Posted on 07/30/2005 9:06:18 AM PDT by littlepaddle
As you said "The church concelebrates with Jews, Orthodox, Protestant, has Eucharistic Hospitality sessions with Protestants where the body of Christ is given to those in Mortal sin and not even Catholic, but if you are Traditional or go to the TLM-you are banned, pushed off, the Novus Ordo priest looks at you like you have 3 heads".
And as I hope everyone here understands fully, all of that - most especially the come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" - is strictly forbidden by the Apostolic Canons, some of which were composed by no less than St. Peter the Holy Apostle himself.
The canons of the Church are not mere laws. They are statements of basic Christian principle. How anyone can read them, and also read what you just said Bulldog, without concluding that the NO establishment is an entirely new religion is quite beyond my pitiful ability to comprehend. Nanette Claret(an Anglican who is apparently on her way into the NO establishment), has tried her best to explain this to me, but I'm afraid I still just don't get it.
A lie. How exactly would a "concelebration" with Jews work, anyway?
Can. 908 Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which are not in full communion with the catholic Church.
come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions"
Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church.
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
the Apostolic Canons, some of which were composed by no less than St. Peter the Holy Apostle himself
Bad history. The Pseudo-Apostolic canons are of third or fourth century provenance, and they are not all correct. For instance, the canon of Scripture given in canon 85 has always been rejected by the Catholic Church:
Let the following books be esteemed venerable and holy by you, both of the clergy and laity. Of the Old Covenant: the five books of Moses-Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; one of Joshua the son of Nun, one of the Judges, one of Ruth, four of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, two of Ezra, one of Esther, one of Judith, three of the Maccabees, one of Job, one hundred and fifty psalms; three books of Solomon-Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; sixteen prophets. And besides these, take care that your young persons learn the Wisdom of the very learned Sirach. But our sacred books, that is, those of the New Covenant, are these: the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the fourteen Epistles of Paul; two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; two Epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions dedicated to you the bishops by me Clement, in eight books; which it is not fit to publish before all, because of the mysteries contained in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.
Note that Wisdom and Tobit are missing, and so is Revelation.
"Bad history. The Pseudo-Apostolic canons are of third or fourth century provenance"
That's news to me. Please state your authority.
If one of the canons is erronious as to the list of books to be considered Holy Scripture, this would seem to argue for a much earlier date than 4th century. Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
"'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church."
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
Read the link I gave. Many are copied from a council held in Antioch in 348, for one thing. Another strong reason for doubting authenticity is that they were never entirely received in the Western Church - Pope St. Hormisdas, for instance, declared them apocryphal in the early sixth century.
Since that particular canon was apparently written by St. Clement, it looks more like 2nd century.
I suggest you look up the history of the Apostolic Constitutions, where the Apostolic Canons are derived from. They are a forgery in the name of St. Clement. Eusebius, when he gives St. Clement's writings, mentions only his First Epistle as valid, and his Second Epistle as doubtful. He certainly would have known about the Canons and the Constitutions if they had been written by St. Clement.
How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament?
That does not make "come one come all Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" a practice of the Catholic Church.
Where is the evidence that the Pope held "come one come all Eucharistic Hospitality sessions" every year at Assisi?
As for the canons, I was simply pointing out that you are misattributing them. They weren't written by St. Peter or any apostle. You are correct that the Council in Trullo received them, but this Council never received the assent of the universal Church (St. Bede calls it a "reprobate" synod), so it is not binding on Catholics, who follow the rule of Vincent of Lerins: "held everywhere, always, and by all".
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
"Common participation in worship which harms the unity of the Church or involves formal acceptance of error or the danger of aberration in the faith, scandal and indifferentism, is forbidden by divine law." (Vatican Council II, Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite §26).
* Because this is Sunday, I enjoyed witnessing this example of afflatus. Have a nice day sister
ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
FIFTH INSTRUCTION “FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, art. 36)
1. The Second Vatican Council strongly desired to preserve with care the authentic Liturgy, which flows forth from the Church’s living and most ancient spiritual tradition, and to adapt it with pastoral wisdom to the genius of the various peoples so that the faithful might find in their full, conscious, and active participation in the sacred actions – especially the celebration of the Sacraments – an abundant source of graces and a means for their own continual formation in the Christian mystery.[1]
2. Thereupon there began, under the care of the Supreme Pontiffs, the great work of renewal of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, a work which included their translation[2] into vernacular languages, with the purpose of bringing about in the most diligent way that renewal of the sacred Liturgy which was one of the foremost intentions of the Council.
3. The liturgical renewal thus far has seen positive results, achieved through the labor and the skill of many, but in particular of the Bishops, to whose care and zeal this great and difficult charge is entrusted. ....
For this reason, even while calling for the revision of the various Rites in accordance with sound tradition, the Council set forth the principle that only those changes were to be introduced which would foster their specific organic development...
Clearly, the same vigilance is required for the safeguarding and the authentic development of the liturgical rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of the Latin Church, and in particular, of the Roman Rite. The same care must be brought also to the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages. This is especially true as regards the Roman Missal, which will thus continue to be maintained as an outstanding sign and instrument of the integrity and unity of the Roman Rite...
The work of inculturation, of which the translation into vernacular languages is a part, is not therefore to be considered an avenue for the creation of new varieties or families of rites; on the contrary, it should be recognized that any adaptations introduced out of cultural or pastoral necessity thereby become part of the Roman Rite, and are to be inserted into it in a harmonious way...
In fact, it seems necessary to consider anew the true notion of liturgical translation in order that the translations of the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular languages may stand secure as the authentic voice of the Church of God...
