R
Richard_Hughes
Guest
Please read my response to Rainaldo (Post #59). Let’s think the best of our fellow Christian brothers’ and sisters’ intentions in these CAF Threads, not the worst.
Peace
- Status
Peace
R
Richard_Hughes
Guest
Sorry, Phemie & Rainaldo! My comments in Post #59 were addressing to Manualman, not Rainaldo. However, Post #59 applies to your comment, too.
Aloha
H
He_Man
Guest
Nothing says the power to move heaven and earth than teens with lit candles. Makes me tremble just picturing…
H
He_Man
Guest
Yeah, see it’s cure when your son does that when he is 3. It’s not cute when your son does it after leaving Seminary.How sad to imply with innuendo that the pastor may be adjusting language of the liturgy for narcissistic or egotistical reasons, and not for clarification. It grieves me to see so much of that kind of accusing in Catholic Answers Forums. Instead, let’s favor best intentions whenever there seems to be some doubt.
I dare say that no one but God could ever know a person’s true intentions. Therefore, Jesus said: “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged…” (Source: Matt. 7:1-5, it’s a good read.)
Let’s think the best of our fellow Christian brothers’ and sisters’ intentions in these CAF Threads, and not the worst. This would help to bring out the best in each of us, which should bring us all closer to Christ Jesus. I would think that improvement of our relationship with Jesus the Christ, is the ultimate purpose of the CAF Threads.
I do believe that when we defend the Institutional Catholic Church’s teachings and practices, we are defending the MEANS to an end, and not the end in itself; the end surely must be to bring about a closer, personal relationship with Christ Jesus our Savior.
Let’s not accuse; let’s encourage. May we all avoid accusing, as much as possible.
I understand that further changes in the official language is still possible, and I have problems with “consubstantial.” I had to look it up. I’m sure all Catholic children and adults will know what it means, when they profess their faith.
I’ll never forget when one of my 9 children, a little guy at the time, prayed: “Our Father who are in heav’n. Harold be my name…”
Peace
Kind of the difference between me messing my pants and my daughter doing so - she’s 2, I’m not.
We don’t know his motivations, but we can say definitively he was wrong, regardless.
manygift1spirit
New member
Indeed. Although I suspect one can take his own words as to his motivations at face value. But that only covers his improvising the liturgical prayers. There were far worse abuses apparent than the words…
But I am puzzled by the earlier rebukes about narcissism. It is a shame the videos were taken down, because they illustrate in numerous ways how this priest views the celebration as not being about the Eucharist, but rather about the priest himself, and how he views his own opinions higher than liturgical tradition, canon law, and perhaps even the Sacrament itself. This is beyond obvious. I have not taken sides as to whether the Eucharist in that service was valid or not (it was almost certainly illicit), but the very fact this possibility is even plausible suggests this day was none to soon.
Let me get this straight. He wants the words of the prayers to jive better with what he wants to say? He has got it backwards, he should be tailoring his words, his homily (NOT by a woman, a grave liturgical abuse) to the prayers and readings for the day. When he received the mark of ordination, it marked him with a calling to be Truth’s servant, with very clearly defined roles. His actions both documented by the bishop and by the videos show he thinks himself rather Truth’s master. No folks, we can safely call that narcissistic.
C
curlycool89
Guest
Nevertheless, this is an act that is forbidden. Not allowed, and he knows that. He’s been told by his bishop to cease and desist.
And yet he continued doing it. Why? The only reason left is that he thought HE knew better then his bishop and the Church who gave us the Missal, which again points to ego.
Narcissism is a disorder that is primarily characterized by thinking that one is not subject to the rules that everyone else is subject to. It seems that this priest thought that rules simply did not apply to him, so the label is fair.
R
Richard_Hughes
Guest
He Man: You missed the purpose of my true story about my son. It had nothing to do with Fr. Rowe. Consider this: A Catholic child, when told to say the Creed, asks: “Daddy, what’s that word mean? Consta, consta…tantanople?..blaaah!” Got it?
Yes, children will learn in time, but how many generations will it take for poorly educated Catholics (and there are so many in the world!) to know the words true meaning… if at all? The Creed is there to help the people express their beliefs, the people aren’t there to ramble off an immaculately worded Creed. The People of God need to come first, not the liturgy; that’s my point. (CAF Posters don’t bother saying it. Of course there has to be order and accuracy, but there has to be understanding first.)
