Is This It? Changes in the Text of the Roman Catholic Mass?

[perdidochas]

Packsaddle wrote:

" The claim is that its use is a "potent sign of the Church's universal character". That's the part I would like to have explained. To even claim that any one church has "universal character"...that alone is enough to make me wonder what they're talking about. But to make the further claim that speaking a dead language is a "potent sign" of that universal character...that's going to take some careful explanation before I can understand what the heck they're talking about. "

 

 

The whole idea of using a "dead language" is to use a language that belongs to no single group, hence, it belongs to the Church. I'm not old enough to remember Latin Mass, but my mother did. She is a German by birth (now, American by naturalization), and remembers that during the time of the Latin Mass, if she was on vacation in Italy or Spain, she had no problem knowing what was going on in Mass--it was almost the exact same mass (with the exception of some songs and the Homily (preaching)) that she had at home in Germany. For that reason, Latin made the Church more universal. Also, most people had some knowledge of Latin, due to this.

 

[sherminator505]

I've often wondered about the whole Latin thing. If the Holy Spirit came down upon the disciples and allowed them to speak in tongues, did they interpret that as a sign to go to Rome and learn Latin, or was there perhaps a different purpose behind those events? Just askin'...

[BadenP]

Perdidochas

 

Sorry but Latin was the language of ancient Rome long before the RC Church ever came into exsistence, in fact if you trace the root languages of the early church they are Aramaic and Greek, not Latin.

There was no church officially called the Roman Catholic Church until after 1054 when the Roman branch of then early Christian church broke away from its eastern roots and became independent, since the patriarch of Rome felt he should be the head of the church by divine right. This created a permanent division between the church of the east and west. So Latin has nothing to do with the identity of the RC Church who adopted the language after the split for their own liturgical ritual language. In spite of what the Vatican claims the RC church does not have a direct line of apostolic succession of popes from Peter because of their schismatic split from the original eastern church which was considered as an heretical act as the protestant reformation was by the RC church hundreds of years later.

 

 

[DeaconLance]

BadenP,

 

Latin has been the Liturgical Language of the Western Church since the 300s when it replaced Greek. In spite of what you claim the Pope of Rome can trace his succession back to St. Peter through 262 predecessors. Whether any of those are considered heretics by another Church is a seperate matter. As to the split with the Eastern Churches, that started with the Council of Ephesus and the Assyrian Church, extended to the Oriental Orthodox after the Council of Chalcedon and culminated in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of reunion after the Council of Florence in 1439, unity having been troubled from 1054 and severly crippled by the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. Subsequently, portions of each of those Churches have resumed communion with Rome. I am a deacon of one of those Churches. The name Roman Catholic Church was coined in England after Henry VIII's creation of the Anglican Church, which also considered itself Catholic. Before you decide to pontificate about a Church of which you are not a member please do your research.

[DeaconLance]

For those interested the following site has portions of the new Missal and comparisons of the old and new side by side.

 

http://usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

[BadenP]

Lance

 

You really need to read some religious history books not written by the Catholic hierarchy. Your council references are totally innaccurate as is your understanding of church history, no doubt from the biased training you received to become a deacon. The Catholic Church has redacted as well as blatantly misrepresented what happened in the early church, and your discourse sounds like something straight out of the propaganda office at the Vatican.

 

Defend your faith all you want but history has shown that the Catholic Church has used their power in the past to justify the oppression and murder of any individual or group that opposed them or their twisted theology and biblical interpretation. There are countless examples of this abuse the most prominent, the Crusades, the Inquistions, censorship and murder of scholars and theologians who showed the church's interpretations were not true, and of course the current worldwide clergy abuse issues that the church has kept underwraps for decades. How anyone can defend this religion claiming to be the only true and valid church that Christ founded, which is blatantly false, shows a complete lack of study or understanding of the true nature of this organization who has gone to great extremes to supress the truth from their own members and the world. You have the right to follow Catholicism but don't try to soft pedal it as something it is not to the rest of the world.

 

The Catholic Church is NOT "the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church", it claims to be, history has proven that it's teaching as well as it's actions have resulted in a total lack of credibility for their theology, rituals, and self governance.

[perdidochas]

Badenp,

 

You need to amend "In my opinion" to the above. Scholarship on both sides (i.e. that favor the pro- and anti- Catholic views) is suspect.

