Dramatic footage of a trendy bishop being booed by Mass-goers

[Raphael777]

Perhaps a parallel. The original language of the bible is Greek. Is the English version you may read any less valid?

I don’t know about “validity,” but if you mean something like “correct,” then of course, the English is less “valid.” Any translation is inferior to it’s original - that’s just in the nature of a translation.

But I don’t know about speaking of the current English translation of the Ordinary Form as a “translation” at all, given that a good argument can be made that very little of it is actually translated.

I’ve got a pretty decent knowledge of Latin, and the current Mass in English is very, very very poorly translated. How it’s been retained in it’s current form for so long is absolutely beyond me.

 

[FAB]

I’ve got a pretty decent knowledge of Latin, and the current Mass in English is very, very very poorly translated. How it’s been retained in it’s current form for so long is absolutely beyond me.

Perhaps with the release of the new missal will be more to your liking since it is translated to more closely reflect the Latin.
Although there are objections to it as well.
Serously, do you really think God cares if the mass is in Latin or how close the translation is to Latin. Do you think he hears us any more in one language or the other. Since he gave us all languages, I think any used in Glory and Praise will reach him.
Peace,
FAB

 

[ThePapaTX]

Wow is right. Is this the Catholic equivalent of the Tea Baggers Party?

Um, I’m pretty sure it isn’t the eh, “tea baggers” party. I think its Tea Party.

 

[CradleCath]

You wold say then that

True false question fro the catichism.
The answer is false

For me, I’ll listen to my ordinary and for you, maybe you should reconsider, calling the Sheperds of the Church disloyal.

Peace,
FAB

You do that. But do realize that when members of the hierarchy are in disagreement with the Pope on matters of faith & morals, their opinions are just that OPINIONS that carry no authority at all, as far as Catholics in the pew are concerned.

Oh yeah, Your words declare that you… when Archbishop Burke refused to give Communion to politicians who vote pro -abortion, you would agree that, as a “Sheperd of the Church”, he was right to do so.

Also, Bishop Bruskewitz of Ne. excommunicated members of Call To Action & various & sundry other groups who are promoting gay “rights”.abortion. You must also be in agreement with that. After all, he is an ordinary.

PS. You do realize that the Church had survived & flourished for 1,964 yrs. before Lumen Gentium was drawn up by a committee??? You might want to read what the Doctors & Fathers had to say about the authority of the Pope & the LACK of authority of those, who oppose his documents. (Think about the reaction to his document on the ordination of homosexuals & His devout order about open celebration of the Latin Mass

 

[ProVobis]

Documents instructed thatthe mass was to be in the venacular, this was the intent of the council.

Please show us the Vatican II document which says every mass must be totally in “venacular.”

Except for those on this site, I do not see any great cry to use a full Latin Language mass or return to the use of the TLM. Most would want that the be the last thing to happen. They appriciate being able to understand the mass in thier own language.

Everyone wants everything in their own language. Duh! But that’s how the Reformers managed to sell their heresies with mistranslations and people were none the wiser. People bought the English Mass in 1969 and now find out it wasn’t correct. And others feel forced to attend Spanish Masses because there are no English Masses in their areas. Is this what you “appriciate”?

Priest may understand latin, but are not fluent.

…In view of the fact the priest’s fluency in Latin, or the lack of it has become an issue, it might be useful to conclude this article with some very brief observations concerning its virtual suppression. The same 1981 report cited earlier stated with regard to the use of Latin: it is clear that this is tending to fall from use, its place being taken by the vernacular languages.9 But there is no evidence that this was the intention of the Fathers of Vatican II. In fact,** the Council declared: In addition,[seminarians] should acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of so many scientific sources and of the documents of the Church.10 This requirement is repeated in the Code of Canon Law, c. 249: The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well.** If priests are graduating from seminary unable to understand Latin, whose fault is that?

