Posted on 04/23/2002 7:18:12 AM PDT by history_matters
Dear Brothers,
1. Let me assure you first of all that I greatly appreciate the effort you are making to keep the Holy See, and me personally, informed regarding the complex and difficult situation which has arisen in your country in recent months. I am confident that your discussions here will bear much fruit for the good of the Catholic people of the United States. You have come to the house of the Successor of Peter, whose task it is to confirm his brother Bishops in faith and love, and to unite them around Christ in the service of God’s People. The door of this house is always open to you. All the more so when your communities are in distress.
Like you, I too have been deeply grieved by the fact that priests and religious, whose vocation it is to help people live holy lives in the sight of God, have themselves caused such suffering and scandal to the young. Because of the great harm done by some priests and religious, the Church herself is viewed with distrust, and many are offended at the way in which the Church’s leaders are perceived to have acted in this matter. The abuse which has caused this crisis is by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God. To the victims and their families, wherever they may be, I express my profound sense of solidarity and concern.
2. It is true that a generalized lack of knowledge of the nature of the problem and also at times the advice of clinical experts led Bishops to make decisions which subsequent events showed to be wrong. You are now working to establish more reliable criteria to ensure that such mistakes are not repeated. At the same time, even while recognizing how indispensable these criteria are, we cannot forget the power of Christian conversion, that radical decision to turn away from sin and back to God, which reaches to the depths of a person’s soul and can work extraordinary change.
Neither should we forget the immense spiritual, human and social good that the vast majority of priests and religious in the United States have done and are still doing. The Catholic Church in your country has always promoted human and Christian values with great vigor and generosity, in a way that has helped to consolidate all that is noble in the American people.
A great work of art may be blemished, but its beauty remains; and this is a truth which any intellectually honest critic will recognize. To the Catholic communities in the United States, to their Pastors and members, to the men and women religious, to teachers in Catholic universities and schools, to American missionaries in all parts of the world, go the wholehearted thanks of the entire Catholic Church and the personal thanks of the Bishop of Rome.
3. The abuse of the young is a grave symptom of a crisis affecting not only the Church but society as a whole. It is a deep-seated crisis of sexual morality, even of human relationships, and its prime victims are the family and the young. In addressing the problem of abuse with clarity and determination, the Church will help society to understand and deal with the crisis in its midst.
It must be absolutely clear to the Catholic faithful, and to the wider community, that Bishops and superiors are concerned, above all else, with the spiritual good of souls. People need to know that there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young. They must know that Bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life.
4. We must be confident that this time of trial will bring a purification of the entire Catholic community, a purification that is urgently needed if the Church is to preach more effectively the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all its liberating force. Now you must ensure that where sin increased, grace will all the more abound (cf. Rom 5:20). So much pain, so much sorrow must lead to a holier priesthood, a holier episcopate, and a holier Church.
God alone is the source of holiness, and it is to him above all that we must turn for forgiveness, for healing and for the grace to meet this challenge with uncompromising courage and harmony of purpose. Like the Good Shepherd of last Sunday’s Gospel, Pastors must go among their priests and people as men who inspire deep trust and lead them to restful waters (cf. Ps 22:2).
I beg the Lord to give the Bishops of the United States the strength to build their response to the present crisis upon the solid foundations of faith and upon genuine pastoral charity for the victims, as well as for the priests and the entire Catholic community in your country. And I ask Catholics to stay close to their priests and Bishops, and to support them with their prayers at this difficult time.
The peace of the Risen Christ be with you!
A most important point, Askel5. AGREED.
There's a gentleman who (for other reasons entirely) is interested in having me interview Archbishop Hannan at length. With any luck, I'll get the opportunity to find out what was his thinking behind the funding scheme he set up and why it was he and others felt the "United Way" model was appropriate for AmChurch.
I wondered why Archbishop Hannan was never made a Cardinal ....
A valid point.
Thanks. The last comment made about not wanting to be around when "the wrath of God" is poured out upon the Catholic Church is a dead giveaway anyway.
SD
I think you unintentionally committed a gaffe here. There were Protestant ministers invited to observe Vatican Two. But, despite claims made by those wandering the fever swamps of schism, they were not responsible for the normative Mass. The normative Mass or the Mass of Paul VI is as Catholic as any Mass celebrated by priests prior to Vatican Two.
