Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 23 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Question about liturgy AND valid/invalid popes
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:46 pm 
HI, I'm new here and Siggy asked me to forward my question - Hope I'm in the right place.


1-When during the consecraction of the wine in the Mass before Vat.II the word "many" was used and now in the Mass after Vat. II the word "all" is used. My dss 19 & 17 were told that our Masses are now invalid because of this and I really would like to be able to give them a good explaination.

2-My boys were told that Pope Pius X, through encathdra (sorry can't spell this as I am not familiar) noted that words could not be changed (I think they were told Cannon) and the pope following him added a prayer to St. Joseph???? Sorry if I'm clear on this. Anyway, they were told that because of this and all the popes following did not change it back to what Pope Pius X origianlly stated that all the popes following him are not valid.
That the Holy Spirit would not contridict itself and change something that one pope layed out previously.

Hope I'm making some since. Thank you for allowing me to post and looking forward to a reply.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:05 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:50 pm
Posts: 2042
Location: Diocese of Baker, Oregon
Moving this thread to Catholicism 101.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question about liturgy AND valid/invalid popes
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:17 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 76478
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Mary wrote:
HI, I'm new here and Siggy asked me to forward my question - Hope I'm in the right place.


1-When during the consecraction of the wine in the Mass before Vat.II the word "many" was used and now in the Mass after Vat. II the word "all" is used. My dss 19 & 17 were told that our Masses are now invalid because of this and I really would like to be able to give them a good explaination.


Pass





Quote:
2-My boys were told that Pope Pius X, through encathdra (sorry can't spell this as I am not familiar) noted that words could not be changed (I think they were told Cannon) and the pope following him added a prayer to St. Joseph???? Sorry if I'm clear on this. Anyway, they were told that because of this and all the popes following did not change it back to what Pope Pius X origianlly stated that all the popes following him are not valid.
That the Holy Spirit would not contridict itself and change something that one pope layed out previously.



Either you or your source is confused here, the Pope in question was St. Pius V, and though some trads insist otherwise, Pius V's decree was not irreformable. There were changes made to the Tridentine Mass AFTER this decree by Popes Pius X and Leo XIII, and no one objected. It is my understanding that the portion of Pius V's decree forbidding 'inovations' in the Mass did not mean that the liturgy could never be changed by a future Pope or council, what it meant was that individual priests or laymen could not alter the rite under their own authority, i.e. Pius V was inveighing against liturgical abuses.

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:27 pm 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 697
Location: down south
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .

_________________
Domine Iesu Christ, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatorem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question about liturgy AND valid/invalid popes
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:53 pm 
Offline
Eminent
Eminent
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:59 am
Posts: 16813
Religion: Католик
Mary wrote:
1-When during the consecraction of the wine in the Mass before Vat.II the word "many" was used and now in the Mass after Vat. II the word "all" is used. My dss 19 & 17 were told that our Masses are now invalid because of this and I really would like to be able to give them a good explaination.


The Holy See has determined that the word "all" can be used in the consecration. Pope Paul VI, for example, said in Italian "per tutti", that is, "for all." Didn't Christ die for all of us? But no one, not even a priest, can change these words of the consecration in the Mass. They must follow them, word by word, as detailed in the Roman Missal (or the Sacramentary). For example, if a priest is using the Latin Roman Missal (Novus Ordo), he has to use the words "pro multis" (literally "For all").

Mary wrote:
2-My boys were told that Pope Pius X, through encathdra (sorry can't spell this as I am not familiar) noted that words could not be changed (I think they were told Cannon) and the pope following him added a prayer to St. Joseph???? Sorry if I'm clear on this. Anyway, they were told that because of this and all the popes following did not change it back to what Pope Pius X origianlly stated that all the popes following him are not valid.
That the Holy Spirit would not contridict itself and change something that one pope layed out previously.


Popes do have authority to change words in the liturgy. For example, Pope Paul VI introduced Novus Ordo Mass, commanding every one to use it (except those old priests, who have poor eyes and cannot easily read).

Finally, I don't know what you mean by invalid popes. Valid popes after Pope Pius XII are Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

_________________
ABORTUS NECNON INFANTICIDIUM NEFANDA SUNT CRIMINA.

Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et Spes, 51)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:12 pm 
Offline
Deceased
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 3:31 pm
Posts: 12008
Location: New Mexico
Religion: Catholic
This from the Vatican may help:

Question: In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating the wine, the words "pro multis" are translated thus: English, "for all"; Spanish, "por todos"; Italian, "per tutti."