As to the retention of Latin in the liturgy, **the Council is also clear: Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.**11 With respect to the 1970 Missal, c. 928 states: **The eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language **or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.

st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2007/25-5.html

 

[Dominique1234]

Rogue bishops is a matter of opinion, since the majority of the 2200 bishops at Vatican II voted for the reforms and they are church law, in your view then they were all modernist, since the reforms substancially changed the church.
Perhaps what you see as rogue is your own misunderstanding of the reforms and listening to your bishop is what is in order.
Peace,
FAB

This is not what I said. I speak of rogue bishops and priests who do not follow liturgy like the Holy See asks them to do, and bishops who allow priest under their jursdiction to do what ever they want… I know some personally, and it’s sad. These priests and bishops need prayers and lots of them! Pray for priests!

 

[Dominique1234]

The Church says you are to follow the teaching and instruction of your Bishop, they share in authortity with the Pope.
Once again from Lumen Gentium “(14) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that the Bishops by divine institution succeed to the place of the apostles, (15) as sheperds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and **he who rejects them, rejects Christ **and Him who sent Christ”

Peace,
FAB

So I am to follow bishops who have continued to ‘relocate’ priests who sexually abused another human being, even if he is in fault? The bishop has authority to remove a priest due to anything done improper. Nothing improper was done in this case. What had the priest done wrong? Can you tell me why the bishop removed the priest?

All things were corrected in the end. The priest returned to his ‘post’ at that Parish. Just goes to show who is/was wrong in this matter. When in doubt, contact the CDF.

We must fight to keep these priests in our parishes. They are our future, whether liberals like it or not. Any liberal catholic shouldn’t call themselves catholic. Because the Church is conservative, so should the people be conservative.

 

[FAB]

You do that. But do realize that when members of the hierarchy are in disagreement with the Pope on matters of faith & morals, their opinions are just that OPINIONS that carry no authority at all, as far as Catholics in the pew are concerned.

Oh yeah, Your words declare that you… when Archbishop Burke refused to give Communion to politicians who vote pro -abortion, you would agree that, as a “Sheperd of the Church”, he was right to do so.

Also, Bishop Bruskewitz of Ne. excommunicated members of Call To Action & various & sundry other groups who are promoting gay “rights”.abortion. You must also be in agreement with that. After all, he is an ordinary.

PS. You do realize that the Church had survived & flourished for 1,964 yrs. before Lumen Gentium was drawn up by a committee??? You might want to read what the Doctors & Fathers had to say about the authority of the Pope & the LACK of authority of those, who oppose his documents. (Think about the reaction to his document on the ordination of homosexuals & His devout order about open celebration of the Latin Mass

Everything you highlighting indicates that the pope does not have absolute authority. It talks of councils. By the way, all doctrine of the church over the 1,964 years was developed by committee starting with the the Council of Jerusalem.
Vatican I gave authority, Vatican II restricted and defined that authority, sharing that authority with all bishops. The Power of the pope didn’t fully develop until after the early fathers. They had other concerns such as heresies and developing first an understanding of who Christ was and understand of the Trinity.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Dominique1234]

please show us the vatican ii document which says every mass must be totally in “venacular.”

everyone wants everything in their own language. Duh! But that’s how the reformers managed to sell their heresies with mistranslations and people were none the wiser. People bought the english mass in 1969 and now find out it wasn’t correct. And others feel forced to attend spanish masses because there are no english masses in their areas. Is this what you “appriciate”?

st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2007/25-5.html

thank you!

 

[Phemie]

ProVobis;6294269:

Documents instructed thatthe mass was to be in the venacular, this was the intent of the council.

Peace,
FAB

On the contrary, the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy said

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be

allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

 

[FAB]

So I am to follow bishops who have continued to ‘relocate’ priests who sexually abused another human being, even if he is in fault? The bishop has authority to remove a priest due to anything done improper. Nothing improper was done in this case. What had the priest done wrong? Can you tell me why the bishop removed the priest?

