After Easter Mass this morning being confronted by liberals.

[tee_eff_em]

I think you should get a copy of the 1962 E.F. Missal and read it for yourself.

Where in the world are you attending an “E” “F” liturgy in English!?!?

The Ordinary Form and the Extra Ordinary Form are the “LATIN RITE” There are many Rites in the Catholic Church and if you attend and are a member of these two you are under the “Latin Rite”

If you want to take issue with Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, that is your business.

Still waiting:
Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

Perhaps multiple choice would make it easier to answer?

• 
  *]Yes
  *]No
  *]I don’t know
  *]I know, but I don’t want to tell you
  *]___________________________________(fill in the blank)
  *]None of the above
  *]All of the above
  
  tee

 

[Malkin71]

1. It sounds like you are in a wacky parish where anything goes.
2. It also sounds like you are harboring spiritual pride. That won’t get you anywhere. I just call it as I see it.
3. Pray for your priest.
4. Find a different parish. One that can grow you up in the Lord. One where you can learn to be humble and holy.

I am trying to make a diference in my Parish and to turn a light on. Is Mother Angelica humble to the liberals, feminists and modernists? She stood up to them and dug her heels in. She founded EWTN.

 

[Malkin71]

Where in the world are you attending an “E” “F” liturgy in English!?!?

If you want to take issue with Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, that is your business.

Still waiting:
Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

Perhaps multiple choice would make it easier to answer?

• 
  *]Yes
  *]No
  *]I don’t know
  *]I know, but I don’t want to tell you
  *]___________________________________(fill in the blank)
  *]None of the above
  *]All of the above
  
  tee

• 
  In the English side of the Missal “Pro Multis” is translated “for many” The E.F. form is said in Latin. You can follow along in the missal by reading latin or english. Have you ever been to a E.F. form? If you did. Did you have a Missal or the booklets that have the propers of the Mass? Apperently you have some background in latin. maybe you should pick up a Missal of 1962 and a copy of the propers and read the latin and see for yourself. When you do come across “pro multis” maybe you should complain that it is not the right translation.
  
  Also I am still waiting for you to answer questions and points in my previous replys to you.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps multiple choice would make it easier to answer?

• 
  *]Yes
  *]No
  *]I don’t know
  *]I know, but I don’t want to tell you
  *]___________________________________(fill in the blank)
  *]None of the above
  *]All of the above
  
  tee

• 
  A little nitpicking here but shouldn’t the last two choices be reversed?

 

[jmcrae]

Any Catholic Priest or Catholic ingerneral who supported Obama during the campaign last year should be denied Holy Comunion and be removed from administering the Sacraments in violation of Cannon 915

That’s the Bishop’s job; not mine. I don’t have the authority to remove a priest from his position.

If you were a member of his Parish you should correct him of his errors.

No, I shouldn’t. No one has set me up in the role of authority over priests, or teacher of priests. It is the Bishop’s job to teach the priest his business; not mine.

Sitting back and ignoring it your are letting the errors spread and become the truth.

My job is to teach those who are under my authority - children who attend my Catechism classes, and who belong to my Youth Groups, and members of my own family. I don’t have the authority to teach or to correct a priest.

 

[jmcrae]

I am trying to make a diference in my Parish and to turn a light on. Is Mother Angelica humble to the liberals, feminists and modernists? She stood up to them and dug her heels in. She founded EWTN.

Yes, she founded EWTN.

She did not disobey her priest, or ad lib the Lectionary, or change the Prayers of the Faithful from what she was given to read out.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Also I am still waiting for you to answer questions and points in my previous replys to you.

Mea culpa.

Should we change the creed from “For us men” to “for us”? So not to offend?

No. Why would I think so?

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

I could not say.

Could it perhaps we are being spoon fed by those who have a agenda?

I suppose anything is possible. You didn’t ask, but: I believe the holy father could have the Holy Spirit’s agenda, and it may be quite possible he is spoon feeding us.

