERIOD necessitates those bodily functions. Such things are required biological processes. Biological entities expell waste. Biological entities grow. Biological entities require energy. And if a body does not need to carry out its necessary biological functions, it can not be considered a biological entity.

And since male is by definition a biological definition, if the body is not biological, it's not male.

Unless you want to argue that Jesus (and thus god) is, at this very moment, up there, fully entact, fully human biology, at best all you get is that god, at one point in history, for a very brief time, either inhabited the body of a male, or took the form of a male. There's bacteria in the lining of my stomach currently inhabiting the body of a male, doesn't mean they're male. Likewise if god simply took the form OF a male, it has no substantive form of its own, and to call it male because for 40ish years out of 10 billion it looked like one is...silly. And if you DO want to argue that Jesus is up there, fully male, RIGHT NOW...well...

And that's an image of god that doesn't sit well with me for some reason.

Jesus has both fully human, and fully divine natures. He wasn't a divine being just using a human shell. His human nature is a part of him. He's not half deity and half human, he's all deity and all human.

I really think FHR used a poor example. God is always the "Father" never "the Parent". He is always referred to as "He". He, Father, Son...these are distinctly masculine identities. If God was genderless in the Abrahamic faiths then Parent and Child would be more effective. But we do not have that, the identity that God reveals to us is that of a Father and a Son, those are distinctly masculine in identity.

Wanna bet? Go ahead and find one male who has never in his life had an erection and/or ejaculated...even if unintentional. Nocturnal emissions and all that. And if he's not going to have sex...well...why would he keep his penis around, he's god he can get rid of it.

Jesus came down as a human being. He didn't come down as a muscular unstoppable super-human. He humbled himself, so that we could follow his example.



I assume that having a body PERIOD necessitates those bodily functions. Such things are required biological processes. Biological entities expell waste. Biological entities grow. Biological entities require energy. And if a body does not need to carry out its necessary biological functions, it can not be considered a biological entity.

And since male is by definition a biological definition, if the body is not biological, it's not male.
Hunger, death, old age, these things are imperfection in our bodies caused when our original parents severed their ties with God. At the time of the ressurection our bodies will become perfect and death, disease, and frailty will no longer exist.
Jesus ascended into heaven, and Mary was assumed into heaven. I presume that their bodies, being without original sin especially, are already in that perfect state.

Jesus has both fully human, and fully divine natures. He wasn't a divine being just using a human shell. His human nature is a part of him. He's not half deity and half human, he's all deity and all human.

I really think FHR used a poor example. God is always the "Father" never "the Parent". He is always referred to as "He". He, Father, Son...these are distinctly masculine identities. If God was genderless in the Abrahamic faiths then Parent and Child would be more effective. But we do not have that, the identity that God reveals to us is that of a Father and a Son, those are distinctly masculine in identity.

Again which I believe to be entirely cultural in effect, NOT divine.

You and I look at things in different ways. If you look at the bible as pure divinity, then anything in it must be true. You assume the question then try to make everything fit as an answer. If the bible is true and the bible says god is male then god is male, that's your presumption right?

Me on the other hand I do it the other way. I assume nothing. At BEST I would assume SOME parts of the bible are divinely inspired (inspired, not divinely dictated) and some is just filler. And the filler gets filled as culture and society at the time would dicate.

And culture and society at the time was massivly sexist. So the the filler is sexist too.

The trick for someone of my perspective is to seperate the good from the filler, so we look for what makes sense...and what just doesn't. We look for the filler by looking for what we might think filler would look like coming from that time and culture.

And the idea that an all powerful, pan universal, infinite being having a penis? That's not divine...that's cultural, that's filler. And thus, it's unimportant as a lesson of divinity.

Jesus came down as a human being. He didn't come down as a muscular unstoppable super-human. He humbled himself, so that we could follow his example.



Hunger, death, old age, these things are imperfection in our bodies caused when our original parents severed their ties with God. At the time of the ressurection our bodies will become perfect and death, disease, and frailty will no longer exist.
Jesus ascended into heaven, and Mary was assumed into heaven. I presume that their bodies, being without original sin especially, are already in that perfect state.


I am not talking about hunger, death, and old age. I am talking about defacation.

Biological bodies expell waste, they need to to keep their biological processes intact. If an entity does not expell waste...say...a rock, it's not biological.

If jesus doesn't shit he isn't human, and thus not male...with me?

lets clear things up. i'm male. i shit. i am god.

Again which I believe to be entirely cultural in effect, NOT divine.

