After Easter Mass this morning being confronted by liberals.

[malphono]

Allow me to clarify:

With respect to the words “Brothers and sisters:”, it does not matter what St Paul wrote. Those are not St Paul’s words. No informed person would claim that they are.

However they are part of the approved Lectionary text – A deliberately inserted addition.
They are to be read.
Anyone outside the magesterium of the Church claiming otherwise does so erroneously.

The words “[This is] The word of the Lord” were neither written by St Paul – Why are they read?

tee

The thing here is that the “brothers and sisters” business is but another ICEL (mis)-translation. Does the Latin text in the OF not read “fratres” for the first and and “verbum Domini” for the second? Neither is translated. Both are reworded. The first to be “inclusive” for no reason: in English grammar, the masculine plural has traditionally been used when referring to a mixed group. Apparently that is now considered “politically incorrect” but it’s still grammatically correct. The second seems to be reworded for the sake of rewording.

 

[Island_Oak]

Something happened to me after Mass this morning. I am a Lector at my Parish. I was confronted by two of our choir members about the way I lector. Let me tell you about myself. The reason why I became a lector was I was tired of seing lectors dress and perform sloppy. Some lectors you can not even hear them at all. Some do not dress properly. Being trained as an Altar boy I thought I could do a good job and bring respect back.

When I am lectoring ,I try to speak loud and clear so the the people in the last row can hear. I do get comments from people that I am the only one that they can hear in the last row. I always wear a suit and tie. If we would have Surplus and Casocks I would wear them. I make a point to strike my chest during the Confetitor and bow during the words of “By the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary…” I genuflect when Approaching the Altar towards the Tabernacle. Now during the petitions I make changes when they refer to the Altar as a “Table”, and when they say a “Comunion Meal, or Communial Gathering” I change it to the Holy Sacrafice of Mass. I DO NOT CHANGE ANY of the WORDS of SCRIPTURE! I read it VERBATIUM. I do say This is the Word of the Word and forget to say Sisters before the second reading. This is what some liberals have a problem with me.

Two members of the choir apprached me and questioned me about it. One of them always walks up to the Altar opens the Tabernacle and stands by the Priest during the 'Lamb of God" while everyone else is kneeling.

I explained to them I am a Conservative Traditionailst who does not like the Liberal influences of Feminisim and Modernism. They said the Blessed Mother said it was ok and that I should talk to people who are more Different minded and I would see. I also mentioned that they should not change the words of the Agnus Dei and add words to it. I know this got under their skin.

I mentioned last week Our Priest skipped the Homily on Palm Sunday. They just ignored it. All I am trying to do is have a proper O.F. and stop all the nonsense that goes on. Not to brag, I like to mention I am always saying a couple of Rosary’s at the Fatima grotto in front of our Church and before Mass. I am also a member of the Pittsburgh Latin Mass Community. When I do go there I am at peace and feel at home.

Who is wrong? Am I doing something wrong? I do get compliments too.

I confess I didn’t have the energy to read the 200 previous posts…but without wanting to demean all your efforts, you sound quite arrogant, condescending and judgemental.
You seem to have no problem slapping labels on others like “liberal” or “modernist” or “feminist” and then dismissing them out of hand instead of treating them respectfully as brothers or sisters in faith. You think nothing of modifying others’ prayer requests to suit YOUR sense of propriety or finding fault with others perceived lack of piety. Even your stated motivation for becoming a lector in the first place was because others were doing a “sloppy” job according to…you. Hardly the level of charity one would expect of one so observant and prayerful. Perhaps you could devote some of that rosary time you are so proud of to finding less fault and cultivating your own humility and sincere sense of service.

 

[davymax3]

The thing here is that the “brothers and sisters” business is but another ICEL (mis)-translation. Does the Latin text in the OF not read “fratres” for the first and and “verbum Domini” for the second? Neither is translated. Both are reworded. The first to be “inclusive” for no reason: in English grammar, the masculine plural has traditionally been used when referring to a mixed group. Apparently that is now considered “politically incorrect” but it’s still grammatically correct. The second seems to be reworded for the sake of rewording.

No. This is a gross misunderstanding. The standard for English has changed countless times throughout history. “Brothers” at one point in English usage could be for the mixed group. Today, almost never. This is just the way things are. Whether you chalk it up to politcal correctness or not, doesn’t matter. It’s the way modern languages work. They change with the times. No one today speaks in the manner of Shakespearean English for instance. This seems so apparent that I’ll leave the argument to you. I think that clearly this language is confusing since I wasn’t myself sure whether he was talking to men and women, or just men. It’s more clear for the church to clarify when they know which it was. If Paul was addressing just men, then of course they translate that as “brothers.” If he was addressing men and women it should be “brothers or sisters.” And I’m even willing to give benefit of the doubt to leaving it as just “brothers.”