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing in this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by "pro multis" has as its meaning "for all": the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying "Christ has died for all." The words of St. Augustine are apposite: "See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ's blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that it has been given for them alone are proud" ("Enarr." in Ps. 95, 5).

b. The teaching of the "Catechism" is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ's death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c.d. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [ Notitiae 6 (1970) 39-40, no. 28]

Pax Christi

_________________
"Let no one ever come to you without leaving better or happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm smile." PFC Daniel R. Parker USA (died in Iraq August 2003)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:31 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:13 pm
Posts: 34073
Location: Midwest
Religion: Catholic
persephone wrote:
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .



Please be cautious how you use the word 'traddy' here.....there are 'traddies' on the forum.


:)


SV

_________________
“Be sober and vigilant: because your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, is roaming around seeking whom he might devour. Strong in faith, resist him knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world. ” 1 Peter 5:8-9.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Question about liturgy AND valid/invalid popes
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 1:09 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15451
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Mary wrote:
HI, I'm new here and Siggy asked me to forward my question - Hope I'm in the right place.


1-When during the consecraction of the wine in the Mass before Vat.II the word "many" was used and now in the Mass after Vat. II the word "all" is used. My dss 19 & 17 were told that our Masses are now invalid because of this and I really would like to be able to give them a good explaination.


There is a lot of history of discussion on this topic. Try googling the term "pro multis" and see how many hits you get. Just be careful what you read because opinions tend to generally fall very heavily on both ends of the spectrum.

The bottom line here is that the original words of consecration (indeed, they current words of consecration, too) in Latin include the term "pro multis", which is directly translated as "for many". This is how it was always translated in pre-Vatican 2 Missals, although it didn't really matter in the greater scheme of things how the words were translated into English because the Mass was said in Latin, so ... kind of a moot point. However, after Vatican 2, and after the new Mass was instituted (generally referred to now as the 'Novus Ordo Mass") which was to be celebrated in the vernacular -- in our case, English -- the translation of the words of consecration was altered to read "for all" instead of "for many".

Now, this is really, in my opinion, an excercise in semantics. The fact is that Christ was sacrificed for the sins of everyone, that is .... all who would come to accept Him. It doesn't make sense, for example, for Christ to die so that Muslims, for example, could continue to deny the divinity of Christ. In any case, it's not really incorrect to say Christ died "for all"... "for all" can -- and in this case, it does in my opinion --- mean the same thing as "for many", because Christ was certainly sacrificed "for [the] many who would come to accept Him."

Does that makes sense?

So, your next logical question might be "Why was it changed from 'for many' to 'for all'?

And that's the debate which is continually being held online and in books. Personally, I think the change was made because "for all" is more acceptable to the non-Catholic ear. It's more palatable to try and work this game of Ecumenism with non-Catholics when the very heart of the liturgy uses much more inclusive language like "for all" rather than the limited-sounded "for many".

Keep this in mind, though... while "pro multis" can be understood to mean "for all", that's not the way the Latin translates. "Pro multis" = "for many". If it was meant to be "for all", then the Latin should be "pro OMNES".

Does this change invalidate the consecration at the Novus Ordo Mass? Well, that's part of the debate. Some say yes, some say no. I think the intent today is the same as it always was... "for many"... I don't like that it was 'changed', but remember, the Mass wasn't celebrated in English vernacular prior to Vatican 2, so, it was instituted at the get-go with "for all".

I don't like it. It's questionable/debatable whether it invalidates the consecration. I don't think it makes it invalid, but that's just me. There are generally a lot of other things that can (and do) go on at a Novus Ordo Mass that would make the Mass invalid without having to focus strictly on the words of consecration.

One could also make the argument that the Novus Ordo consecration of the wine makes it invalid because of the elimination of the terms "mystery of faith" and "eternal". Technically, the term 'mystery of faith' was not eliminated, but simply moved to a slightly later time in the Mass (following the consecration).

Sorry to belabor the point...

Quote:
2-My boys were told that Pope Pius X, through encathdra (sorry can't spell this as I am not familiar) noted that words could not be changed (I think they were told Cannon) and the pope following him added a prayer to St. Joseph???? Sorry if I'm clear on this. Anyway, they were told that because of this and all the popes following did not change it back to what Pope Pius X origianlly stated that all the popes following him are not valid.
That the Holy Spirit would not contridict itself and change something that one pope layed out previously.