My major point was: I don’t approve of priests altering the words of Mass either, but haven’t we flogged Fr. Rowe with our tongues enough? The whole spirit of posts in this CAF Thread is not Christlike. The use of such abusive language and innuendo about Fr. Rowe is very unbecoming of Catholic Christians. Reread some of the stuff that has been written. If he is 72 years old, as noted, then he must have served Christ Jesus and the People of God for nearly 50 years, sacrificing the blessing of a wife and family, and more.
We laypersons have a duty to take care of our priests, right or wrong. I know of some who have had emotional breakdowns. Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand (Catholic philosopher, theologian, writer, and retired professor) said on EWTN: “The husband is the authority, the wife is the influence.” Priests go through life without that powerful, tangible, emotional bonding, soul to soul INFLUENCE. Let’s give the man a break.
None of the Posters in this Thread TRULY knows the circumstances of the situation. Yes, Fr. Rowe altered words of the Mass, that’s what this CAF Thread is about. But was he TRULY quoted correctly or even understood correctly about his intentions? Was their a vendetta against Fr. Rowe, so the bishop removed him because of political pressure? Is Fr. Rowe, an elderly priest who is burned out after so many years of service and maybe being pushed around? Does he need emotional support, not tongue lashings by laypersons in this CAF Thread?* Who’s to throw the first stone? *
Rhetorical questions, but I hope they help ALL of the CAF Posters to better understand my MAJOR point: “No talk stink,” as the Hawaiians eloquently say. It’s not “Pono,” (moral, fitting, proper).
Jesus had something to say about judging people with nasty words:* “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 12:36-37)
*
He Man, Will you humbly admit on this CAF Thread that Jesus is to be obeyed by all CAF Posters, on threads like this? And that the major point I have made about “talking stink,” may be of some merit? How about the rest of you CAF Posters? Any conversions lately, by the Spirit of Christ Jesus? Do you have the courage to admit that I’m right?
Those of you who get an adrenalin rush by “talking stink” on CAF Threads, think of all the trips to the confessional, and years in Purgatory, that my MAJOR point may help you to avoid.
Aloha,
Richard
H
He_Man
Guest
End chapter one.He Man: You missed the purpose of my true story about my son. It had nothing to do with Fr. Rowe. Consider this: A Catholic child, when told to say the Creed, asks: “Daddy, what’s that word mean? Consta, consta…tantanople?..blaaah!” Got it?
Yes, children will learn in time, but how many generations will it take for poorly educated Catholics (and there are so many in the world!) to know the words true meaning… if at all? The Creed is there to help the people express their beliefs, the people aren’t there to ramble off an immaculately worded Creed. The People of God need to come first, not the liturgy; that’s my point. (CAF Posters don’t bother saying it. Of course there has to be order and accuracy, but there has to be understanding first.)
My major point was: I don’t approve of priests altering the words of Mass either, but haven’t we flogged Fr. Rowe with our tongues enough? The whole spirit of posts in this CAF Thread is not Christlike. The use of such abusive language and innuendo about Fr. Rowe is very unbecoming of Catholic Christians. Reread some of the stuff that has been written. If he is 72 years old, as noted, then he must have served Christ Jesus and the People of God for nearly 50 years, sacrificing the blessing of a wife and family, and more.
We laypersons have a duty to take care of our priests, right or wrong. I know of some who have had emotional breakdowns. Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand (Catholic philosopher, theologian, writer, and retired professor) said on EWTN: “The husband is the authority, the wife is the influence.” Priests go through life without that powerful, tangible, emotional bonding, soul to soul INFLUENCE. Let’s give the man a break.
None of the Posters in this Thread TRULY knows the circumstances of the situation. Yes, Fr. Rowe altered words of the Mass, that’s what this CAF Thread is about. But was he TRULY quoted correctly or even understood correctly about his intentions? Was their a vendetta against Fr. Rowe, so the bishop removed him because of political pressure? Is Fr. Rowe, an elderly priest who is burned out after so many years of service and maybe being pushed around? Does he need emotional support, not tongue lashings by laypersons in this CAF Thread?* Who’s to throw the first stone? *
Rhetorical questions, but I hope they help ALL of the CAF Posters to better understand my MAJOR point: “No talk stink,” as the Hawaiians eloquently say. It’s not “Pono,” (moral, fitting, proper).
