De-homosexualization of the Catholic Church

WorldNet Daily ^ | 5/2/2005

[worldclass]

Noting that in his Good Friday homily soon-to-be pope Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger condemned the "filth there is in the church," Wheeler believes the pontiff "will not tolerate [homosexuality's] presence in his church."

[Wonder Warthog]

"Latin is huge in the homeschool community. I teach my five and seven year olds Latin."

Which is a totally separate area than the use of Latin in the RCC mass. Latin as an educational experience is VERY useful, as it gives a partial background for many other languages. This is, however, a totally different mode of use than the rote repetition in the R. Catholic mass.

I think you are correct that there will be SOME judicious usage of Latin in the R.C. mass---but I don't think things will ever go back to the way they were "pre-Vatican II", which is what the folks like Mershon really want.

I'll be the first to admit that those priests who formulated the Roman Catholic English-language mass had no "poetry in their soul", as did the original formulators of the Episcopal mass service back when the Anglicans first split off from the RC church (NOT, please note, the current "revised" Episcopal eucharist service, which is just about as bad as the current RC one). The langauge in the old Episcopal "Book of Common Prayer" is some of the most lyrical in the English tongue---as is the King James Bible--even if it isn't as accurate a translation as current editions. The language of the 23rd psalm in the KJV transcends beautiful--current translations "need not apply" by comparison.

[Wonder Warthog]

"They are well informed and quite subjective."

Informed---yes. Subjective---no. The subjectivity and wishful thinking is, at this point, in your position. But we'll see how things turn out. I don't think Ratzinger is going to make nearly as many changes as you traditionalists hope he will.

[netmilsmom]

>> Which is a totally separate area than the use of Latin in the RCC mass. Latin as an educational experience is VERY useful, as it gives a partial background for many other languages. This is, however, a totally different mode of use than the rote repetition in the R. Catholic mass.<<

I actually use the Latin of our Holy Mass as a reference point with pronounciation. I think that is the point. When we had more Latin, it was easier to teach.

>>I think you are correct that there will be SOME judicious usage of Latin in the R.C. mass---but I don't think things will ever go back to the way they were "pre-Vatican II", which is what the folks like Mershon really want.<<

I don't think that things will go back to pre-VII however the point of some Traditionalists (note Capital T) is that they were not allowed to celebrate a TLM while hundreds of innovations were allowed. It really isn't fair.
I am a traditionalist with a small t. I would like an EWTN mass to be the norm. If a parish wants a Charistmatic mass then they must also offer an EWTN type. Or get together with another parish within a reasonable drive and offer all.

My Wonderful Pastor saw a need for a younger priest to celebrate the TLM in the one downtown parish allowed to do it. He learned it within a few weeks. It can be done.

As I said, with more conservative priests finding the seminaries are not huge communities of gay men, we will get more of them. I pray that the TLM will be allowed everywhere for those who want it.

[Mershon]

I was being sarcastic about the well informed part. Difference is, I have read what the Pope thinks about the liturgy and liturgical reform. If he follows throuugh with even a minuscule amount of what he believes, things will certainly work in the traddies' favor.

By the way, if you went to church where I go, you would have Latin in the Mass every day--even at daily Mass. But the difference is, I do not extend this limited view to the entire Church. The fact the U.S. bishops and priests are disobedient to what the Church teaches is there problem, not mine.

[ninenot]

Ummmnnnhhh...

I am aware of only a few all-male choirs in the world, and none of them are in Milwaukee.

Yes, TinPanAlley was the inspiration behind "On This Day, O Beautiful Mother" and others too awful to mention in a family forum.

[gidget7]

Make that 2, or 100 or so, if you count all those that I know who are hoping as well!

[Catholic and Conservative]

The Pope, Vicar of Christ and successor of Peter, personally signs off on the formulation of the Mass and all its contents/translations.