I think that brings previously unanswered questions up to date through [post=5091622]post #229[/post], after which [post=5091776]I deliberately tried to stop answering your questions[/post] since you were not answering mine. If you think I have missed something, please let me know.

Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

tee

 

[Malkin71]

Yes, she founded EWTN.

She did not disobey her priest, or ad lib the Lectionary, or change the Prayers of the Faithful from what she was given to read out.

She stood up to and told off Cardinal Mahoney!

I wish that all O.F. Masses would be like E.W.T.N… They are more reverent than alot of the ones I attended.

 

[Malkin71]

That’s the Bishop’s job; not mine. I don’t have the authority to remove a priest from his position.

You can have a intelligent discussion with him about the teachings of the church.

No, I shouldn’t. No one has set me up in the role of authority over priests, or teacher of priests. It is the Bishop’s job to teach the priest his business; not mine.

What happens if the Bishop is liberal like Cardinal Mahoney?

My job is to teach those who are under my authority - children who attend my Catechism classes, and who belong to my Youth Groups, and members of my own family. I don’t have the authority to teach or to correct a priest.

We had a retired Bishop speak over a year ago at our Parish. In the homily he was trying to plead his case for us to give Illegal immigrants amnesty. After Mass, I politely explained to him that my brother lost his job do to outsourcing it to a foreign country. He told me to “get over it!” I respect the collar but I do not have to respect the person.

 

[Malkin71]

Mea culpa.

No. Why would I think so?

I could not say.

I suppose anything is possible. You didn’t ask, but: I believe the holy father could have the Holy Spirit’s agenda, and it may be quite possible he is spoon feeding us.

I think that brings previously unanswered questions up to date through [post=5091622]post #229[/post], after which [post=5091776]I deliberately tried to stop answering your questions[/post] since you were not answering mine. If you think I have missed something, please let me know.

Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

tee

Here in America in my own opinion NOT ALL of the Priests, but a lot of Priests think they can and do it. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. They think the Parish is theirs and nobody will tell them. If they do, they will be labeled “troublemakers”. I have witnessed this too. The Priests want to please the people. They do not want to “rock the boat”’ They do not want to risk offending the people sitting in the pew for the sake of “less cash” coming in to fill their coffers. I believe I have answered you question.

I believe in post 242 I gave examples from scripture about "men of goodwill and a “peaceful house”. The example I quoted are from the Douay Rehims. you can cross reference them in the N.A.B. if you would like. Can you answer about the meaning of “Pro multis” is it “for many” or “for all”? Now the words “many” and “all” are two very different words and have two different meanings. Did you ever read the missal of 1962 or the booklet they have at the E.F. Mass? If you did there is the latin on the one side and on the other side is the English translation. When you come to the word “pro multis” on the English side it is translated “for many”. In the O.F. The Masses are in English although there are some places where the O.F. is said in Latin. In the missalette It is English and it is translated “for many”. The words “many” and “all” have two different meanings. They are not the same. In both forms the E.F. and O.F. “pro multis” have different translations. Both forms are a VALID form of Mass.

The question I am asking you is, "Which is the correct translation of “pro multis” “for many” or “for all”? Apperently, if I am not mistaken you do have background in Latin?

 

[davymax3]

More precise is “for many” with many meaning something like “the many people” as opposed to “the few people (in this room)” or multitude.

In English when we say “many” we mean something like I have many things as opposed to few things. It is not meant to be opposed to “all” whatsoever. Jesus certainly did die for many. I understand what you are saying in that their is a difference between many and all, surely. But, the difference here is irrelevant. Jesus used “many” so as to oppose “few.” This is a theme throughout the New Testament.

Also, in Latin, “multis” very often stands in for “multis aliis” or “many others.” Which since he starts it with for you (and they are people) this would be something like, “shed for you and for the many other people” or “shed for you and for the many others.”

