Posted on 11/18/2006 5:08:06 PM PST by lrslattery
Our bishop here just sent out a letter instructing the priests to follow the guidelines on purification of the vessels. The priests, of course, were objecting and wondering if they really "had to" do it. (Like it's such a burden.)
I think a lot of it is going to depend on how much the bishop enforces it; as you say, expect zilch from Gumbleton, but Cdl Maida will probably be a different story. It will be interesting to see if the dread USCCB makes any statements on this, although I have a sense that they are losing power, fortunately.
I like that :-)
The Maronites have never abandoned "pro multis" in their liturgies, be it the Anaphora of St. James or any one of the other 12 now celebrated. Words have meaning. Thank you, Pope Benedict XVI, for settling this once and for all.
You wrote: "God for the Pope. He'll get you guys back on track! :)"
When you guys get a patriarch, or a council, that admits that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of divorcing and marrying up to three times is nothing but a man-made tradition that violates scripture let me know, okay?
Probably not - they will first have to study it for a dozen years.
But, the earth will end
Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.
"in the next one or two years."
Why not now, now, now? Even parishes that don't have e-mail have telephones, or at least mailboxes.
"When you guys get a patriarch, or a council, that admits that the Eastern Orthodox tradition of divorcing and marrying up to three times is nothing but a man-made tradition that violates scripture let me know, okay?"
We've known that since the 8th century when the rules changed, Vlad.
Maybe the old Anglican translation -- "being of one substance with the Father" -- would be a worthy version.
Father Zuhsldorf if ecstatic. Note the last line please:
Prot. n. 467/05/L
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 2:44 pm
Let us remember with fondness this Protocol Number:
Prot. n. 467/05/L
Here is something very important in the letter His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze wrote to the bishops (conferences) through the whole world. My emphasis.
Rome, 17 October 2006
Your Eminence / Your Excellency,
In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).
The replies received from the Bishops Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:...
This is not the decision of either the CDWDS or the CDF. This was the Popes decision. As I have written elsewhere, the translations of sacramental forms are reserved to the Pope alone.
We find this in the Holy Sees official instrument of promulgation, Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 28 February 1974 (AAS 66 (1974) 98-99). Here we find a circular letter dated 25 October 1973 over the signature of then Secretary of State Jean Card. Villot, countersigned by Archbp. Annibale Bugnini (my translation from the Latin): The Supreme Pontiff reserves to himself the power of approving directly all translations into vernacular languages of the formulas of sacraments.
There is no appeal against this decision.
Does he have photographs of somebody in a compromising position, or what? He seems to do whatever he likes and never suffer any consequences.
I don't know what his secret is. Except that he was involved with everybody who was anybody in the heresy circuit (Bernardin, Weakland, etc.). And I think the ones who are still with us and haven't gotten into undeniable personal scandals that forced them to resign are probably more powerful and more deeply infiltrated than one wishes to admit. Things only get to the Pope after they have gone through the filtering system, so to speak, and I'm sure Roger's cronies make sure nothing gets through.
That said, I was really stunned at how fast this got out: I was at our bishop's mass this morning, and he said "for many," even though the new translation is not out and it is not yet mandatory. Some people don't seem to understand how important this is, but it is obviously something that is important not only in itself but in terms of what it says about the individual priest and his attitudes.
I can see the headlines in New York Times, Boston Globe, etc.: "Non-inclusive Catholic Church says not everyone saved, consigns some to hell."
You didn't read my post.
Changed from what to what?
There are still Eastern Orthodox Churches allowing people to divorce and remarry, divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry yet again.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
Excellent news. But I notice that the bishops still have not put the more accurate translations of the liturgy announced earlier into effect. Bishop Trautman still calls the shots.
I imagine this will go into effect eventually, but the bishops, the liturgists, and the presses that print the missalettes will find numerous ways to delay it.
Fr. Neuhaus has some rather sharp comments on the Novus Ordo in the December issue of First Things. He says that some people call the 1969 rite "the Bugnini Mass," and call the "drastic reordering of the liturgical calendar" Bugnini time.
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.