Are you sure that Paul VI "personally signed off" on this translation, rather than this being something done in his name? Besides contradicting the Bible, it also contradicts the official [Latin] version of the new Mass. The Catholic Church has spoken clearly about whether our Lord's words can be rendered as "for all". In the Roman catechism, it says:

When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Even if Paul VI personally approved the English translation of the Mass, which I earnestly hope he did not, it seems to me that the official version of the Mass, which is for the whole church, is more to be trusted than the English translation, which is for a particular group, English speakers, when there is a conflict.

[ninenot]

All liturgical decisions are reserved to the Holy See. Paul VI might not have personally examined every word of the translation(s), but he had to sign off.

You are not the first person to say that the formula of Consecration "contradicts" the Bible. Theologically, it does not, as explained by Ratzinger.

In terms of the actual text, WHICH 'formula' from the Bible should we use? Matthew? Peter? John? Acts?

There is no, repeat, ZERO requirement that the text must follow any particular narrative, nor all of them.

Whoever taught you that question should be slapped.

[royalcello]

Here in the New Orleans area there are no Latin masses in parish churches- at least not to my knowledge.

http://www.oldstpatricks.org

[A.A. Cunningham]

Your boys are trying desperately to copy the Aaronic and they were married.

Incorrect sweetheart. Back to Bible Comprehension 101 for you.

"But Melchisedech the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God," Genesis 14:18

"The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." Psalm 109:4

"As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." Hebrews 5:6

"Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech." Hebrews 5:10

"Where the forerunner Jesus is entered for us, made a high priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." Hebrews 6:20

"For this Melchisedech was king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him: To whom also Abraham divided the tithes of all: who first indeed by interpretation, is king of justice: and then also king of Salem, that is, king of peace: Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever." Hebrews 7:1-3

"If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?" Hebrews 7:11

"And it is yet far more evident: if according to the similitude of Melchisedech there ariseth another priest, Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life: For he testifieth: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech." Hebrews 7:15-17

[A.A. Cunningham]

The point is you're not too bright.

[Catholic and Conservative]

You are not the first person to say that the formula of Consecration "contradicts" the Bible. Theologically, it does not, as explained by Ratzinger.

In terms of the actual text, WHICH 'formula' from the Bible should we use? Matthew? Peter? John? Acts?

I would be very interested in reading what our new Pope wrote on the subject when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. However, I am not saying that the "formula of Consecration" contradicts the Bible. I am saying that it has been mistranslated. Both the traditional Mass and the new Mass use the phrase "pro multis" rather than "pro omnibus", as does Matthew and Mark. I am not aware of the passages in Peter, John or Acts that provide an account of Our Lord's words at the Last Supper, but if you point out where I have missed them, I will read them with sincere gratitude.

By the way, I have no problem saying of Christ that He shed His blood for all men. The question, though, is what did He say when He instituted the Eucharist? The catechism of the Council of Trent, which I referenced in #429, makes it clear that He said "for many", not "for all".

There is no, repeat, ZERO requirement that the text must follow any particular narrative, nor all of them.

If the new Mass entirely omitted "pro multis", in both Latin and English, I would have much less problem with it, since silence about what the gospels say on a particular point is not a contradiction of the gospels. But the creators of the new Mass chose to faithfully follow the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and include Our Lord's statement that He would shed his blood "for many". I see no reason for the translators to claim that He said something else instead.

I suspect you will not find this article quite as persuasive as I do, nonetheless for your consideration I offer http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm.

[ninenot]

There are a number of ICEL errors, some flagrant, some minor, with which I take exception.

So happens that you've identified one of them.

We agree that ICEL is a major suspect and that the translations should be thoroughly repaired (that's in process now, thank God.)

[biblewonk]

I think it is you who is not too bright. That order is fulfilled in Jesus and certainly not in some man made priesthood called the Pope.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Thanks for being a contestant on "I'm ignorant of Scripture". Johnny tell our guest what he's won.

"And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."Matthew 28:16-20

"And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." Matthew 22:29

"He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16

"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest for ever." Hebrews 7:3

"But this, for that He continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood," Hebrews 7:24

[reagandemocrat]

Didn't BlackElk give you a 'timeout' at post 111?

[biblewonk]

Do you even remember what point you were trying to make? I thought that you were trying to associate or tie the pope to Melchizedek.