Posted on 11/18/2017 5:44:19 PM PST by marshmallow
November 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The cardinal archbishop of Wellington, New Zealand, ordered a change in the Mass recently that is “completely contrary” to the governing document for all celebrations of the Catholic Mass in the Ordinary Form, a “creative initiative” the cardinal said was inspired by Pope Francis.
Cardinal John Dew called for churches to divert from liturgical protocol of the Gospel reading conducted by ordained clergy with a Lectio Divina reading of the day’s Gospel performed by a layperson.
Lectio Divina — Latin for divine reading — is an ancient Benedictine practice of prayer involving reading and reflection of Scripture, followed by prayer and contemplation. It’s generally done individually, but can be done in a group, and it is not included in the Mass rubrics.
Cardinal Dew said, “This Lectio Divina initiative is a way the Archdiocese is responding to the plea of Pope Francis to make the sacred Scriptures better known and more widely diffused.”
“He has reminded us that we can take creative initiatives in our parishes so that we can become ‘living vessels for the transmission of God’s word,’” the cardinal said. “Lectio Divina is a wonderful way for us to become these living vessels.”
Instead of two readings and a responsorial psalm before the Gospel at Sunday Mass on October 29, there was to be only one reading (the Gospel), CathNews New Zealand reported, read by a lay reader.
“The lay reader – called the Lectio Divina Leader – will also guide the congregation through the Lectio Divina process,” said Cardinal Dew, “which involves both listening to and reflecting on the Gospel. The process is something all of us can do at home.”
Dew then provided specifics.
“What will happen is the reader will invite the congregation to close their eyes and listen.......
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
You claimed in post 68 that the gospel in the original language provided proof that Matthew was a Cohen. So provide your proof. If it means I need to add another book or two to my library, I will gladly shell out the dough.
That he wrote something is not of itself proof. Perhaps you are familiar with Salome Alexandra? Her rule led to extremely widespread education in her domains, kicking off a golden age of learning for the common man whose effects would extend into the time of Our Lord.
By the way, your “flippant John Mark” is likely also a Levite, given that he is kin to Barnabas, who was also a Levite. Lovely how you feel free to pick and choose among the Biblical books.
I was under the impression that Catholic theology is that Jesus is re-sacrificed in Heaven every time the Mass happens. But maybe I was misinformed? Sometimes it’s difficult to get clear answers, even with a Catholic catechism available to refer to.
If you mean that the Eucharist is participating in Jesus’s one-time sacrifice, and that Jesus’ body and blood are really present, then Catholics have that much in common with Lutherans too.
Pius XII articulates the position in detail and at length in the encyclical Mediator Dei in 1947, but the position is the same as Ambrose’’s—and no doubt, Ambrose was merely passing on an older tradition.
Glad to see some civility on a religion thread.
There is no order-of-worship recorded in the New Testament, so your statement is resting on absolutely nothing. However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass
If you had read what i said in post 70 you might have understand why i said there there no ordained Catholic priests and no Catholic Mass in the NT church.
Whereas in the only inspired substantive record of what the NT church did, and how they understood the gospels, there is not manifest a separate ordained sacerdotal class of believers whose unique primary active function is offering the Mass as a sacrifice for sins, and thus Catholic Bibles sometimes use the distinctive word for a separate ordained sacerdotal class of believers ("hiereus, later wrongly becoming "priest" in English) for them, which the Holy Spirit never does;
And whereas even presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) are never even shown conducting the Lord's supper and offering up sacrifice for sins thereby, or charged with doing so, esp. as their unique primary function and spiritually feeding the flock thereby, but instead are charged with feeding the flock (Acts 20:28) by preaching the word of God (2Tim. 4:2) which is said to nourish (1Tim. 4:6) and them build up, (Acts 20:32) being called(1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat" (Heb. 5:12-14);
And whereas (in contrast to the constant central prominence in Catholicism) in the only sure and substantial description of the Lord's supper in record of the NT church it is not the nature of the elements consumed that were not be recognized, as recently shown here , but that of the body of believers, being one bread, but which was denied by ignoring and shaming others;
Then in this surpassing Scriptural light the distinctive Catholic priesthood and its Mass are both missing, and if the mention of breaking of bread in Acts, "continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) then it does not suggests these gatherings had to be conducted by apostles (there being no other leadership until later), unlike ordaining presbuteros/episkopeos.