Jesus had something to say about judging people with nasty words:* “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 12:36-37) *
He Man, Will you humbly admit on this CAF Thread that Jesus is to be obeyed by all CAF Posters, on threads like this? And that the major point I have made about “talking stink,” may be of some merit? How about the rest of you CAF Posters? Any conversions lately, by the Spirit of Christ Jesus? Do you have the courage to admit that I’m right?
Those of you who get an adrenalin rush by “talking stink” on CAF Threads, think of all the trips to the confessional, and years in Purgatory, that my MAJOR point may help you to avoid.
Aloha,
Richard
Seriously, I agree to a point, but pointing out obvious truths is not the same as casting aspertions, though the line can often be blurred. I guess it depends on the intent of the poster, which we cannot know. To be sure, the Internet can be an occasion of sin for the temptation to rail against people in an unChristlike manner. it can also be an occasion of sin to allow sin and untruth to go unchallenged because we “didn’t want to offend.”
An example - Is it accurate or is it un-Christian to say that when Tiger Woods was having 30+ affairs at the same time, he was acting like a hedonist?
I lean towards the former.
R
Richard_Hughes
Guest
I appreciate you point of view. I have noticed that I am one of your fellow Knights of Columbus. We Knights live by “Charity, Unity, and Fraternity,” and charity is a manifestation of our love for others. My major point is about showing a little more love for a priest in trouble, no matter what he has done, and we should not judge his intensions, which only God knows.
Why more love? Because loving is even greater than defending our Catholic faith, religiously (pun intended), including all of its many rules, regulations and ritual. (1Cor. 13:13) Imagine that! Love is greater than our CATHOLIC FAITH! We know that Catholicism has over 1,700 Canon laws. The Jewish people have only 613 Laws of Moses, and Jesus was tortured and executed, because He was accused of deliberately breaking some of the religious laws.
So now Fr. Rowe is being verbally “crucified,” by righteous people for breaking religious rules. And he may see it that way: Jesus was an activist against the religious establishment; therefore, we should be activists for renewal in the Church. It’s possible, but only he knows his agenda, knowing full well what would eventually be the consequences.
It’s a stretch to speculate that maybe Fr. Rowe was trying to make a statement about the complex system of rules governing the celebration of the Eucharist, but that has nothing to do with my essential point. I’m just demonstrating by plausible example of how people may easily misjudge, when it is none of their business to judge in the first place. I shouldn’t have to say this, but I am not trying to defend Fr. Rowe’s conduct.
The one major point I have tried to make in this CAF Thread, is that we Catholic Christians need to be more charitable and loving when posting. Fr. Rowe has already been tried and judged by the authorities. And now he’s being judged again and verbally “hung on a cross” by several CAF Posters in this Thread. As a seminarian, you certainly must agree how evil that wrong spirited rhetoric can be. In another Thread, I was before a “verbal firing squad,” because I defended the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the Church.
Here are some examples of unfortunate judgments: “Talk about being full of himself!”; “That [being 72 years old] puts him in that notorious generation [of priests]”; and, “Once one puts down the mirror of Narcissus, it’s not hard to see the role ego plays in such a decision.” I wonder what other Christians think about this and the inquisitional spirit which I have noted in other CAF Threads as well. This may be “Catholic,” for some, but surely is not Christian. Is it all just harmless fun? I sense that it is not. You decide.
If you have any doubts about the position I’m taking, let’s take a reminder from Jesus who had something to say about judging people with nasty words: “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 12:36-37) And again, “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged…” (Matt. 7:5)
I appreciate your valued (name removed by moderator)ut, but the conclusions of the “Posting judges” (including yours, I hate to say) are all based on circumstantial evidence. Fr. Rowe could have a brain tumor, or other health problems, for all we know. Changes in behavior, which can progress over many years, do happen, so we shouldn’t judge how evil his actions were. That’s GOD’S prerogative, not OURS. Do you get the point I have been trying to make?