Again, Multis is used her to distinguish from the “nobis,” the people right there. Suppose, Christ said just “shed for you.” Then, that would be somewhat confusing. Christ wanted to make clear that it was not just for the few (paucis) in the room but for “the many” that He sheds His blood. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a distinguishing from “all.”

If we were to somehow imagine that Jesus did say all, it would be translated as “shed for you and for all” right? But this is repetitive obviously. He could have just said, “shed for all.” So, I agree with the Pope that we should have a better translation like, “for you and for many.” However, the phrase, “nobis et multis” is what comprises “all.” It’s like saying “shed for all those in the room and all those outside the room.” Again, this is because, ‘multis’ stands in for ‘multis aliis,’ the many others. There are two groups, those whom he is speaking to that are present (the apostles) and those whom he is speaking to that are not present (the many others, the multis). Thus, there is no semantic difference between these two phrases. It’s like baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then saying that that’s not a valid translation because ghost means something different from spirit in English. Since, they are not semantically different within their context, it is valid.

Also, take the middle voice of Greek. There is not direct translation into Latin or into English. There are normally a few different ways to translate it, validly.

And for one more example… In English we have, “and the Word was with God.” In Greek, “pros” or in Latin, “apud,” both can have the meaning of with, but this is a very imprecise translation. Both of these words carry with them the meaning of “towards” or “unto.” We don’t really have a word in English to translate this precisely. Thus, although there are differences between those words, both translations would be valid, depending on what meaning you wanted to stress. This is why exegesis exists. Because even in the original languages it can be hard to understand everything that is going on with different constructions. Also, God speaks to us in multiple ways through one statement as Aquinas has pointed out.

 

[THADDSON]

In my opinon, i think you just need to do what is expected of a lector.There will always be cretics even if it is properly done.don’t go on for jugement; God himself will give the right answer on the last day.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Here in America in my own opinion NOT ALL of the Priests, but a lot of Priests think they can and do it. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. They think the Parish is theirs and nobody will tell them. If they do, they will be labeled “troublemakers”. I have witnessed this too. The Priests want to please the people. They do not want to “rock the boat”’ They do not want to risk offending the people sitting in the pew for the sake of “less cash” coming in to fill their coffers. I believe I have answered you question.

I believe you have not. Rather, I believe you have answered the (unasked) question *Do any priests think they can alter the set text of the Mass? *(leaving my question still standing).

I believe in post 242 I gave examples from scripture about "men of goodwill and a “peaceful house”. The example I quoted are from the Douay Rehims. you can cross reference them in the N.A.B. if you would like. Can you answer about the meaning of “Pro multis” is it “for many” or “for all”? Now the words “many” and “all” are two very different words and have two different meanings. Did you ever read the missal of 1962 or the booklet they have at the E.F. Mass? If you did there is the latin on the one side and on the other side is the English translation. When you come to the word “pro multis” on the English side it is translated “for many”. In the O.F. The Masses are in English although there are some places where the O.F. is said in Latin. In the missalette It is English and it is translated “for many”. The words “many” and “all” have two different meanings. They are not the same. In both forms the E.F. and O.F. “pro multis” have different translations. Both forms are a VALID form of Mass.

The question I am asking you is, "Which is the correct translation of “pro multis” “for many” or “for all”? Apperently, if I am not mistaken you do have background in Latin?

Here in the English-speaking world in my opinion the agencies charged with translating the *editio typica *of the missal have produced, approved and promulgated a translation reading “for all”, and that is the only one yet approved and promulgated.

See how I didn’t really answer the question asked?

Does a priest have the authority to alter the set text of the Mass?

tee

 

[Malkin71]

I believe you have not. Rather, I believe you have answered the (unasked) question *Do any priests think they can alter the set text of the Mass? *(leaving my question still standing).

Here in the English-speaking world in my opinion the agencies charged with translating the *editio typica *of the missal have produced, approved and promulgated a translation reading “for all”, and that is the only one yet approved and promulgated.