However, the earliest patristic records of Christian worship sound very much like a description of a Mass.
Typical recourse, but Scripture judges them, which even the veracity of apostles was subject to. (Acts 17:11) Meanwhile though some sort of "Real Presence" belief is sometimes attested to by ECFs, does "very much like a description of a Mass." mean the daily celebration of Eucharist being uniquely conducted by Catholic priests as a sacrifice for sins and spiritual food, and consuming a wafer and wisp of wine definitively separated from a shared meal, and if so it sets it in contrast to what we see best manifest in Scripture
That is simply parroted propaganda, like a Communist justifying its censorship of what challenges it. You can only presume that challenging Rome based upon what one sees in Scripture was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.. Which it was at the time, physically, but Jewish leadership had a like attitude, (Jn. 7:45-49) yet the NT church began with common people correctly ascertaining what was of God, and it was them who heard Jesus gladly. (Mk. 11:32; 12:37) Good thing Rome was not there to save them from these itinerant preachers.
Examples are given of situations of the circumstances where serious spiritual harm was a concern, such as when translations are faulty.
Somewhat, but not necessarily the main reason. Others ,
The followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 14th century. These translations were banned in 1409 due to their association with the Lollards.[29] The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated very widely in manuscript form, often inscribed with a date earlier than 1409 to avoid the legal ban. As the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English Bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.
I have yet to see the errors in these "faulty" translations that would result in serious spiritual harm versus overall help to the reader, and besides mere copyist/printer errors which could be corrected, it was likely the notes which challenged the errors of Rome which she sought to "protect" the ignorant indoctrinated souls from.
Furthermore, if Rome was not opposed to the masses being Biblically literate then she would have done what men like Wyclif did, and make it freely available as able, and thus enabled what men such as Chrysostom exhorted, and like the Puritans, make a administrative requirements to teach them to read.
In addition the Vulgate itself had some errors, resulting in the Sistine Vulgate fiasco .
Do you think it good for people to read faulty translations of Scripture, and to mistake the whims of the translator for God’s revelation?
That is more presumption, that banned Bibles were all critically faulty but that which Rome issues is not, which is absurd. If you want a faulty translation to ban you can start with Rome's own NAB and NABRE (and many of its helps and notes ), the bane of many RC traditionalists for many reasons
.
No, I said that his writing of the gospel was proof.
His framing of Yeshua’s total dedication to Torah in particular demonstrates a deep understanding of what the gospel of the kingdom is and when it was delivered.
.
No, I said that his writing of the gospel was proof.
What you said in post 68, after commenting on my level of literacy is:
The original Gospel of Mathew written in his native tongue made it plain that he was a cohen
This claim, that if one consults the original Gospel written in Matthew’s native tongue, one will be led to the plain conclusion that he was a Cohen, is the one that I want to see backed up, and it is a much stronger claim than the claim of post 92.
I have personally poured much study into a copy of the gospel in the native tongue and never reached that conclusion. Of course it is entirely possible that my Hebrew/Aramaic is poor enough that I miss much that is obvious. It is also possible that the textual tradition to which I am heir is flawed. I’m happy to remedy either of the problems, especially with regards to a few key verses if key verses can be pointed out.
Your arguments from 92 would better serve to “prove” that the author of Hebrews (who I hold, with tradition is Paul) is a Cohen
Basically, in 68 you claimed the equivalent of a full house and in 92 you backed off to two pairs. If all you have is your assertions in 92, you serve to bolster the case that not every “expert” in scripture should be read because many make unwarranted—and false-claims that can mislead the unwary.
The particular Catholics who banned and burned the Wycliffe Bible were those who took part in the English Parliament of 1401 under the leadership of Henry IV, who was a King of England, not the Pope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo
I fully share your appreciation that the value of imprimaturs varies hugely, and think that the granting of one to the NAB notes is a particularly good example of this—I have used these very notes as an example of this in class on several occasions. The system of looking to a guide does make sense, one does need to be aware of the guide.
The Sixtine vulgate fiasco makes interesting reading, and in many ways resembles the rushed job on the post-Vatican II liturgy, albeit perhaps with happier results.
