Belleville bishop removes pastor for improvising prayers

[ProVobis]

Why are we translating from Latin? Our heritage of salvation is Hebrew!.

At least the Latin Mass preserved Saboath, a Hebrew word with deep and significant meanings attached to the sound. The modern translations did not.

And I’d agree with you about the Hebrew. But the Church did select every word and phrase carefully when constructing its liturgies in its adopted and Christianized Latin language.

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.

I believe Christ Himself did not worship in the vernacular in the Temple.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

Latin is the language of the Latin Church. It is also the language of the Holy See. Furthermore I exhort your to actually read the documents of Vatican II in their entirety if you have not.

 

[pnewton]

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.

This is moving into the realm of apologetics. Catholics believe in the Holy Sprit’s guidance to his one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Language is not the language of conquerors. It is the language that God has lead the Church to use to protect the deposit of faith. It is the standard that keeps us all on the same page. This is then translated because the Holy Spirit has also lead the Church to offer Mass in the language that people understand.

I do not know what mystic you think were great in the Reformation, but rest assured that the Catholic Church at that time worshiped in Latin.

 

[gerry_clark]

Yes,

During the Refgormation the Chruch continued in its secular heritage as a vestage of the “Holy”? Roman Empire.

The tradition of the Passover seder, and therefore the Last Supper is Hebrew. The Great
Hillel, Psalm 136, is Hebrew. The “shew” Bread of the Presence of God is Hebrew. The
Cup of Salvation is the Third Cup of the Passover Seder is Hebrew. The link to the ful-
fillemnt of the Scriptures is Hebrew.

Therefore the proper translation and liturgical heritage is a “Cup”, not a chalice of the
conquering secular power!

 

[ProVobis]

Therefore the proper translation and liturgical heritage is a “Cup”, not a chalice of the
conquering secular power!

Hmmm. That doesn’t seem to fit either.

cup
O.E. cuppe, from L.L. cuppa “cup” (cf. It. coppa, Sp. copa, O.Fr. coupe “cup”), from L. cupa “tub, cask, tun, barrel,” from PIE *keup- “a hollow” (cf. Skt. kupah “hollow, pit, cave,” Gk. kype “a kind of ship,” O.C.S. kupu, Lith. kaupas). The Late Latin word was borrowed throughout Germanic; cf. O.Fris. kopp “cup, head,” M.L.G. kopp “cup,” M.Du. coppe, Du. kopje “cup, head.” German cognate Kopf now means exclusively “head” (cf. Fr. tête, from L. testa “potsherd”). Meaning “part of a bra that holds a breast” is from 1938. As a verb, from late 14c., originally “to draw blood by cupping;” meaning “to form a cup” is from 1830. [One’s] cup of tea “what interests one” (1932), earlier used of persons (1908), the sense being “what is invigorating.”

 

[pnewton]

Therefore the proper translation and liturgical heritage is a “Cup”, not a chalice of the
conquering secular power!

Are you serious? Do your really think chalice (a direct translation of the Latin) has secular connotations? Well, fortunately the Church has seen different and corrected the translation. Perhaps you could put aside this tendency to assume motives not present and show your Church leadership a little charity. You and me = sheep. They are shepherds. I think you have this whole thing backwards.

 

[curlycool89]

This “gerry clark” is clearly a troll guys, and all he’s doing is baiting you with his outlandish theories (and his posting history confirms a pattern of just that).

Just ignore him and let the mods take care of it. Don’t feed the trolls.

 

[gerry_clark]

The problem is that it is a translation from Latin!

Latin was not the language of the Cup of Salvation!
Hebrew is the language of the Cup of Salvation!

Although the synoptic Gospels were first transmitted orally, in Aramaic
and John’s Gospel was probably first transmitted orally and written in Greek,
Latin is not a primary language of Scripture!

Why convolute the liturgical tradition!

Latin is the secular language of the conquers. When the Church caved in to secular
authority Latin became the language of the western church, not the entire Church.
The Eastern churches did not leave until 1054.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is that it is a translation from Latin!

Latin was not the language of the Cup of Salvation!
Hebrew is the language of the Cup of Salvation!

No, it is not. May I remind you that this change only affects the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. There are other rites that use other translations. The Holy Spirit has led the Church in this direction over 2000 years. We are not sola scriptura originalists who go back to how things were in the Upper Room. We trust that God is dynamically guiding His holy Church. Why can’t you?

 

[pnewton]

Latin is the secular language of the conquers. When the Church caved in to secular
authority Latin became the language of the western church, not the entire Church.
The Eastern churches did not leave until 1054.

Do you know how much this sounds like a Jack Chick tract? This is not the place to make arguments for Protestantism. That would be in apologetics. The root here is a lack of understanding that the Church is dynamic and organic. The process of growth is directed by the Holy Spirit. We trust in Holy Spirit and believe this, or we do not. If we do not trust in God, we are not His children. If we do not believe it, but trust in the Holy Spirit, we are Protestant.

Although the synoptic Gospels were first transmitted orally, in Aramaic
and John’s Gospel was probably first transmitted orally and written in Greek,
Latin is not a primary language of Scripture!

