Blaming it all on Vatican II?

[JReducation]

Umm, what does all this have to do with Roman Catholicism ?

Are you saying we should take our cues from those who pray in the venacular, and thus Roman Catholics should pray The Mass in the venacular ? That sure would mean flushing a number of Vatican documents down the toilet friend. Let’s see, that would mean flushing BXVI’s Motu Proprio not even a year after it went into effect.

Sorry, but if that is what you are getting at, I’m not buying it. The Latin Rite is the Latin Rite.

I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that the citation “Latin is the language of the angels” is being taken literally as a justification for the liturgy in Latin. It was not meant to be taken literally. It’s a metaphor.

As to the Latin Rite, it came to be called that not because of the language, but because it was the rite of the Church of Rome. Latin is anything that is rooted in the Roman culture and tradition. Latin Americans do not speak Latin, but their anscestors were part of the Roman Empire.

As to the use of the Latin language in the liturgy, I’m glad that there is the opportunity to have it for those who find God via that means. Not everyone needs it, but it’s good to have the option.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Not meaning to be disrespecful , but don’t Angels speak with Heavenly voices, like esp? Peace. Doesn’t tradition say that.???

The Church is silent on this. There are metaphors regarding the language of the angels. They are meant to teach something deeper.

Angels are not corporeal beings. Not having a body, excludes them from having a brain. Language is a function of the human brain. So far, we’re the only creatures known to use language.

Do angels communicate with man? Of course.

How? Through mystical experiences. Those who have had encounters with angels never really tell us how they communicated. They simply tell us WHAT they communicated.

Take for example in the OT the partiarchs, in the NT Zacharia, Mary, Joseph and the women at the tomb. In history, St. Francis and the Seraph.

No one says how they communicated. However it was, it seems to have been a mystical experience and the message was comprehensible.

St. Teresa says that when you enter the inner chambers of the spiritual castle you no longer use language. There is a union between the soul and the Divine where the soul knows what the Divine desires and commands.

It is most likely that those who encountered angels had this kind of communion with them, at the level of the soul. This is very deep mystical theology that requies a great deal of metaphysics to explain further.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[agr4028]

You must speak tongue-in-cheek. (Ever heard of Humane Vitae?)

Yes, and no. Humanae Vitae solved everything with regard to contraception and abortion, yes? (in theory) but in reality (no)

But really, if all these terrible abuses have been going on for 40+ years, why hasn’t Rome stepped in? Is that not the greater puzzle? Or, are the alleged abuses really acceptable in one form or another to Rome?

 

[rinnie]

The Church is silent on this. There are metaphors regarding the language of the angels. They are meant to teach something deeper.

Angels are not corporeal beings. Not having a body, excludes them from having a brain. Language is a function of the human brain. So far, we’re the only creatures known to use language.

Do angels communicate with man? Of course.

How? Through mystical experiences. Those who have had encounters with angels never really tell us how they communicated. They simply tell us WHAT they communicated.

Take for example in the OT the partiarchs, in the NT Zacharia, Mary, Joseph and the women at the tomb. In history, St. Francis and the Seraph.

No one says how they communicated. However it was, it seems to have been a mystical experience and the message was comprehensible.

St. Teresa says that when you enter the inner chambers of the spiritual castle you no longer use language. There is a union between the soul and the Divine where the soul knows what the Divine desires and commands.

It is most likely that those who encountered angels had this kind of communion with them, at the level of the soul. This is very deep mystical theology that requies a great deal of metaphysics to explain further.

I hope this helps.

JR

As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will, they are personal and immoral creatures, now wouldnt that mean that they do in fact have a brain?

 

[catharina]

As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will, they are personal and immoral creatures, now wouldnt that mean that they do in fact have a brain?

You must have meant to say “immortal” not immoral, huh?

Next point, do you imagine that God has a brain?

 

[rinnie]

You must have meant to say “immortal” not immoral, huh?

Next point, do you imagine that God has a brain?

oh my what a difference a T means huh?

 

[catharina]

oh my what a difference a T means huh?

Uh-huh.

Now , next point, do you imagine that God has a brain?

 

[rinnie]

Uh-huh.

Now , next point, do you imagine that God has a brain?

not sure what you mean by that? Explain?

 

[agr4028]

Of course, God has a brain How could all this exist if he didn’t?

But, we’re really not real…we’re all just brains in bowls on God’s shelves

 

[kristie_m]

It can’t be that simple. You’re telling me that people left the One True Church founded by Christ outside of which there is no salvation because they wanted to use artificial birth control? That was the real reason? And priests and nuns went with them?

I agree. I don’t think we can blame a shortage of priests on their inability to use birth control.

 

[agr4028]

I agree. I don’t think we can blame a shortage of priests on their inability to use birth control.

The even bigger question is…of those Catholics who remained…what percentage ignore HV and use ABC?

80%, 90%, 95% ???

 

[catharina]

not sure what you mean by that? Explain?

You’ve said that “As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will, they are personal and immoral creatures, now wouldnt that mean that they do in fact have a brain?”

God iss no creature but the fact that humanity has bra(name removed by moderator)ower doesn’t correlate to angels any more that it would correlate to God. Your logic seems to be leading to “God has brain.”

