This means that the mass that was revised *after *Vatican II (the “Novus Ordo”) - in other words, the ordinary mass celebrated in most parishes today - was composed and published in Latin. Any official translation used today, whether in English or another language, is just that - a translation from the Latin. And - which comes as a surprise to most people - Latin was always permitted and still is. Oh - the same goes for facing the altar.
I understood ProVobis to be saying that even though the priest is speaking English the Mass is actually being offered in Latin.
I guess one has to be bilingual to understand that better. Or perhaps a mathematician or computer programmer. For example, a computer understands 1’s and 0’s only. So it “hears” through interpretation, 1111, when the number is actually 8. But it’s still 8 as far as everyone else is concerned, no?
I can accept the argument that “Vatican II was hijacked by liberals” only if that means the implementation of it in many places. By no means would I accept that the council itself was subject to anything unsound.
Please friend, beware of Fr. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, he is openly schismatic (SSPV I believe) and is not in communion with Rome.
Actually, the binary number 1111 is 15. 8 would be 1000.
I understand that the official text is in Latin. But the words of the priest are the words that count. If, at the Consecration, the priest takes bread and says, “This symbolizes My Body,” instead of, “This is My Body,” then I am sure you will agree that the Mass is invalid. It doesn’t matter what the official texts say, Latin or English. The priest is the one who is actually saying Mass and his words are the words that matter.I understood ProVobis to be saying that even though the priest is speaking English the Mass is actually being offered in Latin.
The council taught that anyone who is saved is saved through the Catholic Church although the might not appear to be members. This perhaps corresponds to the pre-conciliar teaching on baptism of desire.
The council itself was fine. It promulgated no false doctrine. No matter how much some schismatics may claim and try to prove otherwise, you’ll see that they’re simply taking quotes of context, except unlike with Protestants, they’re not doing it with the Bible but with Church documents. Vatican II merely restated and re-emphasised some aspects of the Catholic Faith that were there long before the council ever happened.
Try not to get too hung up on this. It can be argued that certain documents were ambiguous, although that wasn’t necessarily intentional, and there was nothing in these documents that was contrary to the Catholic Faith. In most cases, it wasn’t even any possible ambiguities in the conciliar documents that were the problem. Many clergy dissented and disobeyed the literal words of Vatican II and the subsequent Popes outright.
God would permit no such thing. Be obedient and trust in Divine Providence, and that will save you from believing the words of sensationalists, heretics and schismatics.
You’re correct, although I didn’t say it was a binary computer.Actually, the binary number 1111 is 15. 8 would be 1000.
Putting aside validity and mathematics, the English here is ambiguous as to what “this” refers to. In Latin the Hoc agrees in gender (neuter) with corpus and not panem (“bread”), reflecting the transubstantiation. In English the “this” with the priest holding the Host in front of him could also indicate the “bread” which would more reflect consubstantiation, which is the Lutheran belief.
I find it highly unlikely that liberals were trying to destroy the Church. Any liberals that I know wish to help the Church. They just have very different ideas of how to go about this than mine, for example. I think that most of their ideas were wrong and not helpful to the Church. But I believe they were probably well-intentioned.
)I agree with that. What bothered me the most about the New Mass was translating “Mysterium Fidei” as “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.”
I’m with you there. Like “Dominus vobiscum,” there is no subjunctive in the Latin. It IS a mystery of faith and the Lord IS with you. (Pan z wami in the Polish) Different theology.
Are you sure you’re an atheist? You sound awfully Catholic and orthodox for an atheist, y’know…
When we say that the Council was hijacked by liberals, we mean that the minority of liberal Bishops present at the council acquired much power and influence, which meant they got to shape the direction of the Council. In the West in 1960, only 30% of Bishops on average wanted liturgical change at the upcoming Second Vatican Council. Less than half of that 30% wanted significant liturgical change, and when I say ‘significant’ I mean, the Gospel or the Collects being read in the vernacular instead of the original Latin. The majority of that 30% only wanted small change, such as a decrease in the required fasting time before Holy Mass. The other 70% either were opposed to it, didn’t really care, or thought that more important issues should be addressed at the Council.
Don’t read that rubbish. It’s bad for your soul. Those schismatic sedevacantists are not in Communion with the Church. If you want reading material about the Second Vatican Council, then I recommend the following:
Very good video. The liberals don’t like it though.What is everyone’s opinions on Michael Voris’s Weapons of MASS Destruction documentary? He had some relatively interesting things to say regarding this subject.
Here are the links (it’s long
youtube.com/watch?v=9fpG2sQg_fg&feature=plcp&context=C462cb1dVDvjVQa1PpcFPQC-bCgCNjEmBD36JzOzhztLpMQ2myBl8=
youtube.com/watch?v=S8P0JcvsMgE&feature=plcp&context=C44380c0VDvjVQa1PpcFPQC-bCgCNjEglF76X4EoxPbwqu9IiQji8=
You are correct. Only schismatic sedevacantists think that it is invalid.
Yes, the Church went through some changes, but that’s really neither here nor there. The Church cannot ever be in heresy, or she would cease to be the Church. There are extremists who hate the Second Vatican Council, but there are extremists who hate the Council of Trent… sigh how foolish.