Criticism of Things Catholic

[latinmasslover]

I am not debating it. I am simply saying that there are two teachings here. Is this not contrary to the previous idea that the Catholic Church is one and has one and the same teaching everywhere ?

Sad, isn’t it. This just goes to show that as the devil entered the heart of Judas, so he’s entered the hearts of some in charge today.

 

[latinmasslover]

Sorry but Latin wasn’t the original language either.

What’s your point? The translation of the words of Jesus Christ says “for many.” Bishops permit the use of “all” because it’s the "nice thing to do. " Do you have an actual defense to present as to why it is okay to lie about His words? Check your Bible, I doubt He says “for all” during the Last Supper, no matter how modern a translation you may have.

 

[MrS]

However, at the papal Mass,** the Pope has said “for all”. Now the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. So what are people supposed to think if the Pope himself says “for all”? **
I don;t know, but it looks to me like there are two teachings in the Catholic Church today on this point and that both are accepted.

1. The Blood is shed for all.
2. The Blood is shed for many.
   However, if there are two teachings and not one, then it looks like there might be a problem with the pre-Vatican II teaching that the doctrines and teaching of the Catholic Church are one and the same everywhere. A mark of the Church is that it is one, which includes the idea that it is one in belief.

Many will not even know there is a “problem” with the word.

Many will understand that the wording is still (but not for long) using the word all, and the Pope is correctly following the current translation.

Many will object when the new translation is in place, and the word many is returned.

Many will remain in the dark if their priest is not properly instructed to teach them the difference.

.

 

[Marauder]

What’s your point? The translation of the words of Jesus Christ says “for many.” Bishops permit the use of “all” because it’s the "nice thing to do. " Do you have an actual defense to present as to why it is okay to lie about His words? Check your Bible, I doubt He says “for all” during the Last Supper, no matter how modern a translation you may have.

I am not a theologian, and as far as I know neither are you. I do not have a copy of the earliest copies of the Bible and you probably don’t either. I will trust what HMC has to say on the issue. If they decide the official translation in English is supposed to be “all”, I will accept it. If they decide the official translation in english is “many”, I will accept it. I will defer to people that are trained in these matters. I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd.

 

[bobzills]

Sad, isn’t it. This just goes to show that as the devil entered the heart of Judas, so he’s entered the hearts of some in charge today.

It is sad because it brings up other issues also. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa (III pars q. 78 art. 3) teaches that the complete consecration formula, and not just “This is the cup of my blood,” forms part of the substance of the sacramental form. This opinion is generally accepted in Church documents.

Therefore a change which would alter the essential meaning of the formula would render the consecration invalid.

 

[MrS]

I am not a theologian, and as far as I know neither are you. I do not have a copy of the earliest copys of the Bible and you probably don’t either. I will trust what HMC has to say on the issue. If they decide the official translation in English is supposed to be “all”, I will accept it. If they decide the official translation in english is “many”, I will accept it. I will defer to people that are trained in these matters. I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd.

There is no “if” about it. The new translation has made those changes. It will be implemented quite soon, perhaps later this year. And it will require all, not just many, to adhere to it.

 

[bobzills]

Many will not even know there is a “problem” with the word.

Many will understand that the wording is still (but not for long) using the word all, and the Pope is correctly following the current translation.

Many will object when the new translation is in place, and the word many is returned.

Many will remain in the dark if their priest is not properly instructed to teach them the difference.

.

Would this be many who will remain in the dark or will all remain in the dark until this is cleared up?

 

[bobzills]

There is no “if” about it. The new translation has made those changes. It will be implemented quite soon, perhaps later this year. And it will require all, not just many, to adhere to it.

But if all and many are the same thing, then where is the problem?

 

[Marauder]

There is no “if” about it. The new translation has made those changes. It will be implemented quite soon, perhaps later this year. And it will require all, not just many, to adhere to it.

I know which way they have gone with the new translation, I am just saying that I will accept it either way because I trust the experts in HMC more then I trust members of an online forum in what they believe. I defer to the experts.

