Free Republic

You rang?

It's the cigar in the mouth that cracks me up.

(Dominus Iesus, VI, nn. 20-21).

I don't need a lecture on Dominus Iesus. I have read Dominus Iesus. I have no problem with Dominus Iesus. My friend, Reflections on Covenant and Mission is no Dominus Iesus.

We saw a rough draft of a sound doctrine that is in development not a trial balloon.

Rough drafts have a way of becoming conventional wisdom with the USCCB.

If it is a rough draft, then why did they put it out there as if it were the final product only for Cardinal Keeler a couple of days later to say it "does not represent a formal position taken by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) or the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA)."

If it doesn't represent a formal position of the USCCB or the BCEIA, then WHAT'S THE FRIGGIN POINT? To, as the Cardinal says, "encourage serious reflection on these matters by Jews and Catholics in the U.S?" Why? It's not a formal position and doesn't carry anymore weight than if a plumber wrote it.

If Reflections represents "sound doctrine", then why didn't Cardinal Keeler defend it or say that a clarification would be forthcoming? What we got instead is Cardinal-speak for "You know that thing we put out a few days ago? Forget about it."

With that said, you can reply if you want but I do not wish to get into a protracted discussion on a document which has zero authority.

The American Bishops come out with some tentative document (promulgated by who? with what force? binding on the faithful how?)

Exactly. A document put out by a sub-committee of a committee which in and of itself has ZERO authority. In fact, the Bishop's Conference as a whole has no doctrinal or jurdicial authority apart from Vatican approval. Does this stop them from issuing statements as if they did have such authority? No. Does it stop the media from their sensationalistic reporting of said statements? No.

A couple of days after this came out Pat Robertson was on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes ask Robertson, (paraphrasing)"The Catholic Church [me: no, it was a sub-committe of a committee] said that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved. What do you think?" All I could do was lament at the stupidity of sub-committee which made this "Reflection" public.

I tend to agree with angelo. The whole thing was a trial balloon which, thank God, popped rather quickly. This episode, along with the gutting of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the approval of jacked up ICEL translations, and the dog and pony show a couple of months ago, only furthers my thinking that the USCCB needs to be supressed for a while.

I was reading a lecture given by Fr. Joseph Fessio on Sacrosanctum Concilium, which was the Vatican II document on the liturgy, and found this interesting:

Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn’t come earlier I don’t know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, “Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?” “Well, no, we recite them,” he said. “Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?” I asked. He said, “No, but why don’t you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know.”

So, I called the company and they said, “We don’t know; call 1-800-JUDAISM.” So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn’t know either. But they said, “You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know.” So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, “I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?” He said, “Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us.”

I was amazed. I called Professor William Mart, a Professor of Music at Stanford University and a friend. I said, “Bill, is this true?” He said, “Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody.” So, you know something? If you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant.

As Dana Carvy in the guise of Johnny Carson would say, "That's weird, wild stuff."

That's pretty cool.

BTW, How did "Et cum spiritu tuo?" [sp?] ever get translated into "And also with you" rather than directly "And with your spirit"? Hope this is one change. (I am already saying it while everyone else says the other.) Guess that's the rebel in me.

ICEL's translation boarders on the horrendous. Yet, it is a translation that has been approved by the Vatican. As much as I sympathize with your response regarding "Et cum spiritu tuo", how is your deviating from the rubrics any different from a priest using inclusive language exclusively throught the Mass?

Don't get me wrong. I'm on your side regarding the translation, but what you are doing isn't kosher, IMVVVVHO.

Liberals LIE, they LIE ALL THE TIME. The truth is not in them. They are incapable of voicing a truth of any sort unless hypocritically.

Boy, tell us what you really think. LOL

Do I make myself clear?

Crystal.

The often vituperative attacks have been led by conservative groups, especially in the United States. Fr Joseph Fessio’s Ignatius Press, Mother Angelica’s EWTN network, and publications such as The Wanderer and Adoremus, have over the years identified John Page and ICEL as a symbol of everything they loathe – feminism, modernism, and inculturation. Crusaders are urged to “police” liturgies in search of aberrations, and to notify Vatican personnel who ask bishops to look into the complaints. These groups, some of which are opposed to the vernacular Mass, often have the ear of high-ranking Vatican officials.