One term you're looking for is "ex cathedra". The information you might be looking for in terms of the text not being able to be changed is called Quo primum. (I *think* that might be the document you need, although it might be somewhere else, too). St. Joseph was added to the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Mass. The Roman Canon is known in the Novus Ordo world as "Eucharistic Prayer 1". In the old rite, there was only one "Eucharistic Prayer" --- the Roman Canon. Now there are four different options.

Your sons are espousing a sedevacantist view (that there is currently no "valid" pope.. or that the Pope (Benedict XVI) is not the pope.. or he is an anti-pope... that every pope after Pius XII has been an anti-pope). There are various reasons that people hold these beliefs, but this "change back to the old Mass" is not a valid reason. The pope, to the very very best of my knowledge, has the authority to change the rite of Mass (or change the liturgy). What he CANNOT change are the words of consecration. (This is why the "pro multis" argument is so heavily debated).

There are several reasons that people choose to be sedevacantists.
To keep things straight, here are the popes AFTER Pius XII who are considered by sedevacantists to be "anti-popes":
John XXIII
Paul VI
John Paul I
John Paul II
Benedict XVI

Why are they considered anti-popes? I get a little confused with some of this because I don't recall right off hand who did what (or who DIDN'T do something he was supposed to). Somebody dropped the Oath against Modernism that used to be required. Or maybe they didn't drop the Oath, but changed the Oath significantly. Paul VI and everyone after him has refused to wear the three-tiered papal tiara/crown... some sedevacantists use that as ammunition, too (although I think it's weak).
There is controversy over the papal election in 1978 (which elected John Paul II) and the previous one that elected Paul VI. Some claim that Cardinal Siri was elected pope twice. There's conspiracy theory stuff on the web that you can reference for that. Additionally, the fact that Vatican 2 documents like Lumen gentium and Unitatis redentigratio appear to contradict 1000+ years of constant Catholic teaching and the fact that none of the post-conciliar popes have "corrected" the "error" is sometimes used by sedevacantists as proof for justification.

There's a wide range of stuff that you can read on this and I didn't mean to get this verbose in my explanation.

Hopefully it gives you a little bit of a starting point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 1:12 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15451
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
persephone wrote:
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .


Yes, watch yourself with that kind of language. You will soon have your lunch handed to you.

It sounds as if she's been harangued by sedevacantists. Get your facts and your terminology straight before you start jumping into these kinds of discussions.

If you don't know for sure, then ask.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 1:28 pm 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:41 am
Posts: 1811
Location: Archdiocese of Singapore
tAnGo wrote:
persephone wrote:
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .


Yes, watch yourself with that kind of language. You will soon have your lunch handed to you.


Or become lunch yourself. :P

Well just be very very careful with that word. :)

_________________
Kenny

Novus Ordo [strike]Mundi[/strike].
New [strike]World[/strike] Order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 2:31 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 6623
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
persephone wrote:
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .


Yes, watch yourself with that kind of language. You will soon have your lunch handed to you.

It sounds as if she's been harangued by sedevacantists. Get your facts and your terminology straight before you start jumping into these kinds of discussions.

If you don't know for sure, then ask.


No need to be so harsh. I think sometimes people expect others to know what they are referring to because it is such a common and controversial subject. I certainly knew which "traddies" Persephone meant. But perhaps you can teach persephone the correct facts and terminology so that she won't make that mistake again?

_________________
ecclesiastes 3

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;


Jesus, Divine Mercy, I trust in you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 2:57 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15451
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Marie-Bernard wrote:
No need to be so harsh. I think sometimes people expect others to know what they are referring to because it is such a common and controversial subject.


People who have in excess of 400 posts on this message board should arguably understand that there are a lot of newbies around here and even more lurkers. We need to be very careful with terminology that is used in these discussions. I might understand a newbie with 20 or 30 posts perhaps not knowing any difference between a trad and a sedevacantist. I have a hard time convincing myself that the same is true of someone with 400+ posts. That being said, I can chalk up persephone's response to imprudence at least.

Quote:
But perhaps you can teach persephone the correct facts and terminology so that she won't make that mistake again?