Yes. So I see that even in the two forms of the Latin Rite, in which “Pro Multis” has two different meanings “for many” in the “E.F.” and “for all” in the “O.F.” you are saying “in your own opinion” the correct translations of “Pro Multis” is “for all”. Amazing! What would your Latin teacher say?

 

[dominicandinah]

My apologies to Tim, I was unclear as to where the reader restated the reading. In verse 36 “Such is our God; no other is to be compared to Him” was read as “Such is our God; no other is to be compared”.

I agree with the Church when she translated Wisdom to the pronoun “She”. It is how it was written, and how is should be read. I would have objected if the reader had changed “She” to “He” or “It”. This did not happen.

I do object to the intentional omission of masculine pronouns simply because they are masculine. It is how it was written, and how is should be read. Lest you think is an innocent mistake, this error was carried out in all seven readings. In the seventh reading, Ezek 36:28 “You shall live in the land I gave your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” was changed to “You shall live in the land I gave your ancestors; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” It should be read as written, no more, no less.

If we give up this fight, it is only a matter of time before we all hold hands during the “Our Parent”.

Or cross ourselves and say “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”.

 

[davymax3]

Or cross ourselves and say “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”.

You and the person you are agreeing with should read the other posts that people have written and learn some latin. No one is saying that we should just change everything into something gender neutral. You’re arguing against a straw man. No one is saying that at all.

What I, and others, are saying is that if there is a good argument to be made that the gender is only a product of the language it was written in and not something that is substantive, then it is not a necessary part of the translation.

Read Douay-Rheims if you want. I just picked the first thing I could think of, John 1.

We have:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

and the Vulgate gives:

1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum 2 hoc erat in principio apud Deum 3 omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est 4 in ipso vita erat et vita erat lux hominum 5 et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt

Would you decry this translation being read because it doesn’t say, “And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend HER.”

“eam” is the feminine accusative singular. So, by your argument, there is no other correct translation other than “her.”

Boy, you’re right those scholars at Rheims were just complete lunatics and were trying to not offend men by saying “her.” So, they purposefully decided to translate it as “it” instead. Even though, everyone knows that “her” is correct. How offensive! There’s no way it could have anything to do with how the English language isn’t in a direct one-to-one correspondence with Latin…

(Also, if you were to translate directly, there would be no “him” at all in the English translation there. Since, Verbum is neuter, the “ipsum” and “ipso” although normally ambiguous, are most definitely neuters here. So, by your argument the "flawed Douay-Rheims should (just worrying about pronouns) be:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it: and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend her.)

 

[Traditional_Ang]

SuscipeMeDomine:

Perhaps Malkin.'s parish doesn’t have a sound system - I’ve read a few times in a parish without a sound system, and it takes some work to get one’s voice to the back in such a way that everyone understands the lesson…

This sounds reasonable to me unless you overwhelm the sound system so that you cannot be generally understood. Did the choir members say anything like that?

… and, Even with a sound system, many people don’t speak loudly & clearly enough, or distinctly enough to be understood. In fact, at my local Roman Catholic parish, I’d say that 1/3 of the readers have that problem. and that’s a problem, as we’re supposed to listen to the Lector and not read the Reading from the Missalettes.

And, In this case, Malkin made it a point to say that people who had complained that they couldn’t understand most of the Readings were able to understand him when he read the Lessons.

SuscopeMeDomine, the instruction to Reverence the Tabernacle ONLY at the beginning at end of Mass is wrong. I don’t know who told you and the rest of your parish’s Alter Servers and EXTRAORDINARY Ministers of the Holy Eucharist that, but, according to the instructions in the GIRM, it’s simply incorrect…

In my parish ministers have been asked to reverence the altar or tabernacle only at the beginning or end of Mass and otherwise bow their heads when approaching the altar. Is this also the practice in your parish? Is that why the choir members objected?