You and I look at things in different ways. If you look at the bible as pure divinity, then anything in it must be true. You assume the question then try to make everything fit as an answer. If the bible is true and the bible says god is male then god is male, that's your presumption right?

Me on the other hand I do it the other way. I assume nothing. At BEST I would assume SOME parts of the bible are divinely inspired (inspired, not divinely dictated) and some is just filler. And the filler gets filled as culture and society at the time would dicate.

And culture and society at the time was massivly sexist. So the the filler is sexist too.

The trick for someone of my perspective is to seperate the good from the filler, so we look for what makes sense...and what just doesn't. We look for the filler by looking for what we might think filler would look like coming from that time and culture.

And the idea that an all powerful, pan universal, infinite being having a penis? That's not divine...that's cultural, that's filler. And thus, it's unimportant as a lesson of divinity.
I don't believe (unlike contemporary society) that a penis, or a beard is what makes a man a man.

Also, don't you think denying the possibility of God, a being whose attributes we can only begin to fathom, is also a sort of cultural effect? What evidence is there in the bible that God has no masculine identity? Where did he say "and yeah, if I appeared before ye there would be no beard on my face"
He doesn't.

And if you don't believe scriputre to be divinely inspired I really don't see how anything it says matters since it could all just be fabricated by whackjobs. If the scripture isn't divinely inspired then there is little gurantee that it even starts out accurate. If you start out on Christianity with the base that the bible is not divinely inspired, you're not going to get anywhere.

If there isn't some teaching source, each person would make up his own version of God to suit his desires and imagination, so the bible has no place in that. BUT, we are discussing biblical relgions that are based on the idea that scripture is the word of God, not man.

I am not talking about hunger, death, and old age. I am talking about defacation.

Biological bodies expell waste, they need to to keep their biological processes intact. If an entity does not expell waste...say...a rock, it's not biological.

If jesus doesn't shit he isn't human, and thus not male...with me?

No, I really don't follow. I mentioned food. Processed food and dead cells are the primary constituents of feces. If we have no frailty and death, and no longer have hunger, then we would have no reason to produce feces. So, in a perfect state, I would say that we will not need to produce feces, or eat, or even scratch an itch on our heads. Why would we have to? Our bodies will have become perfect.

Video of the Tridentine Mass (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6576441570193263735&q=tridentine+mass)


Tridentine text (http://www.latinliturgy.com/tridmass.html)

Who could possibly prefer the NO to that?

Latin... ewwwwwww!

For the record: The topic is on the NO VS the TLM. Please get back on track.

Latin... ewwwwwww!

Anglus...non euge!

I don't believe (unlike contemporary society) that a penis, or a beard is what makes a man a man.

By definition a man is a matured specimin of a human being who contains 1 Y and 1 X chromosome rather than two X chromosomes. What other operational definition are yo ugoing on.

Also, don't you think denying the possibility of God, a being whose attributes we can only begin to fathom, is also a sort of cultural effect?

Perhaps, we are all products of our culture, after all.

What evidence is there in the bible that God has no masculine identity? Where did he say "and yeah, if I appeared before ye there would be no beard on my face"
He doesn't.

That is only of value if, once again, you consider the bible as evidence of itself.

And if you don't believe scriputre to be divinely inspired I really don't see how anything it says matters since it could all just be fabricated by whackjobs. If the scripture isn't divinely inspired then there is little gurantee that it even starts out accurate. If you start out on Christianity with the base that the bible is not divinely inspired, you're not going to get anywhere.

If there isn't some teaching source, each person would make up his own version of God to suit his desires and imagination, so the bible has no place in that. BUT, we are discussing biblical relgions that are based on the idea that scripture is the word of God, not man.

Well yes, that's the problem. If you concede some untruth you concede the possibility of all of it being untruth.

And that's ok.

Why? Because even if it's all fake, even if not 1 word of it actually happened (which is false since we know some degree of it did happen such as the slave revolt and exodus from egypt has some pretty historical backings, just not...the whole...you know, red sea parting thing).

But even if it's fake, even if it's entirely cultural, even if it's absolut undivine, it's still got some good in there. Love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have done unto you, thou shalt not kill...there's some value there. And maybe, JUST maybe...god...tweaked a little bit of it. Not dictated, but...influenced, some way. And if so, maybe it's our job to find out what is the result of that influence, and what's just filler.

Which brings me back to what I said before. Religion is personal, it's private, it is the method of belief that YOU feel, for YOU, brings you closer to an understanding of the divine.