I wasn't aware that among Fr Fessio, Ignatius Press, EWTN, the Wanderer, or Adoremus that any of them "are opposed to the vernacular Mass". If there any orthodox groups which oppose the vernacular a priori, then it's news to me.

Or maybe this is just another example of James Carvilism ala "Everyone knows that they don't want Mass in the vernacular. Everyone knows that."

Liberals. Sheesh.

By words he said that were never recorded????…..Or by the words the Holy Spirit gave through Jesus apostles? Or is there another way of knowing what Christ said with out looking at his word?

Don't patronize me. You know precisely well what we claim as Scriptural support. Matthew 16, Isaiah 22, John 21, etc...

I am able through the Holy Spirit to understand all things necessary for my salvation,

I suppose that all the non-Catholics who disagree with you on vital aspects of Divine Revelation must be listening to another spirit then for they say the same. Unless the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic.

but I also feel the need to assemble with other Christians, but if there were no sermons, I would be just a comfortable discussing and fellow-shipping one on one with the others.

Time for a thought experiment. Suppose that one of your brethren from your congregation comes to you and says, "You know JH, I've been doing a lot of prayerful studying of Scripture for a while. Through that study, I've come to believe X, Y, and Z." Now in contrast to X, Y, and Z you believe in A, B, and C.

Now you're just as adamant in you beliefs as your friend is and the disagreements you have are so great that fellowship with him is quickly becoming next to impossible? What do you do?

Mt 20:25-26, But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

Should the Apostles rub their hands, laugh maniacally, and think "You're the peons. I'm better than you for I am an Apostle"? No, says Jesus. The proper role regarding a Christian leader, from the Apostles on down, is one of service, not master.

1 John 2:27. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

If what you think is true, then Paul obviously didn't get the message. He told Timothy to pass on what he was taught by Paul to others who would be able to teach what they had received from Timothy. Why didn't he just tell Timothy to throw the Bible at them and tell them "here, you don't need me or anyone to teach you."

In fact, if there is absolutely, unequivocally no need for human teachers, then why did John write this letter in the first place? Why shouldn't have the first recipients of this letter just stopped reading it after verse 27?

I think that this verse is to be read along the lines of Paul's warning not to be deceived by another Gospel. Just my very humble opinion.

What does (^g^) mean?

What you should have said is that the only things non-Catholics agree with the Catholics on, is in the few things the Catholics have taken from the scripture. You had the cart before the horse.

Your eupocrisy is showing. Show me from Scripture alone where it states that Christ had two separate natures, fully Divine and fully human; that He didn't have only one nature, Divine; that His two natures were not mixed. Show me from Scripture alone where it states that Christ had two wills, Divine and human; that He didn't have only one, Divine will.

You may not think that these Christological issues aren't important; that they are a much ado about nothing. Heck, sometimes I wonder about what all the fuss was over. It's easy for us, 1500 years after the fact, to relegate these minute details to the back of our minds, if not to completely forget, or dismiss, them.

It's easy because our predecessors already did the heavy lifting for us and obviously thought these doctrines were important enough to go to the mattresses over. I also guarantee that the Ecumenical Councils which defined the orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrines which we share did not do so by Scripture alone. Was their primary witness Scripture? Absolutely. Was Scripture their only witness and authority? Nope.

Me: Now, you may chalk up you're rather fundamental divisions up to "Christian freedom". But to do, IMO, is naive at best and a disingenuous cop out at worst.

You: And your opinion is exactly what these post are all about, and they are not supported be the revealed word of God.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here

What is so confusing to Catholics over this? There was no Catholic Church when this was said, it was meant for all who God chooses to call.

Whatever you say. Did Paul think that the Judaizers were part of that "One faith"? Your reduction of "one faith" to "Jesus died for our sins" doesn't pan out in the real world.