… Please bear with me for a moment - Who’s present in that Tabernacle? Just a few pieces of unleavened bread? or, The King of Kings and the Lord of Lords? Just a representation of our Lord? or, The Creator of the Universe and the One who redeemed us by His blood? If it’s just a few pieces of unleavened bread and a representation of our Lord, there’s no need to reverence the Tabernacle at all! but, If We’re walking by His seat every time you pass by the Tabernacle, then shouldn’t we kneel in homage at the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who brought us into being and then redeemed us by His blood? When you watch the Masses on EWTN, Do you them bow? or, Do you see them Genuflect before our Lord?

I think you might want to talk to whoever it is that gave you that faulty instruction…

Regarding the Petitions - We aren’t allowed to refer to the Alter as a “Table” or the Holy Eucharist as a “Communion Meal” or “Communal Gathering”. Not only is this dogmatically and theologically incorrect, this is prohibited by the GIRM and other Vatican documents. The Holy Eucharist is the Holy Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Mass is the Sacrifice of the Mass. It’s not a “Communion Meal” or a “Communal Gathering”. I don’t know whose writing the petitions in Malkin’s Parish, but it’s not an accepted source. In those conditions, I’d probably allow him to change the wording…

%between%

Wow! In my parish you would change the petitions once and would be corrected by the priest. If you changed them a second time you would cease to be scheduled. However, I would assume the priest knows what the wording was supposed to be but I’d be surprised if the choir members did. How did they even know they should object to this?

… What bothers me is, why is his pastor not taking the responsibility to make sure that the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is appropriately reverenced (that includes not allowing anyone to access the Tabernacle without first genuflecting) or that changes are not made to the Agnus Dei or other Liturgical Readings (Prohibited under the GIRM)" Why isn’t Malkin’s pastor not making sure that prayers come from accepted sources and that they only use accepted language when referring to the Holy Eucharist or the Sacrifice of the Mass? Why isn’t he making sure that this Mass is done reverently and according to the rules and norms established by the GIRM?

Here are some sets of Accepted prayers from the USCCB
usccb.org/prolife/liturgy/intercessionsforlife.shtml
usccb.org/liturgy/katrinaprayers.shtml
usccb.org/vocations/prayereng.shtml
faithfulcitizenship.org/resources/prayer/general

It sounds like perhaps they are picking up more on your attitude than your actual actions. The title you gave this thread is an indication: “being confronted by liberals.” Perhaps you should instead have said something like “being corrected by my brothers and sisters in Christ.” Would that lead you to see things any differently?

SuscipeMeDomine, it’s not our job to judge someone’s intent or whether or not someone is being “prideful”, and it’s not the “Liberals” job not to judge whether their brother in Christ is being “Prideful”. That’s up to Malkin’s Spiritual Director. The two things I see to correct is that Malkin isn’t saying “And Sisters” (That’s in the LITURGICAL TEXT as an introduction to the Epistle and may not be changed, per the GIRM), and that he hasn’t consulted his pastor about the problems I listed with the “Prayers of the People” and instead has acted unilaterally.

I do think Malkin needs to talk to his pastor about his concerns, particularly about the casual manner in which some are treating our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and before he makes any more changes to the “Prayers of the People”. Right or wrong, the pastor has to have control over his parish as he has responsibility before God for the people of that parish. If he’s wrong, Malkin’s job is to figure out a way to tell him the truth in love and to let him know that he’ll support him in making whatever changes need to be made…

That’s harder than unilaterally changing the “Prayers of the People”.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

In my opinon, i think you just need to do what is expected of a lector.There will always be cretics even if it is properly done.don’t go on for jugement; God himself will give the right answer on the last day.

Brother Thaddeus:

I’d almost say if there were NO critics, it means no one is paying attention! and, Depending upon the criticism, it may actually be a compliment - Remember, the world persecuted our Lord before us.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

SuscipeMeDomine:

A simple correction may be in order, but do you have to be so harsh? Could you re-read your post and imagine someone saying this to you?..

