Posted on 07/27/2005 10:16:13 AM PDT by American Newsman
Again your area is in a fast growing area in terms of population(Salem been growing rapidly in population for a while) not to mention a large number of immigrants. That is not the same reality the bulk of parishes in the US exist in.
BTW, it would appear that a great number of SSPX types are reading Boff's mis-interpretation as Gospel.
Not really curious--but thanks for the history on this.
Which is precisely the problem.
"Engineering" worship is self-defeating.
You seem to have a axe to grind against Latin, fair enough, lets just say the missal except for the Canon was allowed to use the vernacular, and the rest kept the same. Now lets move on to the main part of what I am getting at.
People are sheep, the sheep need a sheppard, people want leaders, in the confusion after Vatican II, the church abdicated its position of leadership, its position of authority. This played a LARGE role in the breakdown of the culture, and the changes made in the mass, the main changes such as the text and rubrics(I will agree that what language the mass is in is a minor issue at best) played a large role in this.
The church is not doing well in most of the areas it was established before Vatican II, ceratinly not Europe, certainly not North or South America, and despite what some may say otherwise, its growth in Asia(except for Korea) has stalled, especially in India where the church is an even smaller perc entage than it was in 1960.
Lastly, if the strength of the church is dependent on the culture that surrounds it, somthing that fools like Mark Shea would say, then what does it tell us about how strong the church really is? If the church can not lead a culture anymore, then has the protection of the Holy Spirit left most of the church?
The fads only bring up attdence short term, then people burn out. Unless a parish is in the exurbs, or in an area that is flooded with immigrants, it does not do well in terms of attendence, and I have found this to be the case all over.
It doesnt matter. Sadly the clergy and the Bishops who protect them in their error have no fear of the Vatican removing them. Maybe Bendict XVI will be more forceful, but sadly the cries of pain and anguise of the faithful Catholics about the terrible situation they were in went unheard by John Paul II. One reason why I refuse to call him "John Paul the Great".
Actually, the initial instruction for installing the vernacular only specified the readings--Epistle & Gospel, plus the "bidding prayers" (petitions) at the Offertory.
All the rest was to be in Latin, just as before.
From what I understand, Paul VI himself provided bad examples by having even much of the papl masses in the vernacular, I also recently read of when he had Sr. Lucia stand in front of him to recieve communion. I know Abp. Weakland and Abp. Bugnini designed the Novus Ordo, but it was Paul VI himself who sadly made the decsion to implement it.
The present Pope? The one who wrote and contributed to Vatican II and was one of Rahner and Kung's best buddies. I love the Modernist liberal statement that "Vatican II was just implemented wrong". Read any of the 16 documents and one paragraph sounds "Catholic" and the next right after is so liberal and against everything the church taught and you would think it would teach it is mind boggling.
The present "Pope", who refused to take the Papal Oath, and considers himself no more than a figurehead and a Bishop, as Vatican II made into fact, has no real power, throws something to keep the right wing (or whatever is left of it) in line like bringing back chant or whatever, and then goes and meets with Rabbis or does some more damage.
He is not a leader. Would you consider George Bush or any of our Presidents a leader if they refused to take the Oath of office? Until a Pope takes the Oath I dont consider them the Pope, just a Bishop or a Cardinal.
The explosion of the church in Africa and other poor countries may have to do with the free education given by the church to any seminarian and his family, like bribery. It is a known fact, ask any of your so called African Priests. And the last I noticed, Africa was still mostly Moslem and tribal, and the only "explosion" is because each "family", many of whose husbands have multiple wives average between 8-16 children and then supposedly get baptised to get the amenities the missionaries have to offer. Do you think they go to church? Not on your life.
You obviously don't trust Christ's words to Peter appointing him the rock on which the Church is based. There is nothing in the Vatican II documents that contradicts the deposit of faith.
Does anyone know why this poster was banned or suspended?
The question is, do the Cardinals, bishops and priests and nuns and deacons and monks understand what subsists means? As Fr. Malachi Martin stated in the Jesuits page 323: the real insidiousness is in the translations.
The texts of the Council discussions make it clear that the bishops deliberately used the Latin word "subsistit" to affirm as strongly as possible that there is only one Church of Christ, and it is concretely the Roman Catholic Church. Elsewhere, in the same context, the Council document asserts the complete identification of the Church Christ founded with the Roman Catholic Church. The meaning of subsistit is unequivocally basic and simple; it means "exists," "is to be found." This Latin term is not the equivalent of the English word subsists, which has acquired three or four meanings not part of the Latin term from which the English term is derived.
Either the Modernist Liberation Theologians were bad Latinists or they assumed everyone else was. They pounced upon that word subsistit and gave it a modern meaning more congenial to their purposes. The Council did not use a word such as "is," which in their opinion would mean, "is perfectly identified with." The Council used a word the periti said in a subtle mistranslation, that means "to subsist." Now that, they went on to compound their translation error with dogmatic error, can only be a recognition by the Council that, while substantially the Church is to be found in the Roman Catholic tradition,' other equally authentic and true parts of Christ's Church are to be found outside that tradition.--cheek by jowl with it, perhaps, but certainly outside it.
In the words of one Modernist-minded Franciscan, Alan Schreck, "the phrase [sic] 'subsists in' which means 'is rooted in' or 'dwells within but is not limited to' was carefully chosen. It means that the one true Church of Jesus Christ is found within the Catholic Church but is not limited to it. The bishops purposely did not say that the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church."[New Covenant May 1984 page 16--"Catholic and Christian" by Alan Schreck]
Either Schreck is in need of a remedial course in Latin and in the reading of the Council documents or, like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, he is content to redefine everything as he wishes. Either way you look at it, the results of his error are grim, ignorance and redefinition are the stuff of theological nonsense. For the effect of this Modernist interpretation was to decrease, if not eliminate the need to belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
If you want a real treat from a contemporary Modernist-minded Franciscan, watch the re-run of July 24th's "Sunday Night Live with Fr. Benedict Groeschel" on EWTN this week. I've never heard so much obstinate denial of Catholic doctrine in one hour. The man should be prevented from spreading this kind of error.
That doesn't mean that there is automatically anything good or useful in the documents of Vatican II. All they need to do is confuse. Or as I wrote above provide the opportunity for sowing confusion.
Did Christ drop the ball or was it a good thing when Pope Stephan dug up Pope Formosus, put his corpse on trial, declared everything he ever did invalid, cut his fingers off that he'd used for blessings and dumped his body in a shallow grave, and a few days later threw it in the river?
Just because Christ has allowed human sludge and others of varying quality to occupy the chair of Peter and someone can recognize this, does not mean one has lost faith in the Papacy or Christ's promises. On the contrary, it indicates a person actually understands Christ's promises and the papacy and not the modern ultramontanist fantasies about the papacy.
When the people more and more consider themselves god, why would they feel they need God?
So you and GBC agree on 'subsistit'!!!
Bookmark the spot...
Exactly-How many heretics have we had as popes? Countless, and I think when we are looking down from above in the next century, when the church rights herself, the names John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII will be added to that list
Yeah, he's advertising his website in the post.
Some people do that everyday here. I wonder if he was singled out because he signed up the same day, or because there is something on his website that is not compatible with the philosophy of FR.
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.