I. ON THE CHOICE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES TO BE INTRODUCED INTO LITURGICAL USE 10. To be considered first of all is the choice of the languages that it will be permissible to put into use in liturgical celebrations. It is appropriate that there be elaborated in each territory a pastoral plan that takes account of the spoken languages there in use, with a distinction being made between languages which the people spontaneously speak and those which, not being used for natural communication in pastoral activity, merely remain the object of cultural interest. In considering and drafting such a plan, due caution should be exercised lest the faithful be fragmented into small groups by means of the selection of vernacular languages to be introduced into liturgical use, with the consequent danger of fomenting civil discord, to the detriment of the unity of peoples as well as of the unity of the particular Churches and the Church universal...
20. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.[20]
*One can't pit the Magisterium against itself. It is clear Mass in the vernacular is here to stay - which was what Latin Mass was - Mass in the vernacular.
Mass in the vernacular is Tradition. I know this comes as a shock to some.
"Mass in the vernacular is Tradition. I know this comes as a shock to some."
The liturgy in a language that people understand is indeed of the Tradition, but that should not be taken to mean that it is language that is not liturgical, language that is common and ordinary. Nor should it be taken to mean that Latin is always a language not understood. God is holy other. The very language that we use for prayer has always been language indicating respect. Just my personal opinion, but I find the English of the Novus Ordo banal and common, not respectful.
Interestingly, as Kosta50 points out, the preferred language at St. Peter's in Rome, at least for some of the liturgy, is Greek. When SS Peter, Paul, Mark and others evangelized in Rome, they brought with them the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord, in Greek. Only very gradually were certain parts ever translated into Latin. And some never were, at least not at St. Peter's. The reason for this is that Greek is more a language for theology, Latin for law. To see how this is so, simply try to translate "Theotokos" into Latin. Can't be done. "Mater Dei" is hardly a precise translation of "Theotokos"
What is good about the Old Rite is the formulary of the words, not the language. The Old Rite was great in Croatia also, where it was always celebrated in Slavonic, and never in Latin.
I'd be ecstatic if it was restored entirely in the vernacular or in Latin.
The Rite and its tradition is what is important, not the language.
And those positive results would be?
I much prefer the idea of the Latin Mass to the situation above.
Yes, Graves, "Theotokos" is simply irreplaceable and, as you note, untranslatable, and - you would know this better than I, being Orthodox - isn't it one of those words (like Maranatha, Alleluia, etc.) that the Tradition senses should be left alone, no matter what language the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in? I seem to remember hearing the litanies in an OCA setting, where that one word was left untranslated in the midst of all the English words around it. Something like, "Remembering our most holy, most pure, most-blessed, ever-virgin Mary, the Theotokos . . . " I think I heard that somewhere.
On the other hand, neither the Missale Romanum (Vatican II's Calendar restores the ancient Roman Marian feast of the Mother of God to January 1) nor even the popular Litany of Loreto uses the expression "Mater Dei",
but the more formal, dogmatic (as I understand it) expression:
Sancta Dei GENETRIX.
I think that GENETRIX is, therefore, considered to be the Latin equivalent of Theotokos.
You wrote: "'come one come all "Eucharistic Hospitality sessions' Certainly this is not a practice of the Catholic Church." How come I, a known non-Catholic, was invited to one and invited to receive the sacrament? We all know these have been going on. It's positively notorious. Why deny it? I thought the NO people were proud of it.
I guess it's like you've always told me about the variety of "Orthodox" practices that don't agree: when someone does something they're not supposed to, they're doing it on their own authority, illicitly and in contradiction to the canon law and liturgical theology of the official Church. If that's true with the Orthodox - a gazillion different national churches, synods, and jurisdictions - how much more so for us Roman Catholics who have one Pope who, in the end, is Supreme Legislator?
Ha-even the Protestants admit it-and your JPII the Great allowed this apostate Kasper to push these Hospitality sessions. And guess what? They will surely take place at this great world youth day, where JPII the great calls young men and woman in some big kumbaya woodstock session to sing and play the guitar, sleep together on the grass, who knows what else they are doing. Real smart. and what ever happened to a crucifix? Ever notice the Youth day cross has no Christ on it-to please his protestant friends!
Not being a Latinist, I'll pass on Genetrix.
Re "I guess it's like you've always told me about the variety of 'Orthodox' practices that don't agree: when someone does something they're not supposed to, they're doing it on their own authority, illicitly and in contradiction to the canon law and liturgical theology of the official Church",
I think you are referring to another discussion with another person posting at FR. But, since you here bring it up, I would obviously agree - in theory. In practice, I have not encountered any such practices. I have heard, however, of some heterodox rites being "baptized", so to speak, but only after they have been cleaned up by having certain obviously heretical parts removed, e.g. the filioque heresy in the Nicene Creed. None of that, however, comes even close to the kind of idiocy going in the NO version of the Roman Catholic Church.
Good point Bulldog ("Ha-even the Protestants admit it-and your JPII the Great allowed this apostate Kasper to push these Hospitality sessions. And guess what? They will surely take place at this great world youth day, where JPII the great calls young men and woman in some big kumbaya woodstock session to sing and play the guitar, sleep together on the grass, who knows what else they are doing. Real smart. and what ever happened to a crucifix? Ever notice the Youth day cross has no Christ on it-to please his protestant friends!")
But really, it's bad enough, certainly enough to justify defrocking Benedict XVI after this happens, that he reportedly intends to enter a Jewish synagogue and then to pray there once he enters it.
Apostolic Canon LXIV.
If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
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.