As a fellow Knight, I appeal to you to read, reread, and study, what my major point has been in this Thread. In all fairness the majority of those who have participated in this Thread, have not been judgmental. If you feel that my appeal for more charity and love in the CAF Threads (and less of the “Inquisitional spirit”) is called for, I would like to know
C
curlycool89
Guest
I don’t appreciate it when people try to manipulate me by appealing to “common causes”. This is one of the things we were taught to do in public meetings in my engineering classes, try and identity common goals and causes. It doesn’t work on me, sorry.
Yes, I went through the Degrees too, I don’t need a reminder of the pillars of the KofC.
And the point the rest of us are making is that what he did is unacceptable, no matter what the reasons where. The priest was told sometimes last year to get in line, and he didn’t. His actions are a manifestation of his intentions.
You have a false definition of love. Love is not some feel-good feeling, love mean caring for another persons’ full well-being, including their soul.
By not celebrating the Mass properly, this priest has sinned (given those videos, this even borders on sacrilege, and that’s not a term I use lightly or often). By taking these actions, this priest may have compromised his own salvation due to his own disobedience and the scandal to his congregation. A priest is responsible for his congregation, and if he has been lax and provided a bad example then the moral responsibility for their souls falls on him. That is what it means to be a priest, you have moral responsibility for the people who have been entrusted to you.
So you see, we do care for this priest and for the state of his soul. That is what true love and charity is about: caring for one’s eternal soul and salvation.
You’re comparison is borderline blasphemous. Jesus is God and came to inaugurate a new covenant with mankind. And Jesus gave authority to His Church on earth and to the Apostles and their successors that everyone is duty-bound to obey. When it comes to priests, they make a promise to their bishop to obey when they are ordained before God and the people that is binding on their soul. Fr. Rowe broke this vow.
Your reductionism of Jesus to a political or religious revolutionary is a dire misunderstanding of the person of Jesus and His mission (Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week goes into this in great detail).
If he was using the Eucharist to try and make some statement then that is sacrilegious and that is wrong. The Eucharist is a sacrament given by Christ through His Church to us for our salvation and our nourishment.
Again with the appeals to “common understanding”. I’ve been around the debate-block a few times, and I’m pretty well acquainted to the different ways you can appeal to people to try and manipulate their feelings. I’ve watched the Hollywood classics that are great at doing so.
You’re appeal shows that you don’t understand my feeling or point of view at all. As a seminarian, I know that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith, not something to be used as a means to make some dumb statement. As a seminarian, I know that the most important thing as a priest is to act in total union with your bishop, as if you are an extension of the bishop himself (a priest is simply an extension of the bishop’s ministry. A priest has no ministry without the bishop). In my mind and in my opinion, disobedience by a priest (or anyone) towards his Ordinary is the worst crime you can commit because it is the Original Sin of Adam. We are called to imitate Christ, and in Christ we see the great obedience to His Father even to death, death on a cross (Philippians 2:8). It is through obedience that were are redeemed and find our salvation, not through disobedience and choosing of the self.
And Fr. Rowe has a pattern of doing this for over a decade if you had followed the story. This isn’t something new, this is a patter of disobedience, a pattern of choosing me and my way over the Church’s, and that is to put yourself above the Church. That’s objectively wrong.
Also, Freudian (or any other) excuses are lame (I’m a fan of The Eagle’s “Get Over It” method personally).
E
Elizium23
Guest
There are no winners in this situation. The priest loses his faculties and sacred ministry to souls. The parish loses a beloved pastor, and they have lost 18 years of liturgical formation, and may soon be faced with a an even more difficult “reform of the reform”. The successor to this priest has already lost respect from the community who may view him with unwarranted suspicion as he takes the place of a beloved priest who held the position for so long. And the bishop loses. He loses the priest who was formed and nurtured by the diocese and promised chastity and obedience. He loses the respect of community members who loved their priest more than they love proper liturgy or the bishop’s decisions.
And we are also the losers as we comment like arm-chair quarterbacks on events far away from us, that in the end do not affect us as members of another parish in another diocese.
But as I see it, we can support the bishop in his decision, because it looks like it was the right one, and we can support this priest insofar as we pray that his eyes be opened to obedience to authority and his proper role as servant of the liturgy. I don’t see any conflict with the charisms of the Order of the Knights of Columbus in this debate. As long as we are charitable and do not denigrate the priest or his office, we can criticize his actions if they are a detriment to the rest of society.