If Protestants really were responsible for our normative Mass, why don't any Protestant Churches celebrate the mass of Paul VI?
I think Catholics forget, or may have never even heard, that Protestants were invited to observe the Council of Trent. Not only that, they were invited to debate any topic, Doctrine etc they chose to debate. Just because a Protestant is invited to observe an Infallible Ecumenical Council doesn't mean it's results are suspect.
One of the guys handling our Catechism is a Latin teacher here in town. He took a '74 Sacramentary and -- from the small appendix entry at the very back of the book -- did a quickie translation of the Gloria, a portion of the Consecration.
No question but what the BEAUTY and REVERENCE and MAJESTY are gone. But he did point out several instances in these couple of paragraphs where indeed the Theology appears to have been changed as well:
| Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth |
Glory to God on high and peace on earth to men of good will |
| He made mention of "good will to men" being some inheritance of a infamously poor KJV translation but I was struck by the implications of these two very different groups of men. | |
| we worship you, we give you thanks we praise you for your glory |
We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you we give you thanks on account of your great glory |
| The most glaring example he gave of the stripping away of the beauty and compressing flat the imagery and reverence and holiness. Speaking of "holy", by the way, he mentioned that "holy" had practically been purged from the translations whereas it appears throughout the old prayers. | |
| Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father Lord God, Lamb of God you take away the sin of the world; have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer |
Lord God, Heavenly King God the almighty Father Lord only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; who take away the sins of the world, accept our plea. Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. |
| The less patriarchal language the better. The three petitions have been reduced to two. Granted, have mercy is the same but it's the ending with another "have mercy" which underscores our rightful relationship with God as subservient. Perhaps a minor point but given the God Within these days (particularly the imperious goddesses), I think it's a valid one. |
|
| When supper was ended he took the cup. | In the same way, after supper, taking this most-famous chalice |
| "This" underscoring absolutely the eternal present nature of the sacrifice in the Mass. And, beyond the nature of the Holy Grail, it seems hard to believe that a faithful Jew would use any old cup for the Passover meal when only a ritualized chalice would do. | |
| Take this, all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant it will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. |
Take and drink from this, all of you: for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many in remission of sins Do this in my memory. |
| This, I found fascinating. No wonder the nuns who taught me in college didn't believe in Hell anymore. (I could go off at this point but I'll resist the urge.) | |
| Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith Especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. |
Remember also, Lord, your servants and handmaids, N. and N. who precede us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace. |
| Again, the proper distinction of place upon petitioning God and also -- the sleep of peace -- the loss of beauty. | |
"Men of good will" implies that we have something to do with it, thus nullifying a Calvinist approach.
The most glaring example he gave of the stripping away of the beauty and compressing flat the imagery and reverence and holiness. Speaking of "holy", by the way, he mentioned that "holy" had practically been purged from the translations whereas it appears throughout the old prayers.
Holy? Try finding the word "grace." Are you familiar with the Wanderer column "What does the prayer really say?"?
SD
I will be sure to look for it.
Clearly, language is essential to the revolution ... just as are sex and particularly the same-sex relationship which is a direct rejection of Order and succumbing to the essentially dis-ordered.
As a Vatican II sort, I'm still blown away by how badly I was gypped.
The column is only a little over a year old. You can find it here
The priest/author goes through a prayer from the Sunday Mass (last year was the opening prayer, or collect; this year is the prayer over the gifts, or super oblata) and shows the Latin from the Misssal, gives a reasonable translation of his own, explaining why he chooses the words he does, then shows the pitiful ICEL translation. It is quite interesting.
As a Vatican II sort, I'm still blown away by how badly I was gypped.
Me, too. But the winds are changing. For Lent this year, my parish started chanting the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin. This was the first use of them I had heard in 30 some years of my life.
SD
I have been so spoiled by singing in the choir at St. Patrick's. I had no idea -- years ago when Monsignor Reynolds announced at daily Mass that everyone HAD to come hear the Pentecost Mass that Sunday -- that I'd be attending a Latin Mass. The only Latin Mass I'd ever seen was my grandparents' 50th anniversary.
My heart soared. It was so beautiful! Without a couple years of the Latin Mass under my belt, I probably would have passed out for sheer joy as I walked into my first Eastern Orthodox service at St. Michael's in Kyiv, Ukraine
Thomas Molnar held forth at length on beauty this weekend. I think I'll try to patch together some of my notes and post them.
