Posted on 01/28/2021 5:30:10 PM PST by ebb tide
Many years ago, not long after Vatican II, I asked my devout Catholic father what he thought of the changes being wrought. He looked at me and said, “If this keeps up, we’ll be no better than the damn Episcopalians”.
Thank you - it makes no sense to preach the Word in a language not spoken by those in attendance. It adds to mysticism and detracts from substance.
When you Catholics get “Unity” perfected; come talk to us Prots.
when Jesus returns; will He find FAITH?
There ought to be enough Catholics; in this thread alone; to come up with yet another unfailing novena that would cover this problem.
That ship sailed 1054 when the West split from the East...
One would think so - but so far, they got nuthin' to say.
“Many Catholic exorcist priests report that the old rite exorcism said in Latin is much more effective than the newer rite.”
That is the reason for the newer rite: to be less effective.
Just as it is the reason for the substitution of the Novus Orvo for the Tridentine.
Catholics—real Catholics, not Vat II heretics—are far too forgiving of the evils of Vat II.
The very word "protestant" indicates those who claim to be one are against "unity".
This isn't medieval Europe. "Those in attendance" in America today can read, and can afford $60 for a missal, which contains every word of the Mass in English side-by-side with the Latin. And it is customary in most churches to repeat the readings in English at the beginning of the homily, which itself is of course in English.
Your objection may have had some merit 500 years ago, but many things have changed.
When the Vulgate was written, "the people" mostly couldn't read, and of those who could, very few had the disposable income to buy a book, even if it was the Bible.
St. Jerome translated the Vulgate because the existing Latin translation ("the Old Latin") had some accuracy issues, and also probably existed in many recensions with different copyist's errors in them. The few people in Western Europe who could read, even clerics, all read Latin, not Greek or Hebrew, so a Latin translation was necessary.
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (1 Timothy 4:14)
That said, I have affirmed it should be "I baptize," but as explained in my post, I do not think that "we" must invalidate the baptism of "we baptized" minister and thus (on that basis as non-convert) all the acts belonging to that office. As in https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/09/why-the-words-of-baptism-matter.
I don't know of any history behind the idea that there is not a principle consecrator in the sacrament of Holy Orders. Even when a bishop is ordained by three ordaining bishops, one bishop is sufficient for validity.
I do not think that "we" must invalidate the baptism of "we baptized" minister
Which is merely your opinion.
“Many Catholic exorcist priests report that the old rite exorcism said in Latin is much more effective than the newer rite.”
Satan should have tempted Jesus in the wilderness with Latin words.
Things might be different around here if he had.
Oh?
Who are these?
Knights who say, “Ni.”
That’s great news. Personally, I think only the TLM will survive in the long run. Maybe some changes, such as readings in the vernacular, which was actually already permitted in the 60s. But overall, this is a good time for people to find what they have been missing.
It's about ordaining presbyters/elders (one office) not Catholic priests. And one being sufficient does not mean "There's no such thing as a sacrament that is administered by a group."
I do not think that "we" must invalidate the baptism of "we baptized" minister
Which is merely your opinion.
Considering that your church holds that the very act of baptism effects regeneration, even without the Biblical requirement of whole-hearted repentant faith (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) and even if done by the unconverted standing in for Christ - with proper form, matter and intent - then it is the "opinion" of your church presented as doctrine that is the problem.
I’ve seen you numerous times on Catholic threads so I’ll ask you this question; I was under the assumption that a lot of Catholics were glad if their Mass was conducted in the traditional form (I.e. pre-Vatican 2) Latin. Am I mis-informed?
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.