And we are also the losers as we comment like arm-chair quarterbacks on events far away from us, that in the end do not affect us as members of another parish in another diocese.
But as I see it, we can support the bishop in his decision, because it looks like it was the right one, and we can support this priest insofar as we pray that his eyes be opened to obedience to authority and his proper role as servant of the liturgy. I don’t see any conflict with the charisms of the Order of the Knights of Columbus in this debate. As long as we are charitable and do not denigrate the priest or his office, we can criticize his actions if they are a detriment to the rest of society.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
What is sad, and what I think Mr. Hughes is missing in this discussion, is that regardless of this priests motivations or intentions, by his actions he placed himself, his own opinion and judgment over that of the Church, his bishop, and thus Christ.
The way he offered Mass placed himself in the forefront, his ideas about what the prayers should say, his own interpretation of the faith that has been handed down, essentially substituting his own judgment for that of the magisterium who has the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this is what he presented to his parishioners, whether he meant to or not.
The fact that he continued to do so after correction by his bishop, makes it seem that his motivations were less than pure, or at least not innocent in design. But that we cannot know.
G
gerry_clark
Guest
Vatican II said the liturgy must communicate to the people.
The Revised Roman Missal, in English only, to keep the Americamj bishops busy so they would not have time to consider the effect of the almost 100 US Catholic women who have been ordained Catholic priests, contrdicts Vatican II.
The New Roman Missal takes the Eucharistic Prayer to pre-Vatican II levels of anti-Semetrism with its mistranslation of “Cup” as “Chalice”. The Cup of Salvation is the
Third Cup of wine at the Passover Seder, the Last Supper. Scripture tells us that Jesus
took the Cup at the end of the meal, the time in the Seder when the Third Cup, the Cup of Salvation is shared. In the Hebrew liturgy of the Passover, the Heils Geshicte History of
Salvation is recounted with the singing of the Great Hillel, Psalm 136, along with the drinking from the Cup of Salvation.
The Missal also cares this mistranslation to Corinthians when it is used in the Communion
Antiphon.
The Bishop was wrong!
In the congregations that recognize the common priesthood of God’s chosen people, Exodus, and of Mary Magdala and Phoebe where the Eucharistic prayer is recited by
all of the faithful, “Cup” is still used.
The Bishop and Rome should realign their thinking in the more Christlike loving mode
of Vatican II.
The Revised Roman Missal, in English only, to keep the Americamj bishops busy so they would not have time to consider the effect of the almost 100 US Catholic women who have been ordained Catholic priests, contrdicts Vatican II.
The New Roman Missal takes the Eucharistic Prayer to pre-Vatican II levels of anti-Semetrism with its mistranslation of “Cup” as “Chalice”. The Cup of Salvation is the
Third Cup of wine at the Passover Seder, the Last Supper. Scripture tells us that Jesus
took the Cup at the end of the meal, the time in the Seder when the Third Cup, the Cup of Salvation is shared. In the Hebrew liturgy of the Passover, the Heils Geshicte History of
Salvation is recounted with the singing of the Great Hillel, Psalm 136, along with the drinking from the Cup of Salvation.
The Missal also cares this mistranslation to Corinthians when it is used in the Communion
Antiphon.
The Bishop was wrong!
In the congregations that recognize the common priesthood of God’s chosen people, Exodus, and of Mary Magdala and Phoebe where the Eucharistic prayer is recited by
all of the faithful, “Cup” is still used.
The Bishop and Rome should realign their thinking in the more Christlike loving mode
of Vatican II.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I am a huge fan of the new translation. It is beautiful.
manygift1spirit
New member
This has been starting to happen (finally) in the last 15 years or so, and continues to happen.
The Bishop’s action actually is a perfect example. The poor parishioners are being scandalized and likely robbed of the Sacraments. The bp is doing exactly the Christlike thing, and his patience with Fr. Rowe is also extraordinary (5 years!?!!) But stuff like this renewal should have been happening decades ago.
It has been said of the other Councils that their impact didn’t really set in for a hundred years or more. Pope Paul’s “Smoke of Satan” proves there has been many forces preventing the implementation of V2, and only after about 50 years have these obstacles been challenged, and beginning to be overcome. In 50 more or so (hopefully and prayerfully) the true renewal called for will be fully evident. Finally.