BTW earlier you told me "You simply don’t know what your missing living in your little box". There was a time in which I wasn't a Catholic.

Well, it is really starting to bug me that everytime I get into a conversation with a Catholic I get the 28,000 different denominations figure thrown at me, like it means anything.

Who said anything about 28,000 diferent denominations? I have never used it.

34 is a far cry from 28,000.

Agreed. Still, 34 is 33 too many.

The bishop receives so many things to approve that he pays less and less attention to what he is approving.

What am I signing, Radar?

The bishop receives so many things to approve that he pays less and less attention to what he is approving.

What am I signing, Radar?

But you claim to be Biblically founded

No we don't. We claim to be founded by Christ.

Personally, I’d be terrified if I knew I was going to stand before God, and explain why I didn’t use his Holy Spirit he gave me to learn from him personally, and go far beyond what a bunch of old men claim, as they struggle to be legally safe and protected by loop holes.

Then you should explain your fear to you pastor. I assume that he expounds on Scripture to your congregation. But why do you listen? Shouldn't you be able to figure it out without any mere man's help? Just me, God, and my Bible. Wishful thinking.

By divisions do you mean differences?

No. I mean divisions, straight up out of Compton.

There are profound theological reasons why Lutherans aren't Calvinists, why Calvinists aren't Anglicans, why Anglicans aren't Seventh Day Adventist, why Seventh Day Adventists aren't Presbyterians, etc...

Divisions over such issues as the nature of Baptism, who can validly recieve Baptism, the nature of the Eucharist, are there Sacraments at all, Sunday vs. Saturday worship, can a believer lose his salvation, predestination and free will, just to name a few.

It seems that about the only things you guys agree upon is stuff that is also in agreement with Catholic teaching. I don't know about you, but that tells me something.

Now, you may chalk up you're rather fundamental divisions up to "Christian freedom". But to do, IMO, is naive at best and a disingenuous cop out at worst.

Remember, Paul said we have "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". One Faith. Think about it.

You mentioned Protestants and the Protestant culture, but don't you mean, "we who follow the teachings of the Scripture?"

After all, that's what separates us, we put scripture first, and you put traditions first. I can't think of a scripture that God condemns his people for following his word, but I can think of several that condemn following traditions and customs

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's easy to say "We only follow the teachings of Scripture" as if Scripture was completely perspicuous in all things. But life is not that easy, as evident by the divisions in the Protestant realm over rather fundamental teachings.

You (collectively) suffer under the notion that you follow no Traditions. But whether it is the Trinitarian and Christological Tradition formally defined by the first 4 or 5 Ecumenical Councils or the traditions of the Reformation, you all do, albeit largely unconsciously, follow T/tradition and not only Scripture.

So the real difference is that Catholics use both Scripture and Tradition and admit it while Protestants use both Scripture and T/tradition and don't admit it.

After the spin that we witnessed on the word “worship,” I no longer believe Catholics are able to admit wrong in anything they have been taught, and it’s best I guess, because if they admitted it was wrong, they would either have to stop believing it or continue doing it which would make it a sin, where before it was not.

Nonsense. The only thing that discussion showed was the tremendous clash of theological cultures (Catholic as opposed to Protestant).

It should come as no suprise that Catholics bring a whole array of first principles and presuppositions which, on the whole, differ from what Protestants bring to the table.

A Catholic who is steeped in the Catholic culture will read DeMontfort or any Marian encyclical and not see anything untowards. Whereas Protestants, steeped in the Protestant culture, will read the same things and basically freak out.

For me, your "trump cards" don't cause me any discomfort and I can assure you that, even after reading this thread for a while, I continue to have a clear conscience regarding all of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As you were.

Cozzens argues, persuasively with evidence, that the numbers are between 25-50%.

If his evidence is so persuasive, don't you think he could narrow down that 25 point gap in his estimation? With those numbers, it seems that at the end of the day, he basically pulled his estimation out of thin air.

It's been over 24 hours since the last post. Did the Rapture happen or something?