Which is just another typical vain sophist attempt to protect your "one true church," since De heretico comburendo (2 Hen.4 c.15, punishing heretics with burning at the stake, was simply that of a RC anointed king and "particular Catholics" obeying the pope!
Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215, convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull Vineam domini Sabaoth of 19 April 1213:
We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element.
Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics.
Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.
But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.
The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp)
And your source also states, The Church authorities condemned Wycliffe's translation because they deemed the commentary included with the work to be heretical, and because they feared a vernacular translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate, absent appropriate catechesis, would lead the ignorant laity to reject Church authority and fall into heresy.
I fully share your appreciation that the value of imprimaturs varies hugely,
Canon law places significant weight on such approval and which stamp flows from the Inquisition's ‘Index of Prohibited Books’, and while the Inquisitions provide examples of Rome's unscriptural use of the sword of men to deal with theological nonconformity - which ways and means i think many tradRcs long for - the basic condemnation of this by modern Rome (such as that RC leaders can no longer kill heretics) examples how obedience to the ope in one century can be disobedience in another, while the sanction of liberal "scholarship" of modern Rome even in her own Bible for decades provides further testimony of her being a false church albeit with some true teachings.
.
Your posting is incredibly stubborn and dense.
No one could possibly demonstrate the degree of understanding shown in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew without the level of study of Torah that was thrust upon the Cohenim.
Enough of your childish game of tag.
.
.
>> “Your arguments from 92 would better serve to “prove” that the author of Hebrews (who I hold, with tradition is Paul) is a Cohen” <<
No, Paul was a self confessed Pharisee, which compares to a Cohen in education, but is, like the catholic church, directed to ward the false authority of men, rather than that of Yehova.
But Hebrews, like the gospel of Matthew, demonstrates that Yeshua’s Gospel was that of Moses before him.
Yeshua was indeed “That Prophet” called for in Deuteronomy, presenting the same faith that Moses did.
.
Yeshua was indeed “That Prophet” called for in Deuteronomy, presenting the same faith that Moses did.
That said, there is ample evidence from Hebrews and other places, that the Prophet is to present a completion—a fulfillment—of Moses, which is the same faith only in a qualified sense.
As far as Cohen being automatically educated, it is abundantly evident from a read of the Old Testament that many priests had a level of knowledge of the law that was about on par with the residents of Nineveh, who, in the words of God to Jonah, did not know their right hands from there left.
If a Benjaminite could be educated, a non-Cohen Levite could also be educated.
Given your absolute crickets on what Hebrew you are using (which is really funny coming from someone accusing the Catholic Church of preventing people of getting hold of scripture), I’ll assume that whatever you have is equal to or inferior Howard’s edition, and your silence indicates embarrassment and a lack of anything more substantial than what I have. All you seem to have is bluff, your bluff is called. If you have something to contribute in terms of a better text, I’m all ears, but so long as your silence persists, I am reminded of “waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars .. ..”
Here’s a thought. When you read the Bible for yourself, you become able to separate out what is biblical and what is traditional. Tradition should have it’s own book called “Optional.”
Very true. I started to be able to tell the difference between the truth, and the false doctrines I grew up with. I always measure any traditions, with the written word, not the other way around.
.
As Paul stated to the messianic Hebrews in his letter, The gospel Paul presented is in every way the same that Moses presented; the difference in effectiveness being due to the unbelief of those lost in the desert.
New Testament faith is Old Testament faith improved with belief reinforced with knowledge of the fulfillment of the perfect sacrifice.
Before Yehova sent the Roman army to remove the temple, that was the sole difference. The writings of Irenaeus make this perfectly clear. The “Teaching” (Torah) was the heart of the faith.
.
.
There have been discovered to date 29 slightly different strains of the original Matthew.
They all agree on the significant issues, so it matters little which one is chosen. The chief superiority of the original writing was in the section we know as chapter 23, where it correctly indicates that it is Moses, not the Pharisees, that we should mimic.
Judaism is just another man made religion, like Christianity and Islam.
.
Thanks for both of your responses. I will try to spend some time on this late this evening. If you might give me the direct reference to Irenaeus, it would help. I am fairly certain that I have all of his writings here at work, but I would only want to bring one volume home.
Here is a discussion on the subject at an on-line site
"For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but “one God, who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.”
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.