Absolutely! The Church has readily opened up to new translation of Sacred Scripture based on the original languages. The Mass however stays in Latin for uniformity throughout all languages currently used in the world. This is done for todays need.

 

[pnewton]

This “gerry clark” is clearly a troll guys, and all he’s doing is baiting you with his outlandish theories (and his posting history confirms a pattern of just that). .

Actually, I found this argument on the web today. I read where the HufPo anticatholic was making this same point. I think it bears addressing, though in the end, it comes down to what one truly believes about the Church, not language.

I think understanding this change brings an explaination on why a bishop must sometimes take action like this one did.

 

[Robert_Bay]

This thread is off topic, please return to the topic of the original post

 

[Corki]

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.)

I would absolutely agree with you IF this was a random “Is this liturgical abuse?” thread or a second or third hand account of what parishioners experienced. However, this is a situation that has gone on for some time. If the Bishop tried to correct the priest and he did not comply, there was clearly pride involved. He could have very easily fulfilled his promise of obedience to his Ordinary and followed the Missal while still providing clarification. He COULD have clarified things in the homily. He COULD have offered a teaching Mass from time to time. He COULD have provided explanations of different parts of the Liturgy in the bulletin. But he didn’t.

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…”

Cute story. However, Father was much older than 9 and much more educated in the liturgy and the prayers. Not so cute.

So now Fr. Rowe is being verbally “crucified,” by righteous people for breaking religious rules.

Actually, at least in this thread, Father Rowe is being criticized mainly for something Jesus said a little bit further in Matthew [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:6
[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ProVobis]

The problem is that it is a translation from Latin!

Latin was not the language of the Cup of Salvation!
Hebrew is the language of the Cup of Salvation!

Although the synoptic Gospels were first transmitted orally, in Aramaic
and John’s Gospel was probably first transmitted orally and written in Greek,
Latin is not a primary language of Scripture!

For your purpose, I don’t really think it matters. You’re comparing English vs English and you can always change the meaning in a modern language to suit your argument. It would be a different story if you actually knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, like St. Jerome did, and then you could probably make a more convincing argument as to what the true meaning of the phrase is.

That being said, the bishops have decided that if the Mass is to be said in English, the priest must stick to the approved English texts. If, for example, the word “holiday” or “evening” or “cup” is interpreted differently in the U.S. vs U.K., no matter; it is still a matter of obedience to stick to the word as it is written in the prayer.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

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.

Aloha, Elizium23:

Amen! Thank you so much for your understanding and wisdom. You are a true Catholic Christian, the kind I enjoy hanging out with.

It is sad to see how some “Posters” are so ready to personally attack other Posters, in place of simply sticking to the issue at hand. It seems that all we can do is pray for them, along with praying for Fr. Rowe. Reasoning doesn’t seem to work. I wish they would send their emails to Jesus first, to get His IMPRIMATUR, before Posting.

The more personal abuse I get, the more I sense that the Poster is really not so sure about His position on my major point, namely:* Let’s stop the judging and gossiping, it has no good purpose.*

Thanks again, and many blessings.
Richard

 

[jay29]

Would it kill Catholics to actually follow the rules for once? Every Catholic? The Church wouldn’t be in such miserable shape if every Catholic followed the rules.

 

[curlycool89]

The more personal abuse I get, the more I sense that the Poster is really not so sure about His position on my major point, namely:* Let’s stop the judging and gossiping, it has no good purpose.*

1. It does not count as gossip when it is something that is in the full public view and that the priest has put in the full public view by his own choice (Mass is a public celebration), whether it is good or bad.
2. We did not judge at all, the Bishop did that, and he removed the priest. That is the essentials of this case. Fr. Rowe is in the wrong here, that is what is clear: his actions were wrong and his motivation was wrong and what he did was wrong.
3. The Faithful deserve, nay, have the right to a properly celebrated Mass. And that means that priests need to put their ego away and follow what the Church says (this is not a new criticism, I believe George Weigel (Bl. John Paul II’s biogropher) was one of the first to bring it up).

 

[Richard_Hughes]

1. It does not count as gossip when it is something that is in the full public view and that the priest has put in the full public view by his own choice (Mass is a public celebration), whether it is good or bad.]

Aloha,** Curlycool89:**

If you are in a seminary as you have indicated, then your intention may be to become a Catholic (Christian) priest. So I beg you to listen with your heart and good intentions as well as with your intellect. Remember, no nasty words, “Posters” are persons with feelings, like you. Let your heart take over. As you know, communications is about 75% non-verbal. That’s why readers have only our loving and/or evil words to determine the intention of our heart. Or Fr. Rowe’s.

