Why did the Catholic mass prayers change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They did it in response to the backlash against the sexual assaults. They doubled down on their importance by making it seem like they were relevant and more pious to deflect attention away from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did it in response to the backlash against the sexual assaults. They doubled down on their importance by making it seem like they were relevant and more pious to deflect attention away from them.

In 2010 it became known that the Pope was involved in the sex abuse cover up. Several months later in 2011 the creed was revised. Why would it be revised in the middle of a huge scandal all the way up to the highest level if not to try to make themselves relevant as creating order in the middle of the chaos on this and turn the attention away from it? The comedians caught how absurd this focus was during this time.

[Anonymous]

I mean all you have to do is watch how focused the church is on being anti-abortion over decades - something a priest will never be responsible for - and compare it to sexual abuse of children by priests which the church's leaders pivoted away from as quickly as possible leaving the lay people to implement change while the focused on more important matters like changing the creed.

[Anonymous]

It would have been much more beneficial for the clergy to focus on how to deal with these problems in their own rank instead of making the laity jump through hoops as if they were the offenders and instead of focusing on prayer wording changes.

[Anonymous]

I remember it clearly that there was a huge meeting of clergy and everyone thought they would come out with better monitoring for priests and instead they came out with this deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean all you have to do is watch how focused the church is on being anti-abortion over decades - something a priest will never be responsible for - and compare it to sexual abuse of children by priests which the church's leaders pivoted away from as quickly as possible leaving the lay people to implement change while the focused on more important matters like changing the creed.

You think no priests have sex with women? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean all you have to do is watch how focused the church is on being anti-abortion over decades - something a priest will never be responsible for - and compare it to sexual abuse of children by priests which the church's leaders pivoted away from as quickly as possible leaving the lay people to implement change while the focused on more important matters like changing the creed.

You think no priests have sex with women? LOL

They won't be the ones getting an abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thee/thy and not you/your either.

Thee/thy are historically the informal forms of second-person address in English—the equivalent of “tu” in Spanish.

“You” was for groups—and for superiors.

This is why Quakers who used plain speech used “thee” and “thy” with other human beings, and not in addressing God or his familiars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/pronouns-quakers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk4.whvy.pNfs_-P4R2Ii&smid=url-share

Every.body. knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a great John Mulaney bit….
The church “changed it to ‘And with your spirit.’ Because that’s what needed revamping in the Catholic Church. That was the squeaky wheel that needed the grease.”

Ha ha. I refuse to say the new stuff. And I will not raise my arms during the Our Father. Such nonsense!

You think that's nonsense -- what about the idea of living forever in heaven if you die without mortal sin on your soul?

No one has disproven the existence of eternal life.

No one has disproven the existence of Mohammed on a flying carpet. Do you believe that? No one has disproven the existence of a million invisible fruit flys in your refrigerator. Do you believe that?

dying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a great John Mulaney bit….
The church “changed it to ‘And with your spirit.’ Because that’s what needed revamping in the Catholic Church. That was the squeaky wheel that needed the grease.”

Ha ha. I refuse to say the new stuff. And I will not raise my arms during the Our Father. Such nonsense!

You think that's nonsense -- what about the idea of living forever in heaven if you die without mortal sin on your soul?

No one has disproven the existence of eternal life.

No one has disproven the existence of Mohammed on a flying carpet. Do you believe that? No one has disproven the existence of a million invisible fruit flys in your refrigerator. Do you believe that?

People are free to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions.

As for refrigerators, there are tons of invisible things living there, but probably not fruit flies in most cases.

People are also free not to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions. You can believe or not believe anything you want, particularly regarding faith traditions, but only with faith traditions is believing or not believing anything you want considered to be normal behavior.

In other cases, you'd be laughed at, at a minimum, or maybe thrown in jail or the mental hospital, depending on what you believed without having any scientific proof.

Did you know there’s scientific proof that bumblebees can’t fly?

Did you know that a huge portion (likely a majority) of prescription drug descriptions in the PDR say that nobody knows how it works but it does?

Did you know that phrenology was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of personality measurement?

Did you know that the Berthillon system was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of criminal identification by body measurements?

Lots of “scientifically proven” stuff out there that’s hogwash.

What I hear in the constant attacks on religious faith is an intense disappointment in the deity that many professed non-believers claim not to exist.

Religious belief is a matter of Faith. As St. Paul says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a great John Mulaney bit….
The church “changed it to ‘And with your spirit.’ Because that’s what needed revamping in the Catholic Church. That was the squeaky wheel that needed the grease.”

Ha ha. I refuse to say the new stuff. And I will not raise my arms during the Our Father. Such nonsense!

You think that's nonsense -- what about the idea of living forever in heaven if you die without mortal sin on your soul?

No one has disproven the existence of eternal life.

No one has disproven the existence of Mohammed on a flying carpet. Do you believe that? No one has disproven the existence of a million invisible fruit flys in your refrigerator. Do you believe that?

People are free to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions.

As for refrigerators, there are tons of invisible things living there, but probably not fruit flies in most cases.

People are also free not to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions. You can believe or not believe anything you want, particularly regarding faith traditions, but only with faith traditions is believing or not believing anything you want considered to be normal behavior.

In other cases, you'd be laughed at, at a minimum, or maybe thrown in jail or the mental hospital, depending on what you believed without having any scientific proof.

Did you know there’s scientific proof that bumblebees can’t fly?

Did you know that a huge portion (likely a majority) of prescription drug descriptions in the PDR say that nobody knows how it works but it does?

Did you know that phrenology was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of personality measurement?

Did you know that the Berthillon system was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of criminal identification by body measurements?

Lots of “scientifically proven” stuff out there that’s hogwash.