Fair enough. And we can wind up teaching everybody at the same time.
The short of is this:
Not all "traditionalists" are sedevacantists.
generally speaking, all sedevacantists are pretty much traditionalists, though.

Bottom line --- when someone means 'sedevacantist' then that term should be used. When someone means 'trad' then that term should be used. But no one should be using the term 'trad' when he means to refer specifically and only to sedevacantists because there are 'trads' (like me) who are certainly not sedevacantists.

Apologies for hijacking the thread. Back to the discussion now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:17 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 6623
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
No need to be so harsh. I think sometimes people expect others to know what they are referring to because it is such a common and controversial subject.


Quote:
People who have in excess of 400 posts on this message board should arguably understand that there are a lot of newbies around here and even more lurkers. We need to be very careful with terminology that is used in these discussions.


And persephone's one sentence post is going to have a negative effect of mammoth proportions on newbies and lurkers? If so then it would have been even more imperative for you to teach the correct terminology and facts, I would think.


Quote:
I might understand a newbie with 20 or 30 posts perhaps not knowing any difference between a trad and a sedevacantist. I have a hard time convincing myself that the same is true of someone with 400+ posts. That being said, I can chalk up persephone's response to imprudence at least.


I think in this case then the prudent thing to have done was to invite persephone to learn more about traditionalism and its divisions.



Quote:
But perhaps you can teach persephone the correct facts and terminology so that she won't make that mistake again?


Quote:
Fair enough. And we can wind up teaching everybody at the same time.
The short of is this:
Not all "traditionalists" are sedevacantists.
generally speaking, all sedevacantists are pretty much traditionalists, though.

Bottom line --- when someone means 'sedevacantist' then that term should be used. When someone means 'trad' then that term should be used. But no one should be using the term 'trad' when he means to refer specifically and only to sedevacantists because there are 'trads' (like me) who are certainly not sedevacantists.


Well hearing an explanation is certainly better and kinder than just telling someone to stay out of a discussion if they don't know the correct terminology or facts, no? I just think we should be kinder and gentler in our corrections of our fellow catholic brothers and sisters.

_________________
ecclesiastes 3

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;


Jesus, Divine Mercy, I trust in you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:32 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:49 pm
Posts: 247
tAnGo wrote:
persephone wrote:
Sounds like your kids got harangued by some traddies. . . .


Yes, watch yourself with that kind of language. You will soon have your lunch handed to you.

It sounds as if she's been harangued by sedevacantists. Get your facts and your terminology straight before you start jumping into these kinds of discussions.

If you don't know for sure, then ask.


Yes, I agree we need to watch our language. This would also include not making over generalized demeaning comments about "protties" then right? since they do come in here and visit, after all this is a convert board? I think starting out with I'll be your "heretic" helper may not be the best most welcoming for possible tender converts either, IMHO. 8-)

Sorry Tango but I find this ironic given your "chartered territory" in this regard :wink:

_________________
"it is necessary to cultivate among Christians a love that is committed to surmounting the differences...It is necessary to make the effort to overcome every barrier with incessant prayer"

~ Pope John Paul II


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:44 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15451
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
(nice baiting there)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:48 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:49 pm
Posts: 247
tAnGo wrote:
(nice baiting there)


No that was direct I thought? I apologize if that came off as baiting. I was trying to be upfront. Infact, I kept rewriting to avoid that. I'll go read baiting again and see if it falls in that.

Sorry to the mods if it was. :oops:

_________________
"it is necessary to cultivate among Christians a love that is committed to surmounting the differences...It is necessary to make the effort to overcome every barrier with incessant prayer"

~ Pope John Paul II


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:48 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15451
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Marie-Bernard wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
tAnGo wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
No need to be so harsh. I think sometimes people expect others to know what they are referring to because it is such a common and controversial subject.


People who have in excess of 400 posts on this message board should arguably understand that there are a lot of newbies around here and even more lurkers. We need to be very careful with terminology that is used in these discussions.


And persephone's one sentence post is going to have a negative effect of mammoth proportions on newbies and lurkers? If so then it would have been even more imperative for you to teach the correct terminology and facts, I would think.



Quote:
tango wrote:
I might understand a newbie with 20 or 30 posts perhaps not knowing any difference between a trad and a sedevacantist. I have a hard time convincing myself that the same is true of someone with 400+ posts. That being said, I can chalk up persephone's response to imprudence at least.