 

And, this thread kind of proves why religion and politics shouldn't be the topic of polite conversation.

 

Just remember, a Scout is Reverent. Part of Reverence is tolerance for other's religious views.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am just trying to understand why BadenP would have any priest as a friend

[BadenP]

perdidochas

 

The historic events alone prove my point, and as far as scholarship is concerned modern day religious scholars on both sides are much more ecumenically educated than their predecessors of centuries ago. The RC Church has admitted to most of their aggregious actions of the past and has begged for forgiveness in recent times, too bad they didn't feel the same before putting all those people to death back when.

 

OGE

I have many priest friends who believe the church is headed or spiraling backwards to a time of religious intolerance, superiority and a total breakdown of ecumenical dialogue. They are good men who feel that the Vatican II changes were sorely needed to prevent the RC church from becoming an irrelevant,anachronistic empty tradition, as did Pope John XXIII, and now feel all of that progress made is lost with Benedict. I was a Catholic and have many Catholic friends, some who are priests and we discuss these things, you would be surprised how many Catholics disagree with the direction of the hierarchy.

[OldGreyEagle]

So you are saying not eveyone who is Roman Catholic necessarily marches in lock step with everything the Church says and that one may be Roman Catholic and still maintain an individually functioning brain.

 

I agree with that

[perdidochas]

Re: Pope Benedict and ecumenism.

 

The ironic thing is that the traditional Catholics think that Benedict is bending over backwards to what they think is the heretical ecumenical movement. The liberal Catholics think the opposite--that Benedict is doing his best to squash ecumenism. The truth is probably in between. I think it depends on if pre-papacy writings (which tend to argue against ecumenism) or post-papacy writings (which argue for it) are used.

[Beavah]

Yah, BadenP, me thinks yeh just jumped the shark, eh? Your strong personal feelings and prejudices are com in' through, but I don't think you're presenting a very objective analysis of history. And I'm not a victim of Catholic propaganda.

 

I think where yeh completely miss the mark is when yeh anthropomorphize institutions. That just gets silly, and is always a prejudiced and inaccurate way of thinking . "The Church" doesn't do anything. People do things.

 

So when yeh talk about "the Crusades", your lack of understanding shows. The Crusades were largely da political acts of nations or the personal acts of adventurers, driven by economics and social forces as much as anything. Da Greek-Roman schism followed the relative political fortunes of the eastern and western empire, eh? By and large it was da secular governments that "put people to death". Is it rational to blame Islam for the Taliban? Or were they rather the leaders of the Afghan goveernment who happened to be Islamic?

 

Most of da religious stuff you mention was a product of the political and economic stuff, not its own cause. By taking things out of context and anthropomorphizing an institution or group, yeh can always create justification for prejudice.

 

I get that yeh have a few priest friends who don't like da current pope. I have a lot of friends who don't like da current president. That doesn't mean that the U.S. is an awful place.

 

Beavah

 

 

[DeaconLance]

BadenP,

 

You sound like an ex-Catholic with an axe to grind coupled with lack of historical knowledge. My council references are entirely accurate and verifiable, unlike your ludicrous claim the Western Church did not use Latin until 1054. In fact all the references I provided are histroically verifiable facts, I said nothing in reference to theology. Nor will I debate theology here with you, this is not the place. A scout respects the beliefs of others. I will not, however, let false information go uncontested.

[BadenP]

Aw Beav

 

Look at who called for and financed the Crusades, Pope Innocent III for one, not political powers who at that time were mere dupes of the Pope. He made the crusades a religious holy war to free Jerusalem from the infidels, in other words justifiable and church sanctioned genocide.

 

I never blamed anyone but the institutional part of the church of Rome for these abominations and I will put up my understanding of the Crusades against yours anytime, eh!

 

Lance

 

I know you can't help but believe the dribble you were taught at your Catholicism in a Nutshell course you took to become a deacon, but just because you can wear the fancy robes and preach the gospel at mass does not make you anymore enlightened or knowledgeable than any other person, maybe all that incense has gotten to your head a little bit. Of course you could always go to a legitimate graduate theology school and learn the true story. Pax Christi.

[blade1158]

BP,

you are a bigot and (CENSORED OGE)

 

It is foolish to argue with a fool. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)