 

[Ockham]

hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy   /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Origin:
1175–1225; ME ipocrisie < OF < LL hypocrisis < Gk hypókrisis play acting, equiv. to hypokr(nesthai) to play a part, explain (hypo- hypo- + krnein to distinguish, separate) + -sis -sis; h- (reintroduced in 16th century) < L and Gk

Example:

I confess I didn’t have the energy to read the 200 previous posts…but without wanting to demean all your efforts, you sound quite arrogant, condescending and judgemental.

You seem to have no problem slapping labels on others like **“liberal” or “modernist” or “feminist” **and then dismissing them out of hand instead of treating them respectfully as brothers or sisters in faith.

 

[Island_Oak]

hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy   /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Origin:
1175–1225; ME ipocrisie < OF < LL hypocrisis < Gk hypókrisis play acting, equiv. to hypokr(nesthai) to play a part, explain (hypo- hypo- + krnein to distinguish, separate) + -sis -sis; h- (reintroduced in 16th century) < L and Gk

Example:

Interesting effort…and LOTS of skillful copying from Webster’s, but unlike our OP, I never laid claim to any unusal endowment of piety.

 

[davymax3]

Interesting effort…and LOTS of skillful copying from Webster’s, but unlike our OP, I never laid claim to any unusal endowment of piety.

Neither did the poster. He only gave you information that is relevant to how he is perceived. At least this is how he perceives he is perceived. I don’t see how you have the authority to challenge that. If he were to say something like, “I’m much holier and closer to Jesus than these people” then yea, of course you’d be correct. But the things he said are things that make him out to be a traditional Catholic.

 

[Island_Oak]

Neither did the poster. He only gave you information that is relevant to how he is perceived. At least this is how he perceives he is perceived. I don’t see how you have the authority to challenge that. If he were to say something like, “I’m much holier and closer to Jesus than these people” then yea, of course you’d be correct. But the things he said are things that make him out to be a traditional Catholic.

Authority?? I didn’t claim to have authority any more than piety. The OP asked a question…in effect how these folks–I mean, these “liberals” could find fault with all he was doing and how he was doing it. I answered his question with my perpective. He is free to consider or ignore my comments…as is anyone else here.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The thing here is that the “brothers and sisters” business is but another ICEL (mis)-translation. Does the Latin text in the OF not read “fratres” for the first and and “verbum Domini” for the second? Neither is translated. Both are reworded. The first to be “inclusive” for no reason: in English grammar, the masculine plural has traditionally been used when referring to a mixed group. Apparently that is now considered “politically incorrect” but it’s still grammatically correct. The second seems to be reworded for the sake of rewording.

The *New American Bible *and the *Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America *are both products of (or at least copyright to) the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. I do not know that the ICEL is involved with either one.

To re(re-re-re-re-re-)peat: *“Brothers and sisters:” *is not translation. Nor is it reworded. It is a calculated addition! Its presence is approved by the competent and the highest authorities!

Anyone who does not read such additions when proclaiming from the Lectionary is either committing an error (ie an accident) or is exhibiting disobedience (ie a willful omission) to the Magisterium of the Church.

tee

 

[jmcrae]

True. Reception in the hand is an indulgence.

An indulgence which a plain reading of the Church documents says, given all the appropriate circumstances exist, is not to be denied by any deacon, priest, bishop nor extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

tee

Sorry, nitpick mode “ON.”

“Indult” - not “indulgence.” An “indulgence” is a remission of the temporal consequences of sins already forgiven. An “indult” is a secondary posture or gesture permitted to be used at Mass, in addition to (and not replacing) the primary or normative gesture or posture.

Nitpick mode “OFF”.

Thank you.

 

[Malkin71]

• Surely you do not mean to imply that the text of the Lectionary, compiled by competent authority and approved by the Apostolic See, is an abuse!? :bigyikes:]

What authoritative document(s) permit(s) “opening the tabernacle and taking the Precious Hots to the altar, standing by the Priest during the Lamb of God while all is kneeling, Putting the Hosts into other Chalaces, Putting them back into the Tabernacle, adding words to Lamb of God.”?

tee

If “Pro Multis” is translated as “for all” instead of “for many” what do you think?

How many times have songs\hymns been changed for “new awareness”?

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry, nitpick mode “ON.”

“Indult” - not “indulgence.” An “indulgence” is a remission of the temporal consequences of sins already forgiven. An “indult” is a secondary posture or gesture permitted to be used at Mass, in addition to (and not replacing) the primary or normative gesture or posture.

Nitpick mode “OFF”.

Thank you.