 

[bobzills]

I am not a theologian, and as far as I know neither are you. I do not have a copy of the earliest copies of the Bible and you probably don’t either. I will trust what HMC has to say on the issue. If they decide the official translation in English is supposed to be “all”, I will accept it. If they decide the official translation in english is “many”, I will accept it. I will defer to people that are trained in these matters. I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd.

For two thousand years, Popes, bishops, priests, Saints, and Catholic theologians have said that the Blood was shed for many. Now all of a sudden, after Vatican II, everything is changed and it is taught that the Blood has been shed for all. Why is this not contrary to the previous two thousand years of teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[latinmasslover]

I am not a theologian, and as far as I know neither are you. I do not have a copy of the earliest copies of the Bible and you probably don’t either. I will trust what HMC has to say on the issue. If they decide the official translation in English is supposed to be “all”, I will accept it. If they decide the official translation in english is “many”, I will accept it. I will defer to people that are trained in these matters. I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd.

If the bishops decide abortion is okay, you will blindly follow? The pope is not God. You need to freshen up on the Catechism.

 

[latinmasslover]

I am not a theologian, and as far as I know neither are you. I do not have a copy of the earliest copies of the Bible and you probably don’t either. I will trust what HMC has to say on the issue.

Then read a translation of the Bible that has been approved by the Church, it’s that simple.

If they decide the official translation in English is supposed to be “all”, I will accept it. If they decide the official translation in english is “many”, I will accept it.

They who? Any bishop who thinks he knows better than Christ and the Church? Sorry bud, this isn’t Catholic teaching, but you will find it among anti-Catholic propaganda.

I will defer to people that are trained in these matters. I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd.

Well, that was a nice Nazi answer. If these same bishops say abortion is okay if the child will probably not live past the age of 2, you would support this?

Ah, the “holier than the Pope” argument.
This is really a slam on anyone who throws it out. “I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd” is another way of saying “I’m so holy because I do whatever I’m told,” regardless of what the truth is. I suppose nobody is holier than some of the popes than had mistresses, true? You will find the “the pope is the holiest person on the planet” doctrine, again, among anti-Catholic propaganda, among those who do not know what the Church teaches. Break out that Catechism bud, you don’t want to prove Protestant fundamentalists right, and I’m sure you don’t want to prove the “traditionalists” right either.

 

[latinmasslover]

I know which way they have gone with the new translation, I am just saying that I will accept it either way because I trust the experts in HMC more then I trust members of an online forum in what they believe. I defer to the experts.

If that’s the actual case than you need to be off the site. When off, do yourself a favor and study the teachings of the Church, and not just American commentary of what the Church says.

 

[catharina]

Sad, isn’t it. This just goes to show that as the devil entered the heart of Judas, so he’s entered the hearts of some in charge today.

IMO, the assigning of evil motivations to those whose motives are clearly UNKNOWN to you is a far sadder thing - and it’s a “perfect” example of the feeding of divisiveness within the Church.

 

[latinmasslover]

IMO, the assigning of evil motivations to those whose motives are clearly UNKNOWN to you is a far sadder thing - and it’s a “perfect” example of the feeding of divisiveness within the Church.

There’s nothing wrong with what I said, I didn’t mention any priest/bishop/etc by name, or even imply anyone specifically. Motives unknown? Right, the devil doesn’t inspire anyone in the hierarchy. I guess the Holy Ghost has a fondess for handling young boys intimately, right? Give me a break. What’s sad is anyone who tries to cover up the truth to support…what exactly? Lying is a sin, unless that’s changed recently too.

 

[catharina]

There’s nothing wrong with what I said, I didn’t mention any priest/bishop/etc by name, or even imply anyone specifically. Motives unknown? Right, the devil doesn’t inspire anyone in the hierarchy. I guess the Holy Ghost has a fondess for handling young boys intimately, right? Give me a break. What’s sad is anyone who tries to cover up the truth to support…what exactly? Lying is a sin, unless that’s changed recently too.