What I hear in the constant attacks on religious faith is an intense disappointment in the deity that many professed non-believers claim not to exist.

Religious belief is a matter of Faith. As St. Paul says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Do you believe everything that St. Paul says? Do you know that there really ever was a St Paul? Do you know that people gave up Phrenology because there is no scientific substance to it? Do you know that that's why many people have given up religion?

You hear intense disappointment, while many who not longer believe in your God feel relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thee/thy and not you/your either.

Thee/thy are historically the informal forms of second-person address in English—the equivalent of “tu” in Spanish.

“You” was for groups—and for superiors.

This is why Quakers who used plain speech used “thee” and “thy” with other human beings, and not in addressing God or his familiars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/pronouns-quakers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk4.whvy.pNfs_-P4R2Ii&smid=url-share

Every.body. knows this.

In Spanish, God is addressed with the familiar "tu."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a great John Mulaney bit….
The church “changed it to ‘And with your spirit.’ Because that’s what needed revamping in the Catholic Church. That was the squeaky wheel that needed the grease.”

Ha ha. I refuse to say the new stuff. And I will not raise my arms during the Our Father. Such nonsense!

You think that's nonsense -- what about the idea of living forever in heaven if you die without mortal sin on your soul?

No one has disproven the existence of eternal life.

No one has disproven the existence of Mohammed on a flying carpet. Do you believe that? No one has disproven the existence of a million invisible fruit flys in your refrigerator. Do you believe that?

People are free to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions.

As for refrigerators, there are tons of invisible things living there, but probably not fruit flies in most cases.

People are also free not to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions. You can believe or not believe anything you want, particularly regarding faith traditions, but only with faith traditions is believing or not believing anything you want considered to be normal behavior.

In other cases, you'd be laughed at, at a minimum, or maybe thrown in jail or the mental hospital, depending on what you believed without having any scientific proof.

Did you know there’s scientific proof that bumblebees can’t fly?

Did you know that a huge portion (likely a majority) of prescription drug descriptions in the PDR say that nobody knows how it works but it does?

Did you know that phrenology was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of personality measurement?

Did you know that the Berthillon system was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of criminal identification by body measurements?

Lots of “scientifically proven” stuff out there that’s hogwash.

What I hear in the constant attacks on religious faith is an intense disappointment in the deity that many professed non-believers claim not to exist.

Religious belief is a matter of Faith. As St. Paul says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Do you believe everything that St. Paul says? Do you know that there really ever was a St Paul? Do you know that people gave up Phrenology because there is no scientific substance to it? Do you know that that's why many people have given up religion?

You hear intense disappointment, while many who not longer believe in your God feel relief.

Such profound relief that they feel compelled to hijack threads about liturgical language to propagandize their anti-religion.

I think the historic evidence of St. Paul is probably on a level similar to that of many other ancient figures. Certainly the writings attributed toncontain a great deal of wisdom that generations of people have found helpful.

People don’t abandon religion because it is not scientific. They do so because they never had personal faith to begin with or they succumbed to despair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm thee/thy and not you/your either.

Thee/thy are historically the informal forms of second-person address in English—the equivalent of “tu” in Spanish.

“You” was for groups—and for superiors.

This is why Quakers who used plain speech used “thee” and “thy” with other human beings, and not in addressing God or his familiars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/pronouns-quakers.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk4.whvy.pNfs_-P4R2Ii&smid=url-share

Every.body. knows this.

In Spanish, God is addressed with the familiar "tu."

The French is similar (in the Our Father); interestingly the French Hail Mary uses the formal “vous.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a great John Mulaney bit….
The church “changed it to ‘And with your spirit.’ Because that’s what needed revamping in the Catholic Church. That was the squeaky wheel that needed the grease.”

Ha ha. I refuse to say the new stuff. And I will not raise my arms during the Our Father. Such nonsense!

You think that's nonsense -- what about the idea of living forever in heaven if you die without mortal sin on your soul?

No one has disproven the existence of eternal life.

No one has disproven the existence of Mohammed on a flying carpet. Do you believe that? No one has disproven the existence of a million invisible fruit flys in your refrigerator. Do you believe that?

People are free to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions.

As for refrigerators, there are tons of invisible things living there, but probably not fruit flies in most cases.

People are also free not to believe what they wish, particularly regarding faith traditions. You can believe or not believe anything you want, particularly regarding faith traditions, but only with faith traditions is believing or not believing anything you want considered to be normal behavior.

In other cases, you'd be laughed at, at a minimum, or maybe thrown in jail or the mental hospital, depending on what you believed without having any scientific proof.

Did you know there’s scientific proof that bumblebees can’t fly?

Did you know that a huge portion (likely a majority) of prescription drug descriptions in the PDR say that nobody knows how it works but it does?

Did you know that phrenology was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of personality measurement?

Did you know that the Berthillon system was once accepted as a scientifically proven means of criminal identification by body measurements?

Lots of “scientifically proven” stuff out there that’s hogwash.

What I hear in the constant attacks on religious faith is an intense disappointment in the deity that many professed non-believers claim not to exist.

Religious belief is a matter of Faith. As St. Paul says “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Do you believe everything that St. Paul says? Do you know that there really ever was a St Paul? Do you know that people gave up Phrenology because there is no scientific substance to it? Do you know that that's why many people have given up religion?

You hear intense disappointment, while many who not longer believe in your God feel relief.

Such profound relief that they feel compelled to hijack threads about liturgical language to propagandize their anti-religion.

I think the historic evidence of St. Paul is probably on a level similar to that of many other ancient figures. Certainly the writings attributed toncontain a great deal of wisdom that generations of people have found helpful.

People don’t abandon religion because it is not scientific. They do so because they never had personal faith to begin with or they succumbed to despair.

PP has not abandoned religion, but thinks they know why other people do.