Humans do have brains.
Angels must too (you say).
So what about your image of God?
Has He a brain?

 

[agr4028]

You’ve said that “As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will, they are personal and immoral creatures, now wouldnt that mean that they do in fact have a brain?”

Go dis no creature but the fact that humanity has bra(name removed by moderator)ower doesn’t correlate to angels any more that it would correlate to God. Your logic seems to be leading to “God has brain.”

Humans do have braines.
Angels must too (you say).
So what about your image of God?
Has He a brain?

Insert singing scarecrow and Dorothy here

 

[dyspepsic]

Traditionalists don’t use the term “language of the angels” in the literal sense -which is what some folks seem to argue against. Seems a blatant attempt to belittle, if not to beat down a straw man.

Traditional folks are using the words of, I think it was Pope Paul VI himself, in describing the loss of Latin in the liturgy…a great and painful loss indeed. And actually a phenomena that is contrary to what was called for in Vatican II.

DD

If it were such a ‘great and painful loss’ Paul VI could have recalled the changes being suggested by the Concilium, and backed Ottaviani.

He didn’t. So, it wasn’t such a painful loss.

Latin is gone, “Vale” and “Deo Gratias”, and “Amen” to that. The faithful now have the opportunity to fulfill their calling as the people of God, and exercise their priesthood, the priesthood of the faithful, by participating in the great Sacrifice, rather than being mere spectators.

Constitution on the Liturgy: Vatican 2:
14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.”

I wish the fundamental Traditionalists would take to heart the words of Vatican 2, as above.

 

[catharina]

Insert singing scarecrow and Dorothy here

Sorry. Haven’t a clue what you mean.
(Does that mean I have no brain?)

 

[rinnie]

Insert singing scarecrow and Dorothy here

Im sorry i still dont understand what you mean. I was just responding to what he said about angels not having a brain, you lost me. explain again.

 

[catharina]

Im sorry i still dont understand what you mean. I was just responding to what he said about angels not having a brain, you lost me. explain again.

rinnie, I have no clue what other poster means about Dorothy and scarecrow.

My post (and point) about your defense of brains in angels is this:

You’ve said that “As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will, they are personal and immoral creatures, now wouldnt that mean that they do in fact have a brain?”

God is no creature but the fact that humanity has bra(name removed by moderator)ower doesn't correlate to angels needing the same, any more that it would correlate to God.  Your logic seems to be leading to "God has a brain - and He needs it.  So too we need brains, angels or men."

Humans do have brains.  
Angels must too (so you say).
So what about your image of God?  
Has He a brain?

 

[catharina]

I don’t equate Brain and Mind.

Does that help you out?

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, and no. Humanae Vitae solved everything with regard to contraception and abortion, yes? (in theory) but in reality (no)

But really, if all these terrible abuses have been going on for 40+ years, why hasn’t Rome stepped in? Is that not the greater puzzle? Or, are the alleged abuses really acceptable in one form or another to Rome?

Yes, I meant the reality, not the theory. That Rome speaks on something does not imply that the rest of the Church automatically follow. This truism wasn’t invented in the last 50 years. By the edicts of Rome, those who want to avoid unintentional abuse will have every help in doing so. That is a great grace for the Church.

As you are aware, Rome is not the Gestapo. The Vatican could not literally be the liturgy police if it wanted to, which it doesn’t. The relationship between Rome and the other bishops is collegial, and between Rome and the laity is pastoral, and not in either case is it purely juridical. When Rome does not attempt to coerce, it is no evidence that Rome lacks concern. There do not need to be guns issued with the encyclicals, for the bishops to hold to the heads of the faithful.

…Latin is gone, “Vale” and “Deo Gratias”, and “Amen” to that. The faithful now have the opportunity to fulfill their calling as the people of God, and exercise their priesthood, the priesthood of the faithful, by participating in the great Sacrifice, rather than being mere spectators.

Constitution on the Liturgy: Vatican 2:
14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.”

I wish the fundamental Traditionalists would take to heart the words of Vatican 2, as above.

Say what you want about Traditionalists, but they do not lack consciousness during the Sacrifice of the Mass, at least not compared to anyone else. They certainly aren’t mere spectators. Point to one old lady obliviously reciting the rosary in her own little world during a TLM, and they’ll point to others at the NO who appear to be mentally going over their grocery lists during that liturgy.

Honestly, some of the rhetoric around this forum would be like the active religious telling the contemplatives that they don’t “do” anything and the contemplatives telling the actives that they don’t know how to pray.

Is it not just possible that there are different charisms of worship among in the laity, as there are different charisms of life among the consecrated religious? Would that be such an awful thing to consider?

“Deo Gratias” for the NO and “Thanks be to God!” for the TLM, and let’s have an AMEN to that.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t equate Brain and Mind.

Does that help you out?

Im sorry i went to eat. What i meant was in post i think 104 he said angels not having a body excludes them from having a brain, but to communicate with people in my opinion you must have a brain to know how to communicate at all. But i see what you are saying, i guess i do equate them as the same thing. But good point i never thought of it that way. Its keeps us thinking.