H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Ok. Yes I know that the Catholic Church is the only Church. I was referring to Protestants and Orthodox who claim to be Christian.
- Status
J
japhy
Guest
Well, since Vatican II wasn’t called because “the Church was in error and bad”, nobody should think that “the Church was in error and bad” before. The liturgy was in need of reform (and it still is, on both fronts, the OF and EF) and certain doctrines and dogmas needed to be better explained (although some of them were worded poorly in the documents, and others, while worded well, have been misinterpreted).
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I have to disagree. I don’t see how the Tridentine form of the Mass was in need of reform.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The Church was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic before the Council and after. She has never taught error. Anyone, priest or otherwise, who teaches otherwise teaches in error.
She is the home of sinners, though. She speaks an unchanging truth, but to an ever-changing world. She has always had room for improvement.
If that is what you mean…well, a bad Catholic or a Catholic that speaks incorrectly is still a Catholic, even if he is a priest. But I do see what you mean.
J
JReducation
Guest
Holden, they have a right to make that claim. They are Christians. They are part of the Christian community.
Don’t ever doubt that the Catholic Church fails to recognize the Christianity of Protestants and Orthodox Christians. In fact, the Catholic Church gets very upset when Catholics fail to remember this truth.
One cannot be Catholic and deny the theology of one baptism.
JR
S
Spiller
Guest
Protestants, Orthodox and select other individuals ARE Christian in addition to Catholics!
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Yes I know. My point was that they are not part of the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Tridentine mass and breviary were reformed several times: Pius V, Pius X and John XXIII.
The original form issued by Trent is not the Tridentine form that we use today. Our current Tridentine form is very close to it, but some changes have been made to it over time.
There are some other changes that the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy wants to make to it. They’re not major, most people probably won’t even notice them. One of the changes is to use the same words of consecration as the OF, “for all” instead of “for many”.
The reason for this is because the Church holds that the EF is not a rite, but another form of the same rite. They have to correlate in certain essential details. Most people will not notice these changes, because they are not big changes. The Congregation on the Liturgy wants to preserve the form as much as possible.
There are also some minor details that are particular to certain religious orders. If you have a priest who belongs to one of those orders, he’ll make use of those small differences. One simple example, Franciscans do not have to wear an amice over their capuche. The capuche can be worn over the vestments. As I said, these are small things that won’t really make a difference in the form.
JR
J
japhy
Guest
WHAT? You have that backwards, my friend. Since October 2006, the CCDDS has asked that, in adherence to Liturgiam Authenticam, the words pro multis be translated into the vernacular to mean “for many”.
Now that I think about, it doesn’t even make sense. The EF is in Latin, and the normative form of the OF is in Latin, and both use the phrase pro multis. It is quite preposterous for the official Latin text to be revised to align with a faulty English translation!
J
japhy
Guest
I attended a TLM a few weeks ago (my first Sunday Mass… I’d been to a weekday TLM before), with a daily missal in one hand and the Graduale Romanum in the other (so I could sing the Ordinary). I’d say I’m pretty familiar with the order of Mass.
The Mass seemed like a run-on sentence to me.
T
THurifer2
Guest
McBrien said "…pre Vatican II theology…
Theology was different after the council?
Theology was different after the council?
S
Spiller
Guest
Actually the Orthodox and some of the ancient oriental churches are – they are just not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. They are not in a state of heresy.
C
CradleCath
Guest
The phrase ‘pro multis’ is one of the issues that I can’t seem to resolve easily. The fact that it was translated to mean ‘for all’ without even an attempt to justify or explain the reasons behind this MIS-translation is absurd & insulting. The Latin word for ‘ALL’ is Totus.
Did the powers that be think we wouldn’t NOTICE it. . Pro=for, to prepare, to go before. Multis means many, a group, etc. Therefore this phrase should have been translated to “the Blood of Christ which will be shed for you and for many for ]remission of sins”…OR…we, the laity should have been informed as to WHY the change, what is the difference in the theology before & after Vat. II that requires such a change??? (hmmm, I don’t have to ponder that question for long.) Did the Bishops believe that the original translation, found in our Bible, was wrong?
OTOH., I think that the Blood of Christ WAS shed for all, but some did not accept Him even after He actually died for their Salvation.Think about it, He didn’t say "This is my blood, which shall be shed for you, my Apostles…but not for pagans & Jews. He died to give all of us a chance.
Both translations of pro multis…for many & for all…can be misunderstood & misused. Christ didn’t die for only some (imo.), but His knowledge encompasses all of time & He knew that many would not follow Him, therefore He used the word “many”. …nor…did Christ promise that the Blood He shed was ALL one needed for Salvation. In John 15, you’ll read His words: ** If **you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
Also, both the Duoay Rheims bible & the New American Bible contain the words “for many”.
So much for my thought processes. This is unusual for me, I can most often decide my stance pretty quickly. I guess this indecicion might cancel out the words, “you traditionalists are all alike, you just react”.
C
CradleCath
Guest
You bet is is, but to hear a priest actually admit that…is rare indeed.
J
japhy
Guest
The way I see it, Christ’s blood was shed for all so that sins may be forgiven (as the ICEL translation goes)… but it was shed for many unto the remission of those sins (as the more literal, yet unofficial, translation goes). In other words, Christ died for all but only many will receive remission of their sins.
Christ’s blood was shed so that sins could be forgiven, since the blood of animals was not efficacious in that regard. (Cf. Hebrews 9:11-12,22, 10:24) The death was for all of us; the application of it, however, is for many, not all.
T
THurifer2
Guest
Ok It was my understainding tha VII was not a doctrinal council.
What aspects of theology “officially” changed after the council?
Not McBriens theology…(which I believe is dragging hordes of souls to hell)
E
EasterJoy
Guest
While I can agree that “many” may not necessarily include “all”, I cannot agree that “many” *cannot *include “all”. If this were the case, then why are the following prayers theologically correct?
'Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity
of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement
for our sins and those of the whole world."
“O My Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of hell; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are in most need of Your mercy.”
I’m not saying these carry the same force as the liturgy of the Eucharist. But to clarify: are you saying that these examples are pointless intercessions, since it is a theological certainty that God has no intention of saving “all”, but only “many”?
C
CradleCath
Guest
None “officially”. The fact that the emphasis of the Mass is now more on the “communal meal” than on the Sacrifice of Christ, well that’s just an “accident”. The fact that our Sacred art is now missing from our Churches…well, that does NOT mean that we are bowing to Protestantism. The fact that devotions to the Saints & to Mary have been subtly undermined for 40 yrs. has NOTHING to do with the whole idea that some find these practices tooooooo Catholic. And the confessionals were moved out, simply because they were in the way. It had nothing to do with the fact that many find the Sacrament of Penance “unpleasant”. That was Martin Luther’s idea…the “Fathers of the Council” had nothing to do with that
I agree!!!
J
japhy
Guest
We may pray that all souls be saved, and it is certainly our honest desire, but practically speaking, there are people who are not interested. The two prayers you show are a good example of lex orandi, lex credendi because they express that desire for salvation without assuming it to be a forgone conclusion. It’s not the power of positive thinking, it’s the power of prayer.
I’m not saying the ICEL translation is wrong, I’m saying it can be misleading, but their double-translation (“for all so that sins may be forgiven”) stopped them from shooting themselves in the foot.
J
JReducation
Guest
No no no, I’m sorry. I did get it backward. The change is that both forms us “for many” at the consecration of the bread and “for you” at the consecration of the wine. One is taken from Matthew and the other from Luke.
Sorry about getting it in reverse. I apologize for any confusion.
JR
- Status