Were you supposed to say it? That is, was the word “sisters” included in the text in front of you?

If it was included in the written text, then your job was to read it. Neither you nor I have the authority to change what we are given to read. If it was not in the written text and you chose not to add it, then you did the right thing. Just as you are not authorized to add to the next, you are not authorized to delete from the text.

… I’m sorry, but I think I detect a note of this :tsktsk: in this post. You might what to remember that printed text carries no tone, and repetition has a tone all its own, esp. when others are saying the same thing to someone, and that person already feels he’s been lectured on that.

We don’t know if his pastor had chosen this publisher, or if some parish liturgical committee (becoming all too common I’m afraid) had chosen it. You’re making an assumption, that, while perfectly valid for your parish, may not be valid for Malkin’s parish. Remember, per the Vatican guidelines, we may not refer to the Celebration Holy Eucharist as either a “Communion Meal” or a “Communal Gathering” or the Altar as a “Table”. In this case, it doesn’t matter what’s written down, the terms are forbidden by the Vatican, and we really should obey the Pope if we know about the instruction…

This is something Malkin clearly needed and still needs to take up with his pastor, because there are “Catholic Presses” which are putting out materials we really shouldn’t be using in any of our Liturgies or in any Teaching of the Faith. In this case, the problem is that Malkin hasn’t consulted his pastor and given him a chance to deal with the problem I object to the fact that Malkin didn’t take this issue up with his pastor and allow him a chance to remedy it…

If a publisher publishes them I think we can assume they are written down. And since your pastor has selected the material from that particular publisher that is what you are authorized to read.

Changing the words you have been given to read strikes me as a huge abuse. It is quite simply not your job to make those decisions. As I said earlier, if you did that in my parish you would be corrected and it would be made clear that you are not to do it again. If you did it again you would no longer be put on the schedule.

Why do you keep saying they’re not written down? You’re reading text on a page, aren’t you?

…If someone came to me and pointed out that the books the Parish Liturgical Committee had bought had those problems, I would mark the corrections in the Sanctuary Copies (per the GIRM & Liturgium Anthenticum) and have him read the corrected text - Then buy new books from a different source. There are plenty of Catholic Presses (such as Ignatius and Adoremus) putting out orthodox materials so one shouldn’t need to use materials which refer to the Holy Eucharist as a “Communal Meal”.

As I said, in this case, it doesn’t matter that the words were written down, they’re not the proper or allowed words for referring to the most Sacred thing we as Catholics do. I don’t think Malkin could have read aloud what he said he saw on the “prayers for the People” on Easter Sunday in good conscience - He knows that it’s wrong to refer to the Divine Liturgy or the Holy Eucharist as some sort of “Communal Gathering”. and, I think it’s wrong to chide someone for refusing to go against his conscience, esp. when his conscience is in conformity with the Law of the Church.

It sounds like there are attitude problems on both sides. That doesn’t justify either side making unauthorized changes in the texts they are given to read.

I think we finally have something we can agree on. The attitudes of both don’t sound so good. Problem is that we have only one, and bagging him over the head with a frying pan when he needs a gentle tap on the shoulder just might be an overdo…

I think the cavalier treatment of our Lord’s Body and Blood and the willful changing of the words to the Agnus Dei Malkin described seems to come from a rather lax attitude towards our Lord’s Body and Blood that’s been allowed in his parish, and the bit about calling the Holy Eucharist a “Communal Gathering”, the Sacrifice of the Mass a “Communion Meal” and the Altar a “Table” are all symptomatic of that.

Malkin’s parish may have some serious issues, and they shouldn’t be downplayed because some here think Malkin has an attitude problem.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Malkin71]

Or cross ourselves and say “In the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”.

One of the former Priest’s who was in Residence at our Parish does say that during Mass.