Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Yes, of course. Note that my pastor is bi-ritual, Maronite and Latin Rite. He is also fluent in 6 languages and can read Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. He also has a working knowledge of 3 other languages. It should be interesting to hear his response.
Sandyeggo, is Fr. Nabil at the Maronite Clergy Conference? It ends tomorrow. We expect our pastor to return tomorrow evening.
I know Whom I worship. Evidently you don't know Whom I worship. As previously, I worship only the Triune God, just as you do. However, I obey the Vicar of Christ on Earth as you do not. Your duty is to obey and not to judge those above you in the food chain unless and until you admit you have left the Roman Catholic Church or become an ecclesiastical official whose job entails such judgments.
Pros kentra laktize.
Pas a showg.
Ho potamos anaxios eisi en te oikia teis basileis.
Extra numeram es mihi.
Ya espion Amerikanitz.
That sounds more like Greek (no pun intended). Are you sure these words are not from the Melkite or Ukrainian or Byzantine Rites? They are definitely NOT from the Maronite Rite, which uses both Aramaic and Syriac as part of their liturgy.
Menin aeide, thea, peleiedo achilleos.
Ou phrontis.
Just as you seem to think that actual Catholics have some obligation to entertain each and every fantasy notion against Catholicism and the Church concocted by the schismatic in the street, you apparently believe that the pope had some obligation to waste time (his or anyone else's) acting as though ecclesiastical rebellion in the illicit consecration of four rebellious bishops (to prolong Marcel's disobedience when he would assume room temperature) was a subject worthy of debate. The Vatican is not the United States. It is an absolute monarchy. Guess who the monarch is?
Why do you suppose that some tribunal composed of officials inferior in authority to the pope would be a preferable tribunal? No doubt because you are well aware of how the pope would have ruled by virtue of how he DID rule.
Even in the courts of the United States with all our constitutional protections, a judge may (and often does) summarily find miscreants in contempt of court without the taking of ANY evidence when the defiance of authority takes place in the presence of the court (even in such attenuated circumstances as written communications to jurors who are regarded as part of the court for contempt purposes). It is not hard to recognize Marcel and the Econe 4 and their sycophants as being in ongoing continuing contempt (another day another punishment). Popes have even more authority than minor league trial judges.
You may expect whatever you please to fantasize. You will get what authority sees fit to give you. Charge is not the appropriate verb. JP II EXCOMMUNICATED Marcel and the Econe 4 and declared his (and your) coven of defiance in SCHISM including each adherent. As Aristotle said: A is A.
The pope has NO obligation to "prove" what is clear as can be; He need only govern the Church and rebellious Marcel and company. He did. You don't find that acceptable because you have bought the schism. Tough.
The pope feeds his flock. If you don't like the menu, find one you like and pester that church or continue in the one y'all have created. It's your party and you'll cry if you want to (by virtue of your error). As to your children, their catechesis is YOUR responsibility as a parent and you will stand responsible before God if you lead them into error.
It would seem likely that you should start practicing the faith before you try to discipline its hierarchy (as though you could). You have free will. Remember the wages of its abuse.
If "many" means that some humans would reject Christ and reject the offered redemption, I would tend to agree with that understanding. If shed for "all" means that some are saved and some not because the latter rejected Christ and His sacrifice, I would agree with that. I honestly have much difficulty understanding why some see such a distinction between all and many. The important thing is an understanding in conformity to Christ as to His meaning.
This may still be obscure but I am struggling against the professional obscurantism common to those who have practiced law.
Fine. I accept the charge you make that I am a sinner and not schismatic. That's progress.
Additionally, you ARE an adherent of the schism as proven by the contents of your posts. The pope says (and that is good enough for me) that the adherents of the SSPX schism are in schism. Unless you want to claim (far too late in the game) that you are misunderstood and that you stand with the Holy Father against Marcel's schism, you have no basis for claiming that I do not regard you as schismatic.
B.E., you said you would abide by NYer's judgement, well she HAS posted, and has even highlighted the words "for many" for your behalf..
The ridiculous canard, that Aramaic/Syriac did not have a word that signified "many", was just one of a legion of lies that were spewed forth in the 1960's to justify a heretical translation, in practically every nation's vernacular, to justify universal salvation, i.e. that all would be saved.
The Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa, etc. are most clear that although OUr Lord incarnated, suffered and died for the salvation of ALL, not all would avail themselves of the FRUIT of His passion, hence the correct translation, is "for you and for many". Anything else is heretical, and because it is heretical and thus significantly changes the words of the sacrament, Christ's words, it invalidates the sacrament.