Makes some of us of a certain age a little pensive. I don’t expect to see this process finish. But I can predict my children might.
T
Tigg
Guest
I love what you said. Way to go!
And wow - I’ve never heard this before (the bolded), and the signs of true renewal and hope are now quite evident. Seems the more Satan manipulates God’s enemies, the greater the grace for His sheep. I have to believe, though, that a chastisement is in order (indeed is here now with the HHS mandate, for example, and religious persecution) but how else will the Church be purified (the blood of martyrs, and all that?)
P
pnewton
Guest
No, he has not been crucified. He has been criticized for disobedience to his bishop and the Catholic Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
It was retranslated in English because only in English was the Roman Missal translated so dynamically, as opposed to literally.
The Latin word is “calix”. Chalice is the most literal translation. There was no antisemitism behind this change. That is silly.
No, I think this is a misunderstanding of Catholicism. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church. It is the faithful that need to align their thinking with the Church, not the other way around. It is the priest, in this case that must subordinate his will to the bishop, not the other way around. What you propose is Protestantism, not Catholicism. We Catholics rather believe in the Christian principle of dying to our will, not imposing it on the Church.
I have no idea what Vatican II has to do with anything.
G
gerry_clark
Guest
It is not silly!
Why are we translating from Latin? Our heritage of salvation is Hebrew!.
Latin is the language of the conquerers. God is with the vanquished not the conquerers.
The same thing is happening now in Africa where some Evangelical missionaries are stuck on the use of the English King James Version translations. Other more genuine missionaries are in the apostolic tradition of oral evangelization. This orality is in the indigenous language of the people.
In our own western European history, the Catholic mystics wrote in the vernacular rather
than the elitist Latin. These mystics are often regarded as the true prophetic voice of
God during the Reformation and Counter Reformation arguements about who had the right to the “geld”.
As Vatican II stated, the worship must relate to the people.
In South Africa, when the vernacular was applied to the western European music of hymns,
it did not work. Fr. David Dargy, a Scots Roman Catholic priest serving in South Africa
then used the indigenous Xhosa music to match the Xhosa vernacular.
This grew into the development of the Zimrimba, a mirimba with 2 extra notes so that no
tribe could claim it. It is now a musical instruiment of unification in South Africa. This had
to be the work of the Prince of Peace.
There is a great poster of the Last Supper from Rose Publications, which depicts men
from around the world and asks, “In what language would Jesus be speaking to them?”
The answer “Their own!”
Rose not Rome has it right. If we are celebrating the Last Supper, Jesus will be speaking to those who come to that Supper in their own language.
Why are we translating from Latin? Our heritage of salvation is Hebrew!.
Latin is the language of the conquerers. God is with the vanquished not the conquerers.
The same thing is happening now in Africa where some Evangelical missionaries are stuck on the use of the English King James Version translations. Other more genuine missionaries are in the apostolic tradition of oral evangelization. This orality is in the indigenous language of the people.
In our own western European history, the Catholic mystics wrote in the vernacular rather
than the elitist Latin. These mystics are often regarded as the true prophetic voice of
God during the Reformation and Counter Reformation arguements about who had the right to the “geld”.
As Vatican II stated, the worship must relate to the people.
In South Africa, when the vernacular was applied to the western European music of hymns,
it did not work. Fr. David Dargy, a Scots Roman Catholic priest serving in South Africa
then used the indigenous Xhosa music to match the Xhosa vernacular.
This grew into the development of the Zimrimba, a mirimba with 2 extra notes so that no
tribe could claim it. It is now a musical instruiment of unification in South Africa. This had
to be the work of the Prince of Peace.
There is a great poster of the Last Supper from Rose Publications, which depicts men
from around the world and asks, “In what language would Jesus be speaking to them?”
The answer “Their own!”
Rose not Rome has it right. If we are celebrating the Last Supper, Jesus will be speaking to those who come to that Supper in their own language.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But there are apparently other translations which were translated from the ICEL English, Spanish as an example, where the words of the consecration last I checked were por vosotros y por todos los hombres (“for you and for all the men”). I don’t hear any serious movement to “correcting” it either. The impact would be much more extensive than changing the English.
And if the new translation were literal, you’d have “Lord with you” and “Upwards hearts” in the prayers. One could say the new translation is more Anglican in origin.
- Status