You said:
Originally Posted by latinmasslover
Sad, isn’t it. This just goes to show that as the devil entered the heart of Judas, so he’s entered the hearts of some in charge today.

I said:  


IMO, the assigning of evil motivations to those whose motives are clearly UNKNOWN to you is a far sadder thing - and it's a "perfect" example of the feeding of divisiveness within the Church.

Twist it any way you want, my opinion is unchanged.

As for your use of sarcasm in reference to the Holy Spirit: be careful.

 

[latinmasslover]

You said:
Originally Posted by latinmasslover
Sad, isn’t it. This just goes to show that as the devil entered the heart of Judas, so he’s entered the hearts of some in charge today.

I said:  


IMO, the assigning of evil motivations to those whose motives are clearly UNKNOWN to you is a far sadder thing - and it's a "perfect" example of the feeding of divisiveness within the Church.

Again, I didn’t name anyone specific. Those who defend people who have it wrong simply because they’re the ones in charge are causing division within the Church, not those who acknowledge it and try to show others that this doesn’t affect the infalliblity of the Church.

Twist it any way you want, my opinion is unchanged.

Twist what? And I didn’t expect to change your mind.

As for your use of sarcasm in reference to the Holy Spirit: be careful.

Just showing certain logic for what it is. I know He doesn’t inspire it, but the opinion of some seem to be that if a priest/bishop/pope says or does something, anything, it is sanctioned by the Holy Ghost. This is not Catholic teaching but Protestant propaganda. I don’t learn about the Church through them, but through Councils, Popes, Saints, Catechisms, and my confessor.

 

[catharina]

Just showing certain logic for what it is. I know He doesn’t inspire it, but the opinion of some seem to be that if a priest/bishop/pope says or does something, anything, it is sanctioned by the Holy Ghost. This is not Catholic teaching but Protestant propaganda. I don’t learn about the Church through them, but through Councils, Popes, Saints, Catechisms, and my confessor.

In your references to God (the Holy Spirit), I await your list of those who hold the opinion that seems “to be that if a priest/bishop/pope says or does something, anything, it is sanctioned by the Holy Ghost.” (Long list or short list. Be specific.) Your generalities are nauseating. If you imagine that you are defending the Faith and spreading the good news, please, re-think that.

 

[Marauder]

Then read a translation of the Bible that has been approved by the Church, it’s that simple.

I have. No english translation of the Bible has declared that every word contained within is without error.

Well, that was a nice Nazi answer. If these same bishops say abortion is okay if the child will probably not live past the age of 2, you would support this?

I guess you didn’t read it in context of this post and other posts. I said in this context. If the church as a whole came out and said they supported abortion (which they never will) I would look at why they are saying that and read all the arguements either way. As I said. I am not a theologian or linguist. I will defer to those in the Vatican that area.

Ah, the “holier than the Pope” argument.
This is really a slam on anyone who throws it out. “I am not in the holier then the Pope crowd” is another way of saying “I’m so holy because I do whatever I’m told,” regardless of what the truth

There are many people on this page that act like they know more then the Pope, Cardinals, etc. I am humble enough to realize that since I don’t have a theology degree, a linguistics degree, and haven’t devoted my entire life to the study of the religion that there can be people with more learned opinions then me. In cases where there are arguements about one word or certain lines in the Creed (i.e. like proceeds from the Father) that I can trust HMC opinion and go with it. If they decide to change a translation so be it. It is not like the English version of the Bible is declared without error.

 

[Marauder]

If that’s the actual case than you need to be off the site. When off, do yourself a favor and study the teachings of the Church, and not just American commentary of what the Church says.

You can keep your opinions on how much I am on or off the site and what I study when off the site to yourself. They have no bearing on my spiritual study or what I will do with my time. I personally do not feel the great need to investigate this issue farther because I do not feel it is necessary in my spritual development and in my worship of God.

Since you are offering unsolicited advice, I would like to offer that you really should consider the charity of your posts.