A further note, the latest 'eucharistic document' of 'john paul ii', employ in Latin, the incorrect and heretical words for you and for all in absolute contradiction of the words of Our Lord and even of the Latin version of the novus ordo missae.
He did so by design. The direction he and others have been moving the 'church of vatican ii' all along. In this instance it is universal salvation, we do not know if anyone is in hell, "hell is not a physical place", etc.
From the Maronite Liturgy:
Aramaic Consecration
Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh ma' bed hy eh nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to. Ou ba rekh ou qa desh waq so ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar: Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon: Ho no den ee tow faghro deel day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey meh tez seh ou meh tee heb lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam 'ol meen.
English Translation
On the day before his life-giving passion, Jesus took bread in his holy hands. He blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat it, all of you: This is my body which is broken and delivered for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
I for one see no reason why the words can't have both meanings. The Catholic Church confesses the Rock of St. Matthew 16:18 to be both St. Peter and his confession - why can't many refer both to the fruits (the elect) and to the sufficiency (for all men) of Christ's sacrifice?
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (St. Mark 10:45)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time. (1 St. Timothy 2:5-6)
Oops, I spoke too soon. Apparently I'm still out of favor, according to you. Not that I believe it for a second. You're wrong again as usual, about me and everything else. You say, for instance, the Pope can ignore his own Canon Law if he wants. Like hell he can.
The truth is, he can't because canon law is based on Divine Law. No pope may violate justice without that violation becoming instantly illegitimate. You don't appreciate this because you have a distorted concept of papal power and steadfastly refuse to recognize any limitations. But while the Pope is supreme legislator, he is not God. He is not limited by what is beneath him, he is limited by what is above.
In this regard, I have no delusions that the Church is a democracy. But neither is it a tyranny. Ecclesiastical authority is obliged to act in accordance with justice and truth before all else. Not to do so would be an abuse of power and illegitimate. Thus authority may not say something is so which isn't, or that someone is guilty who isn't. If it does this, it is permitted for us, by canon law, to resist such judgments by honest criticism, even if this means criticizing the pope.
As for the matter of the tribunal--the Pope may well rule one way in public, but another way when matters are closed and secret. A public tribunal would have pitted the Archbishop's traditional Catholicism against the papal bias in favor of modernism. If modernists wish to condemn a man for being a traditional Catholic churchman--let them dare! It would disgrace them forever. As it is, they are disgraced, but it is done quietly, in whispers.
I won't answer the rest. The so-called excommunication was a nullity. There never was a schism. The Pope's saying so, doesn't make it so. You can scream and stamp your feet, but it simply won't wash. No pope can impose a sentence on the innocent and have it stick. It is impossible.
Because the Church has always taught that it does not. They are distinct components of the form of Consecration of the wine. I think it was the Armenians, who rejoined the Church from their schism @ 1331, had to insert "for many" in its liturgy SO IT WOULD BE VALID, before they were permited to re-enter the Church. Confer the Council of Florence.
The distinction is that they're different. Even a lawyer should be able to see that. No one is asking, "If it were the case that Christ had used the word 'all,' then could there be a way to interpret that in some orthodox manner?" That's not the issue for the simple reason that Christ didn't use the word "all," he used the word, "many." That's what he said, he said "many," he didn't say "all," and the two words are different, they are not the same word, nor do they mean the same thing.
So the words of consecration in the vernacular New Mass are just flat wrong. No question about it. And the words are wrong enough so that they mean something different, which according to Catholic teaching makes the consecration invalid.
If someone wanted to make the argument that "all" and "many" mean the same thing, they first have to overcome the fact that Catechism of the Council of Trent spoke specifically and directly to that very point, and flatly denied that the word "many" can be interpreted to mean "all." It's already defined Catholic doctrine that the word Christ used was "many" and not "all," and that you absolutely cannot interpret it to mean "many."
So a heresy is embedded in the words of consecration of the vernacular New Mass. That is the very sad and unfortunate fact.
Was Pope Innocent X trying to justify universal salvation?
5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical. (DZ 1096)
A further note, the latest 'eucharistic document' of 'john paul ii', employ in Latin, the incorrect and heretical words for you and for all
The official version published in the AAS has "pro multis".
Don't know if anyone will find it interesting, but the Japanese-language vernacular translation of the NO is "for many." In Japanese, of course.
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.