(He was aghast to hear I had been putting him on the Internet. He hates the Internet. Luckily, another of our group has also been lobbying him on the subject and I'm hopeful I'll provide an example or two of how the Useful Idiot Porn Dispenser can itself be enslaved to our purposes from time to time. The pessimistic Hungarian in him may end up delighted to learn the counter-revolution is alive and only strengthening in cyber-space.)
The watering down is obvious.
Have attended recently a Traditional Latin Mass using a Missal from 1962, in Latin, with parallel text in English, and actually true to the translation, if you check, phrase by phrase.
The modern version is significantly different, as you pointed out, and implies universal salvation.
The older version does not.
In fact, that is the major malfunction of the Church today, that is, the heresy that everyone is saved.
What else would give a priest the license to molest a child, than the notion that Hell was just a quaint superstition, and that Jesus would forgive EVERYTHING of EVERYBODY?
I don't think a lot of priests have honestly read the New Testament, cover-to-cover, and believed that what it says, it was meant to say.
Because the New Testament has scary Hell-warnings on just about every page.
The modern Church has so 180'd away from that that you would be laughed at if you warned certain congregations about Hell, nowadays, from the lectern.
Give me more fire and brimstone!
And get the pervs priests in jail, and the homo priests back in the closet, where they belong.
I don't have my Latin Missal handy right now, but somewhere in there in the Latin version is the phrase mysterium fidei (mystery of faith) which refers to transubstantiation. In the New Mass the words "mystery of faith" have been removed from the consecration and placed afterward. Not only that, but they refer to the death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ rather than transubstantiation. Hmmm...
Just a few questions. How do we know this? What were the ideas that became part of the Mass? Is it possible some of their suggestions were consistent with ideas already held by those responsible for the Liturgy?
Many are the orthodox Catholics who have explained why it is apt to change "for many" to "for all" from Fr. William Most, to Catholic Answers to Roman Theological Forum..if my memory was better I could list many more (I do prefer the 1962 Roman Missal btw)
Is it possible some of their suggestions were consistent with ideas already held by those responsible for the Liturgy?
Do you mean were the litugical reformers of one mind with their non-Catholic friends? Yes. I usually don't use the missalette. I kept wondering why I was always stumbling over a few words in the Communion prayer said just before we take Communion. You know the prayer:
Lord I am not worthy to recieve you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
I looked at the missalette years after Vatican II. They demoted our 'sins' to a collective 'sin'. And, they changed the original, "but only say the word and my SOUL shall be healed". The centurian who coined that prayer was not asking for a healing of his body, which is inferred, but rather a healing of the soul. Now, this may not seem like much, but that's the point. The changes were subtle enough to go unnoticed. Our Mass which had been with us for centuries upon centuries was given a whitewash, still holy though, but not nearly as beautiful.
I borrowed a book from a friend years ago which was written around the time of the English Reformation. It detailed what they did to Catholic Churches to take away their specific Catholicism, when they were confiscated by the Protestants. It was amazing how similar those changes were to what happened after Vatican II. So, it seems they already had a blueprint on what changes to make.
I think this is a very important point. Most Catholics do not know about the heavy influence of Protestants within the Catholic Church. Most of the influence I know about comes via the Charismatic Movement and the leadership which has been consistantly involved with these Protestant Pentecostals since 1967. Its interesting to note that Cardinal Suenens, one of the most liberal Vatican II reformers, was the first champion of what was then called Catholic Pentecostalism. Fr. John Hardon said that if it were not for Cardinal Suenens Pentecostalism in the Church would not have lasted as long as it has.
No, I am a practicing Roman Catholic, but one who has questions.
(Is there anything in my Profile that would lead you to believe that?)
Why do you think that Jesus chose Thomas as one of His Apostles -
to let us know that it is OK to question things, and not blindly follow.
The Church should not be threatened by dissent, but by denial.
And what is your definition of " fundamentalists"?
One who believes in the unerrancy of God's Living Word?
If the Holy Father came out and said the Catholic Church would now embrace abortion and active homosexuals,
would you blindly follow? Or would you question?
I didn't accuse anyone of anything,
I'm trying to understand why this was kept quiet for so long.
What is your theory as to why the molesting of young boys by homosexual clergy was kept a secret?
BTW - If any of these priests had been accused of embezzeling church funds, do you think they would just be transfered to another parish?
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.