I messed up your Quote. You said:

1. It does not count as gossip when it is something that is in the full public view and that the priest has put in the full public view by his own choice (Mass is a public celebration), whether it is good or bad.
2. We did not judge at all, the Bishop did that, and he removed the priest. That is the essentials of this case. Fr. Rowe is in the wrong here, that is what is clear: his actions were wrong and his motivation was wrong and what he did was wrong.
3. The Faithful deserve, nay, have the right to a properly celebrated Mass. And that means that priests need to put their ego away and follow what the Church says (this is not a new criticism, I believe George Weigel (Bl. John Paul II’s biogropher) was one of the first to bring it up).** [End of Quote]**

My answers:

1. Does it count when we conclude and tell the world that Fr. Rowe grievously SINNED, which implies that he is damned and going to hell? (you are trying to save his soul from that, remember?) Remember, we are all members of the “Royal Priesthood;” the Catholic Magisterium teaches that we are not to “talk stink” (e.g., assume sinfulness without ALL the facts about Fr. Rowe’s mental state, etc.) No “talk stink” about anyone whether they deliberately adlib during Mass (the true reasons only God knows) or for appearing to commit unfaithfulness to one’s spouse, for example.
2. After you become a priest, suppose your bishop were to refuse Communion to a prominent politician because of his seemingly adulterous behavior. Would that give you the right to talk indiscreetly to the world about the politicians SINFULNESS? Would it not be better, as a PRIEST, to keep one’s mouth shut? So as not to spread scandal? We laymen are members of the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD. If we both happened to go before Jesus together for our final judgment, which position do you think He would take, yours or mind? Probably neither. He has a Sacred Heart.

Is it possible to be too “Catholic,” and the expense of not being enough of a Christian? "Lord, Lord, I said Mass for you, every day! "He turns and says,“I don’t even know you.” (Matt. 25:12) When God forgives, He forgets; shouldn’t we? (EZ. 18:22, Heb. 8:12, 10:12) Don’t be concerned about this, I will be making my final voyage to heaven soon, and driven by a feeling of LOVE I’ll put in a reservation for you while I’m there.

1. Amen, to this one.

We know Fr. Rowe may have “done wrong,” but we DO NOT know if he has sinned. If during Confession, I were tell you that I have killed a man on the battlefield, wouldn’t you at least asked, “In self-defense, or did you deliberately kill an innocent person?” My generation is called “Great,” because of their killing in WWII, and because of their good intentions about freedom and mercy.

With regard to sin, the intentions of Fr. Rowe (which no one but God really knows) do matter, don’t they? Please answer this one question.

I shall close with “ALOHA” (which means love, mercy, compassion, Greetings, or Good-by in Hawaiian. It is APPROVED for the liturgy. If you are assigned to Hawaii, someday, you will observe, hear, and lovingly feel its meaning. You may interpret this liturgically approved word, “aloha,” any way you desire. It’s a warm “cool” word, Curlycool.

ALOHA,
Richard

 

[Corki]

Richard,

I don’t think you read curlycool89’s post. Not once did he say anything about Father Rowe’s sin. He said his actions were wrong, somethng that has been confirmed by the priest’s own ordinary.

However,*** I ***will say that if a priest, any priest, willfully disobeys his Ordinary, breaking his promise of obedience, he has objectively sinned. It’s a matter for that priest to take to his confessor as to the gravity of the sin and whether he has repented of the sin. His intentions only matter with regard to his culpability; they do not affect the sinfulness of the act. And in this case, his intentions are only relevent up to the point in time where his Ordinary told him to correct his actions.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

No, he has not been crucified. He has been criticized for disobedience to his bishop and the Catholic Church.

Aloha Pnewton:

You may have misunderstood what I said. My comment was: “So now Fr. Rowe is being verbally ‘crucified,’ by righteous people for breaking religious rules.” Crucified was in quote marks and preceded by the adjective “verbally” in front of it, to make “verbally ‘crucified’” a figure of speech.

You may have not noticed. Posters were calling Fr, Rowe names and were ASSUMING too much about his being a SINNER, and saving his soul. They were “stoning Father,” with abusive language and unfair conclusions. (Now that was another figure of speech, of course, to emphasize my point.) For clarification, read my Post #87.

Could one purpose for originating this CAF Thread be to punish Fr. Rowe? And we all took the bait? You and I cannot come to that conclusion, because we do not know the intentions, the “heart” of the originator, or any truth about the originator. At times, on this Thread, some Posters have been unnecessarily abusive, in my opinion. Of course, how should I know, I’m only an elderly Catholic Christian.

I sense that they are young brilliant people who need to mature in their Catholic faith. That’s only my perception, I’m not accusing. A pastor once said, ”Don’t accuse — encourage.”

I shall close with “ALOHA”. One meaning of “alo,” is “presence, ” and “ha” is like the sound of your breath when you say, “ha.” It means breath like the Greek “pneuma,“ so the first Christian missionaries (Catholics included) interpreted “ha” as also meaning the Holy Spirit. Aloha, meaning presence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, It is interesting that the pre-Christian Hawaiian definition of aloha is love, mercy, compassion. It is used as a greeting and to say good-by. It is APPROVED for the Catholic liturgy when the Mass is said in Hawaiian. If you ever come to Hawaii, you will see, hear, and lovingly feel its meaning in your heart.

Seriously, with our heart felt aloha, let’s pray for Father Rowe, so that he may have the opportunity to explain his position and reconcile with our Catholic leaders.

ALOHA!
Richard