I read an old rabbi once who compared religion to climbing a mountain. He said something like "all religions start at the bottom, and take their own paths up. And since we're all at the bottom, all on different places on the mountain, our journey up looks different. And when we're at the bottom of the mountain, we are very far apart, and perhaps there's more different to our journeys than there is the same. But as we climb the mountain, as we reach the peak, we come closer and closer together. Our understanding becomes more and more the same, so that if and when we finally reach the top, we're all standing at the same place."

I view religion a lot like that. Different journey's to the top. The journey might look different, but we're all after the same truth, we just do it differently.

No, I really don't follow. I mentioned food. Processed food and dead cells are the primary constituents of feces. If we have no frailty and death, and no longer have hunger, then we would have no reason to produce feces. So, in a perfect state, I would say that we will not need to produce feces, or eat, or even scratch an itch on our heads. Why would we have to? Our bodies will have become perfect.

If our bodies have altered in such a way that we no longer need to carry out required biological functions then our bodies have ceased to be biological entities.

That's the point.

I repeat, the topic is NO VS TLM. Get back on track or stop posting.

For the record: The topic is on the NO VS the TLM. Please get back on track.

I think everyone except you agrees that they are not 'traitors'.

Fostering division and being spiteful towards the Church is the work of the devil.

A once heard a priest from a religious community say that he went to a tridentine service in New York City, he said that he tried to speak to the people after they had left the church and that nearly all of them brushed him off, and that he felt they thought that since he usually serves in the Novus Ordo, the standard of the Latin-rite church, they felt that he wasn't as good a Catholic as they.
Beware of this attitude! It can lead to pride which clouds the mind from understanding anything unless it is in praise of oneself. We need to be careful, especially as Christians, that we don't fall into this snare.

Anglus...non euge!

Kiel vi volas helpi mi vivi gxusta, cxu vi ne kompreni vin?

If our bodies have altered in such a way that we no longer need to carry out required biological functions then our bodies have ceased to be biological entities.

That's the point.
I will agree with you on that. I am a biology student and that statement isn't flawed.

I am looking at it from a theological perspective. And science can't always quantify theology. I mean, what is God made of? All we know is that it has been revealed that our bodies will be raised and made perfect one day. Biology has been amazingly well-tuned by evolution, but is never perfect, perpetually changing to suit it's environment.

For our perfect bodies it will be irrelevant so I suppose it is not practical to view them as biological entities. How can our bodies still be our bodies and not be biological entities? It's a mystery.

Kiel vi volas helpi mi vivi gxusta, cxu vi ne kompreni vin?

Noli dicere sic!

(Do not be willing to speak thusly!)

I will agree with you on that. I am a biology student and that statement isn't flawed.

I am looking at it from a theological perspective. And science can't always quantify theology. I mean, what is God made of? All we know is that it has been revealed that our bodies will be raised and made perfect one day. Biology has been amazingly well-tuned by evolution, but is never perfect, perpetually changing to suit it's environment.

For our perfect bodies it will be irrelevant so I suppose it is not practical to view them as biological entities. How can our bodies still be our bodies and not be biological entities? It's a mystery.

Well that's the problem. "male" is inherently NOTHING more than a biological definition. It has no other practical meaning other than to define biology.

And if our bodies cease to be biological and are made more...I dunno, divine, spiritual, existential, what have you, we can not define them as "male" or "female"

Well that's the problem. "male" is inherently NOTHING more than a biological definition. It has no other practical meaning other than to define biology.

And if our bodies cease to be biological and are made more...I dunno, divine, spiritual, existential, what have you, we can not define them as "male" or "female"

Well, I define masculinity differently than many people. I don't think that a bottle of testosterone and other hormones in a specific combination would be pure manliness. I think that there is a difference between men and women that is spiritual as well as physical, and that it will be reflected in the afterlife as well as this life.

Unfortunately, in this life quantification of gender is difficult because we are tempted to think of genitals, hormones, and cultural influence to be what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.
I think we will probably still have our genitals iat the time in which our souls are reunited with our bodies. I don't really KNOW or see how they serve a purpose, but I trust God since he seems to know what he's doing when it comes to these things.

Well, I define masculinity differently than many people. I don't think that a bottle of testosterone and other hormones in a specific combination would be pure manliness. I think that there is a difference between men and women that is spiritual as well as physical, and that it will be reflected in the afterlife as well as this life.

Unfortunately, in this life quantification of gender is difficult because we are tempted to think of genitals, hormones, and cultural influence to be what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.
I think we will probably still have our genitals iat the time in which our souls are reunited with our bodies. I don't really KNOW or see how they serve a purpose, but I trust God since he seems to know what he's doing when it comes to these things.

well...ok, but I really think you're changing definitions to suit your arguments here...