I think in this case then the prudent thing to have done was to invite persephone to learn more about traditionalism and its divisions.

But perhaps you can teach persephone the correct facts and terminology so that she won't make that mistake again?


Quote:
tango wrote:
Fair enough. And we can wind up teaching everybody at the same time.
The short of is this:
Not all "traditionalists" are sedevacantists.
generally speaking, all sedevacantists are pretty much traditionalists, though.

Bottom line --- when someone means 'sedevacantist' then that term should be used. When someone means 'trad' then that term should be used. But no one should be using the term 'trad' when he means to refer specifically and only to sedevacantists because there are 'trads' (like me) who are certainly not sedevacantists.


Well hearing an explanation is certainly better and kinder than just telling someone to stay out of a discussion if they don't know the correct terminology or facts, no? I just think we should be kinder and gentler in our corrections of our fellow catholic brothers and sisters.


I just gave an explanation. If you felt the need to make further comment, I'd rather you have simply thanked me for my explanation (to persephone and all lurkers) and moved on.

And now that we've all had the last word, can we please get back to the discussion?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:52 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 7:59 pm
Posts: 6623
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
tAnGo wrote:
Marie-Bernard wrote:
No need to be so harsh. I think sometimes people expect others to know what they are referring to because it is such a common and controversial subject.


People who have in excess of 400 posts on this message board should arguably understand that there are a lot of newbies around here and even more lurkers. We need to be very careful with terminology that is used in these discussions.


And persephone's one sentence post is going to have a negative effect of mammoth proportions on newbies and lurkers? If so then it would have been even more imperative for you to teach the correct terminology and facts, I would think.



Quote:
tango wrote:
I might understand a newbie with 20 or 30 posts perhaps not knowing any difference between a trad and a sedevacantist. I have a hard time convincing myself that the same is true of someone with 400+ posts. That being said, I can chalk up persephone's response to imprudence at least.


I think in this case then the prudent thing to have done was to invite persephone to learn more about traditionalism and its divisions.

But perhaps you can teach persephone the correct facts and terminology so that she won't make that mistake again?


Quote:
tango wrote:
Fair enough. And we can wind up teaching everybody at the same time.
The short of is this:
Not all "traditionalists" are sedevacantists.
generally speaking, all sedevacantists are pretty much traditionalists, though.

Bottom line --- when someone means 'sedevacantist' then that term should be used. When someone means 'trad' then that term should be used. But no one should be using the term 'trad' when he means to refer specifically and only to sedevacantists because there are 'trads' (like me) who are certainly not sedevacantists.


Well hearing an explanation is certainly better and kinder than just telling someone to stay out of a discussion if they don't know the correct terminology or facts, no? I just think we should be kinder and gentler in our corrections of our fellow catholic brothers and sisters.


I just gave an explanation. If you felt the need to make further comment, I'd rather you have simply thanked me for my explanation (to persephone and all lurkers) and moved on.

And now that we've all had the last word, can we please get back to the discussion?


No problem. I think everything is much better now. :)

_________________
ecclesiastes 3

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;


Jesus, Divine Mercy, I trust in you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 8:41 pm 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 73635
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
I've removed the hijacks and re-opened the topic for discussion. Carry on.

Siggy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:37 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:04 am
Posts: 6403
Location: "Fish-shape Paumanok where I was born"
Religion: Catholic of the Roman Rite
Something to keep in mind is that in the previous verse, Christ has commanded "all" (which here means "all of you apostles who are at the table with Me") to drink. In neither Greek nor in Latin would it work well, nor would it be very clear, if one used the same word for "all" to mean a DIFFERENT AND LARGER group of people.

In the Greek of Matthew, if Christ's Aramaic had been rendered using the same word for "all" in the sentence that followed, in context that word would have meant the same thing it meant the first time -- that is, "it is shed for all of you apostles here at the table." Matthew's Greek and then Jerome's Latin wanted to avoid this misunderstanding, and to stress that Christ's blood was shed for a group that was far LARGER than that "all" -- since "all" here meant only a group of a dozen men. In English and other modern languages, however, one does not have that problem -- in English, for example, there is a clear difference between "drink it all of you" and "shed for all", even though the word "all" appears in both phrases.

It is therefore ironic that those who argue for the "literal" translation of a single word taken out of contex, and who wish to make SMALLER the group referred to by it, are in fact distorting the original meaning of the sentence.


Custos


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 23 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: