Posted on 12/30/2003 10:43:12 AM PST by Catholicguy
So in your mind the 2 bad translations cancel each other out and result in 1 good translation? It's not for me to tell you what to believe, but that doesn't work for me. Both parts are supposed to be accurate translations, but in fact neither are, they are both wrong.
Also, the quote from De Defectibus relates to a simple Priest altering the Mass at will, not the Pope decreeing revisions to it.
It doesn't actually say that, does it?
No lets go back. You are spewing heresy.
You: "If Christ said His blood would be shed for "all"; hell would be empty."
1 St. John 2.2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1 St. Timothy 2.5-6 For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.
Hebrews 2.9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all.
Popes Innocent X and Alexander VII: "It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood for all men. - Condemned Proposition"
The Roman Canon of the Tridentine Mass: "Who, the day before He suffered for our salvation and that of all men"
End of discussion. Go away and skulk somewhere else. We aren't interesting in the heresies you are peddling to the Catholic Raucous. There is nothing more to say because its just so plain and simple. Just repent or go away and stop pretending to be Catholic here. You're just plain wrong. Okay? Got it?
You are spewing Calvinism. Welcome to the Reformation, Irish. Enjoy your heresy.
It doesn't actually say that, does it?
Sure it does, right at the start of the document:
1. The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing.
Which the document then proceeds to copiously list.
Of course, I doubt you've ever read the whole thing through (just like CatholicGuy has pointed out how you folks have missed St. Pius V terming the Tridentine Mass a "new rite" in "Quo Primum"), whereas I was the person who initially typed up the version now circulating around on the Web (on so-called "Fr." Morrison's Traditio site, Daily Catholic, the-pope.com, etc.) way back around 1997 and posted it to Jim McNally's Sedevacantist mailing list at that time. I know this, because every version out there has the Post-Vatican II rules for the Eucharistic Fast in Paragraph 28: "28. If a priest has not been fasting for at least one hour before Communion, he may not celebrate. The drinking of water, however, does not break the fast." See I took the document straight out of a 1964 or 1967 Latin-English Missal I obtained from the ex-Most Holy Family Monastery, Berlin, NJ.
Compare to this French translation from a 1962 Missal on the web with the Pius XII fasting rules: "1. Si avant la messe le prêtre n'est pas à jeun depuis trois heures au moins pour ce qui concerne la nourriture solide et la boisson alcoolisée, et depuis une heure au moins pour la boisson non alcoolisée, il ne peut pas célébrer. Toutefois boire de l'eau ne rompt pas le jeûne."
So why not read the whole document now?
Max, I've come to expect better of you. Come on now and try a little bit harder.
You mislead your troops. That is only the "Qui pridie" of Holy Thursday. What's your "Qui pridie" "in ordinay time"?
Until you address Christ's actual words at the Consecration of His Body and Blood, I will "end the discussion" as you requested.
I prefer to dialogue with Catholics, anyway.
May you have a blessed and holy New Year.
Doctrinally and efficaciosuly in confecting the sacrament, yes. In terms of correct translations, no. As I've said before, the translation is "dynamically equivalent" (the ICEL's term), not "literally exact".
I believe some of the "reformers" tried to make hay about it.
Irrelevant from a doctrinal point of view because it doesn't address the point at hand.
Until you address Christ's actual words at the Consecration of His Body and Blood, I will "end the discussion" as you requested.
No, we're long past that, since you dragged heresy into a liturgical discussion by denying the suffiency of the Cross for the redemption of all men.
Your words were still with me at Mass this morning (a N.O. liturgy -- not my customary worship -- using Eucharistic Prayer #1). In adoring the Eucharistic Elements immediately after the repetition of the words of institution, celebrant and congregation alike signify the belief that Christ is really present on that altar. It seems that an epiclesis after this point would be redundant so far as "accomplishing" transubstantiation is concerned. In my unlearned layman's view, the logic of a "wishful" epiclesis in advance of the words of institution seems more persuasive than to pray for the ratification of something the Church teaches has already taken place. I believe the Greeks do not share the Roman interest in defining the precise moment at which the change occurs, or whether it can be said to happen in a moment at all. But we Latins make a point of adoring the Blessed Sacrament at the elevation, and that seems hard to get around.
Happy New Year, btw.
Hermann, T'heck did you find the time to learn all of this ?:)
Any Catholic who has ever lived can be said to have assisted at the mass of all times if we remind ourselves what mass (or liturgy, or service, or eucharist ect ect) consists of in its essence- it is Jesus acting on our behalf(priest and victim) offering Himself to the Father in an act of propitiation. (not to omit mass is also a sacred banquet).
Christians in the time of Peter went to the Mass of all times.
Christians in the time of Pope St. Deusdedit went to mass of all times.
Christians in the time of Pope Lucius II went to the Mass of all time.
And Christians alive today - whether they go to the Pauline Rite or whether they go to the mass accrd to the 1962 R.M. - go to the mass of all times.
We ought be cautious about allowing ourselves to be marketed to for polemical reasons as that tends to obscure the truth. The Mass,(Divine liturgy, eucharist, service ect) is primarily about Jesus and what He does and to allow the accidents of the setting of the Mass to obscure that substantial truth is to let Jesus receede into the background and HE must increase and we must decrease.
Me neither. My quibble is with the comprehensiveness of what you said above, that a "proper epiclesis" must occur after the words of institution. I'm happy to accept the Greek teaching that in their liturgy the change happens then, since this is plainly what they pray for. My point is that we Latins also have a proper epiclesis, notwithstanding its anticipatory nature.
In any event, when one recalls that God transcends time, the whole question of chronology becomes irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.