All things were corrected in the end. The priest returned to his ‘post’ at that Parish. Just goes to show who is/was wrong in this matter. When in doubt, contact the CDF.

We must fight to keep these priests in our parishes. They are our future, whether liberals like it or not. Any liberal catholic shouldn’t call themselves catholic. Because the Church is conservative, so should the people be conservative.

The scandal of the priest is a different thread, but I do believe that the bishops were working to protect the Church and to help those misguided priest. You should be away that it has been found that only 1% of the cases were classified as sexual abuse.

Yes the bishop has the authority to move a priest any time he wants. All priest and deacons give obedience to the ordinary of the diocese. I give credit to the priest that he was willing to follow that oath.
What you say about liberals could be said about traditionalist who want to dismiss the reforms of Vatican II.
My issue with those who want to attack our bishops is that it is against Catholic teaching to do so. We have a right to address abuses if they occur, but nothing I’ve seen posted falls into that category. Just disgruntle folks who even though their intentions may be well meaning, but are only causing strife in their own lives.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Dominique1234]

you do that. But do realize that when members of the hierarchy are in disagreement with the pope on matters of faith & morals, their opinions are just that opinions that carry no authority at all, as far as catholics in the pew are concerned.

Oh yeah, your words declare that you… When archbishop burke refused to give communion to politicians who vote pro -abortion, you would agree that, as a “sheperd of the church”, he was right to do so.

Also, bishop bruskewitz of ne. Excommunicated members of call to action & various & sundry other groups who are promoting gay “rights”.abortion. You must also be in agreement with that. After all, he is an ordinary.

Ps. You do realize that the church had survived & flourished for 1,964 yrs. Before lumen gentium was drawn up by a committee??? You might want to read what the doctors & fathers had to say about the authority of the pope & the lack of authority of those, who oppose his documents. (think about the reaction to his document on the ordination of homosexuals & his devout order about open celebration of the latin mass

Don’t stop using that mustard seed! God bless you!

 

[Dominique1234]

The scandal of the priest is a different thread, but I do believe that the bishops were working to protect the Church and to help those misguided priest. You should be away that it has been found that only 1% of the cases were classified as sexual abuse.

Yes the bishop has the authority to move a priest any time he wants. All priest and deacons give obedience to the ordinary of the diocese. I give credit to the priest that he was willing to follow that oath.
What you say about liberals could be said about traditionalist who want to dismiss the reforms of Vatican II.
My issue with those who want to attack our bishops is that it is against Catholic teaching to do so. We have a right to address abuses if they occur, but nothing I’ve seen posted falls into that category. Just disgruntle folks who even though their intentions may be well meaning, but are only causing strife in their own lives.

Peace,
FAB

I’m sorry you feel that way about traditional Catholics. That is not my intention as one. I only wish the Church to be unwavering, unchanging, which it has been for, oh, let’s say, practically 2,000 years. There have only been truths revealed through scripture and through the workings of the Holy Spirit in our beloved disciples we call the Pope. Infallibility comes from God, and is given to the Pope and the Pope alone. Bishops make mistakes, and this one made a royal one. This is why this priest is still at his parish today. The bishop made a mistake, or more, he didn’t believe that a TLM should be said in parishes under his jurisdiction. That’s going against Catholic Church teaching… what we call heresy.

What I’m getting at is simple. Catholics are Universal. The Church doesn’t change for anyone. So live with it. God bless you, FAB.

 

[Holly3278]

Check it out :extrahappy:

The Bishop of Evreux has backed off!
I am informed by the Forum Catholique article that Bishop Nourrichard has backed off, after having seen the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luigi Ventura, recently appointed to France by the Pope. This Nuncio was previously in Canada, and this much-loved prelate was known to our Canadian TAC Bishops, as Bishop Peter Wilkinson has told me.

The new priestly team appointed by Bishop Nourrichard will not minister in Thiberville and the 12 other churches of the parish group, and Fr. Michel is to be allowed to continue his ministry.