LOL. And here we were beginning to wonder whether we would get 7 years or 10 years for communion in the hand.

Actually tee did a pretty good job of explaining it. Thanks, tee.

 

[Malkin71]

No. This is a gross misunderstanding. The standard for English has changed countless times throughout history. “Brothers” at one point in English usage could be for the mixed group. Today, almost never. This is just the way things are. Whether you chalk it up to politcal correctness or not, doesn’t matter. It’s the way modern languages work. They change with the times. No one today speaks in the manner of Shakespearean English for instance. This seems so apparent that I’ll leave the argument to you. I think that clearly this language is confusing since I wasn’t myself sure whether he was talking to men and women, or just men. It’s more clear for the church to clarify when they know which it was. If Paul was addressing just men, then of course they translate that as “brothers.” If he was addressing men and women it should be “brothers or sisters.” And I’m even willing to give benefit of the doubt to leaving it as just “brothers.”

This shows wahy Latin should be the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE LATIN RITE!
VII stated that Latin should be retained. What happen? Latin is just about gone in the O.F… How many Catholic grade, middle and high schools teach Latin? They teach other languages? The English language evolves, Latin does not. If the church would have enforced Latin to be taught all through their schooling years. We might not have this problem. Also, when you question some of the issues of VII. You get ripped and being labeled a extremist sedevatacianist. But, how many faithful VII followers do not endorse Latin in the Church?

 

[tee_eff_em]

If “Pro Multis” is translated as “for all” instead of “for many” what do you think?

If *“Pro Multis” *is translated “for all” instead of “for many” I think that anyone who celebrates the Mass should say “for all” unless and until a new translation is promulgated by the competent authorities, and that to do otherwise would be either an accidental error or deliberate disobedience. I further think that There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all” as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).

(If those italicized lines sound familiar, there is a reason for that. If they do not, I would not be surprised)

:twocents:
tee

 

[Malkin71]

If *“Pro Multis” *is translated “for all” instead of “for many” I think that anyone who celebrates the Mass should say “for all” unless and until a new translation is promulgated by the competent authorities, and that to do otherwise would be either an accidental error or deliberate disobedience. I further think that There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all” as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).

(If those italicized lines sound familiar, there is a reason for that. If they do not, I would not be surprised)

:twocents:
tee

“For all” "is going back to “For Many”.

 

[tee_eff_em]

“For all” "is going back to “For Many”.

So I understand.

But it isn’t
back
yet.
What do you think?

tee

 

[elts1956]

If I came across as arrogant, I am sorry. I just tried to paint a picture. The reason why they confronted me is because I did not say the word “SISTERS” before the second reading. That is it.

Our Petitions are not written down. The petitions are from a book that the parish gets from some publisher. The reason why I make the change is to remind the parish that we as Catholics attend the Holy Sacrafice of Mass not a “Communion meal or a gathering” and the Altar is not a “Table” I just reword the petition. Our Petitions are not written down. Stick to tradition. It lessens the confusion of folks who don’t know better. Many have lost the meaning of the Mass, which used to be acknowledged by ALL CATHOLICS as the “Sacrifice of the Mass”, the very center of our Faith and Beliefs, not a “communal meeting”. The point I was trying to make is I am trying to show respect by reverence. The ones who question me do have progressive and liberal Catholic views in the Church. I have had discussions with them in the past and they think that anything before VII is stone age and outdated. I could go into much detail. I have talked to other women of the Parish and they think if by not saying the word “Sisters” before the second reading offends them, they need help.

 

[Malkin71]

So I understand.

But it isn’t
back
yet.
What do you think?

tee

It is “For Many”. I am not a Priest. I do not say the prayer during Mass.

 

[jfmarm81]

Just wanted to thank you all for the explanations on recieving communion in the hand. Now that I have some info, I think I’d like to follow tradition and recieve on the tongue from now on…Again, thanks to all who provided information.

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is “For Many”. I am not a Priest. I do not say the prayer during Mass.

But surely you have a thought? Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

tee

 

[Orogeny]

So in other words, let all the other abuses take hold, "opening the tabernacle and taking the Precious Hots to the altar, standing by the Priest during the Lamb of God while all is kneeling, Putting the Hosts into other Chalaces, Putting them back into the Tabernacle, adding words to Lamb of God."These should be the norm and report me, tell me to step down because people Gender Inclusiveness, political correctiveness has invaded and infected the Church while respect and adoration has gone astray?

You can protest to the pastor, the bishop and ultimately to Rome, but you cannot change things that are written in the Lectionary. You don’t have that authority.

The smoke of Satan has indeed come into the Church!

Yes, and perhaps part of that smoke is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Church. Sometimes I don’t think we ever see the plank in our own eye.

Peace

Tim