Bishop Nourrichard spent the day last Thursday in Paris with the Nuncio. The scandal of Thiberville had taken on international dimensions.

Many priests in France in France and elsewhere have refused to be moved from their parishes. What is now happening is that Benedict XVI wants parishes and the stability of their priests to be respected by diocesan bishops.

The tide has turned. Deo gratias! And may this be an encouragement for us all.

theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/the-bishop-of-evreux-has-backed-off/

Gloria Dei!

 

[ProVobis]

Serously, do you really think God cares if the mass is in Latin or how close the translation is to Latin. Do you think he hears us any more in one language or the other.

Here’s an excerpt what Pope John XXIII wrote in Veterum Sapientia just a few months before he convened the Vatican II council:

…
[8] Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but
also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one
of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of
the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the
meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to
everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover,
be no language that could serve as a common and constant norm by which
to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. It has
long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of
words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin
words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed
and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have
long since become accepted and firmly established.

[9] Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of
every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is
altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble
and majestic, and non-vernacular.

[10] In addition, the Latin language ‘can be called truly Catholic’.
It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the
mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed ‘e treasure . .
. of incomparable worth’. It is a general passport to the proper
understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of
the Church’s teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the
Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful
continuity.

[11] There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value
of the language of the Romans and of great literature generally. It is a
most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises,
matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It
sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young
mind to grasp things accurately, and develop a true sense of values. It
is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech.
…

 

[FAB]

I’m sorry you feel that way about traditional Catholics. That is not my intention as one. I only wish the Church to be unwavering, unchanging, which it has been for, oh, let’s say, practically 2,000 years. There have only been truths revealed through scripture and through the workings of the Holy Spirit in our beloved disciples we call the Pope. Infallibility comes from God, and is given to the Pope and the Pope alone. Bishops make mistakes, and this one made a royal one. This is why this priest is still at his parish today. The bishop made a mistake, or more, he didn’t believe that a TLM should be said in parishes under his jurisdiction. That’s going against Catholic Church teaching… what we call heresy.

What I’m getting at is simple. Catholics are Universal. The Church doesn’t change for anyone. So live with it. God bless you, FAB.

The church has never been unchanging. It’s doctrine that is unchanging but the church itself as adujusted to the times throughout our history. Even the pope is not infallible,the church does not teach that he is, there are limits to statments of infalibility, including and only after consultion with the college of bishops to be one.
Benidict’s indulgent for the TLM does not fall into the realm of infallabilty. to think so would mean that the previous pope’s restriction of it was in error.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Dominique1234]

The church has never been unchanging. It’s doctrine that is unchanging but the church itself as adujusted to the times throughout our history. Even the pope is not infallible,the church does not teach that he is, there are limits to statments of infalibility, including and only after consultion with the college of bishops to be one.
Benidict’s indulgent for the TLM does not fall into the realm of infallabilty. to think so would mean that the previous pope’s restriction of it was in error.

Peace,
FAB

If you’d read what other people have been writing on these threads rather than focus on what I am writing only, you’d see that what you’re saying is heresy. I’m done responding to you because you only find fault in every little thing I say the Church says when there is not fault one there, but thanks for trying my Faith.

Secondly, if you give me facts as to where it says the Church is fallible, I’d be glad to agree with you. The Church is FOUNDED on it’s moral, values, doctrine, dogma, and Canon law. If you disagree with ANY of these, you have no right to call yourself Catholic. I’m sorry if that offends you but it’s the truth. The people in the Church, apart from the Pope on matters of dogma and doctrine, are fallible. The Church is NOT fallible. Sorry, you’re wrong, again.

If you think I am being too harsh, then please feel free to criticize where I speak wrongly. I have proven what the Church teaches over and over again and you still refuse to believe. That is your choice. God bless you and I will pray for you as I hope you will for me.

 

[Dominique1234]

Check it out :extrahappy:

The Bishop of Evreux has backed off!
I am informed by the Forum Catholique article that Bishop Nourrichard has backed off, after having seen the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luigi Ventura, recently appointed to France by the Pope. This Nuncio was previously in Canada, and this much-loved prelate was known to our Canadian TAC Bishops, as Bishop Peter Wilkinson has told me.

The new priestly team appointed by Bishop Nourrichard will not minister in Thiberville and the 12 other churches of the parish group, and Fr. Michel is to be allowed to continue his ministry.

Bishop Nourrichard spent the day last Thursday in Paris with the Nuncio. The scandal of Thiberville had taken on international dimensions.

Many priests in France in France and elsewhere have refused to be moved from their parishes. What is now happening is that Benedict XVI wants parishes and the stability of their priests to be respected by diocesan bishops.

The tide has turned. Deo gratias! And may this be an encouragement for us all.

theanglocatholic.com/2010/01/the-bishop-of-evreux-has-backed-off/

Thank you God! You know what is righteous! God bless all those who pray for things like this!

 

[ac_claire]

The church has never been unchanging. It’s doctrine that is unchanging but the church itself as adujusted to the times throughout our history. Even the pope is not infallible,the church does not teach that he is, there are limits to statments of infalibility, including and only after consultion with the college of bishops to be one.

Benidict’s indulgent for the TLM does not fall into the realm of infallabilty. to think so would mean that the previous pope’s restriction of it was in error.

With all due respect, this entire post is riddled with wrongness. The first paragraph is simply not true. Dominique has it right on the constancy of the Church. Second paragraph is built on a false assumption. The TLM was never actually abrogated or “banned”; therefore neither pope was in “error.” And infallibility doesn’t have anything to do with the indult for the TLM. As far as I know, that was a matter of discipline, not a matter of faith.

 

[FAB]

If you’d read what other people have been writing on these threads rather than focus on what I am writing only, you’d see that what you’re saying is heresy. I’m done responding to you because you only find fault in every little thing I say the Church says when there is not fault one there, but thanks for trying my Faith.

Secondly, if you give me facts as to where it says the Church is fallible, I’d be glad to agree with you. The Church is FOUNDED on it’s moral, values, doctrine, dogma, and Canon law. If you disagree with ANY of these, you have no right to call yourself Catholic. I’m sorry if that offends you but it’s the truth. The people in the Church, apart from the Pope on matters of dogma and doctrine, are fallible. The Church is NOT fallible. Sorry, you’re wrong, again.

If you think I am being too harsh, then please feel free to criticize where I speak wrongly. I have proven what the Church teaches over and over again and you still refuse to believe. That is your choice. God bless you and I will pray for you as I hope you will for me.

In Lumen Gentium the Church recognizes that it is not perfect, the document is the constitution of the church.

The pope and also councils (which include the pope) are considered infallable in matter of faith and morals. There are specific restrictions in the doctrine of infalliblity which are importannt to understand.
Must speak officially, cannot be personal opinion or thoughts
Must appeal to the supreme apostolic authority
only in matters of faith and morals
the issue must be held by the entire church
must agree with scripture
must agree with the present faith of the church
must be in agreement with the universal episcapte (the other bishops)
Made after counsultation with the iniversal church.
and is infaliable when he speaks ex cathedra.

There is nothing that I have said that is a heresy. The bishops and the pope are the magisterium of the church. What people want to do is to dimision the authority of thier local ordinary who is the primary teacher for his flock, I find this the heresy.

I am in full agreement with the moral, values, doctrine, dogma, and Canon law of the church, but because I support the authority of the bishops recognized by the church I am some how a heretic.
Please keep in mind that the doctrine of the church does not change.
Canon Law has changed many times. evne the values of the church has changed. At one time it did not object to the death penelty, we do now. At one time it condemed all none Christians, the pope is now in open diologe with Islamic leaders. The church now recongizes the ecclesial nature of other Christian bodies and thier mission in the salvation of God. So yes the Church does change.
Peace,
FAB