Quinquagesimagreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
QUINQUAGESIMA SUNDAYMissa "Esto mihi in Deum"
PURPLE VestmentsSemi-Double Observation
INTROIT: Psalm 30: 3,4
Esto mihi in Deum protectorem, et in locum refugii, ut salvum me facias : quoniam firmamentum meum, et refugium meum es tu: et propter nomen tuum dux mihi eris, et enutries me. (Ps. 30. 2). In te, Domine, speravit, non confundar in aeternum: in justitia tua libera me, et eripe me. V. Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
Repeat Esto mihi in Deum...COLLECT
Dominus vobiscum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Oremus. Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine, clementer Exaudi : atque a peccatorum vinculis absolutos, ab omni nos adversitate custodi. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus,
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.EPISTLE: 2 Corinthians 13: 1-13
NOTE: From Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday the Tract is said only on Sundays and Feast Days. On Ferias when the Mass of the Sunday is said, the Gradual is said without the Tract or Alleluia.
GRADUAL Psalm 76: 15, 16
Tu es Deus qui facis mirabilia solus : notam fecisti in gentibus virutem tuam. V. Liberasti in brachio tuo populum tuum, filios Israel et Joseph.
TRACT : Psalm 99: 1, 2
Jubilate Deo, omnis terra: servite Domino in laetitia. V. Intrate in conspectus ejus, in exsultatione : scitote quod Dominus ipse est Deus. V. Ipse fecit nos, et non ipsi nos : nos autem populus ejus, et oves pascuae ejus.
GOSPEL: Luke 18: 31-43
OFFERTORY: Psalm 118: 12-13
Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Benedictus es, Domine, doce me justifications tuas : in labiis meis pronuntavi omnia judicia oris Tui.SECRET
Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Oremus. Haec hostia, Domine, quaesumus, emundet nostra delicta : et ad sacrificium celebrandum, subditorum tibi corpora mentesque sanctificer. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filius tuus Dominus noster, Qui Tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus,
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.PREFACE of the Most Holy Trinity
Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Sursum corda.
R.Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
R. Dignum et justum est.
Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper, et ubique gratias agere: Domine sancta, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus. Qui cum unigenito Filio: tuo et Spiritu Sancto, unus es Deus, unus es Dominus: non in uninus singularitate personae, sed in unius Trinitae substantiae. Quo denim de tua Gloria, revelante te, credimus, hoc de Filio tuo, hod de Spiritu Sancto, sine differentia discretionis sentimus. Ut in confessione verare, sempitiernaeque Deitatis, et in personis proprietas, et in essential unitas, et in majestate adoretur aequalitas. Quam laudant Angeli atque Archangeli, Cherubim, quoque ac Seraphim: qui non cessant clamare quotodie, una voce dicentes:
SANCTUS, SANCTUS, SANCTUS...COMMUNION: Psalm 77: 29, 30
Manducaverunt, et saturati sun nimis, et desiderium eorum attulit eis Dominus: non sun fraudati a desiderio suo.
POSTCOMMUNION
Dominus vobiscum.
R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Oremus. Quaesumus, Omnipotens Deus ut qui caelestia alimenta percepimus, per haec contra omnia adversa muniamur. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Qui vivis et regnas in cum Deo Patri in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus, unum Deum.
Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
R. Amen.
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005
bump
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.
Clarification for non-Catholic lurkers and Catholics who attend Mass weekly, but have never come across the term "Quinquagesima Sunday": "Quinquagesima" is a Latin term that was used by almost all Catholics -- prior to the revision of the liturgical calendar in the late 1960s - - to refer to a certain Sunday before Lent. The revised calendar (now used by over 95% of Catholics) does not contain the term, "Quinquagesima." The term is used only by some schismatics (who are ex-Catholics) and by that tiny minority of Catholics who have permission to follow the old calendar.
-- (asdf@jkl.com), February 06, 2005.
On the revised calendar, this day is called "Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time" (year A, cycle 1). Oh the beauty of innovation!
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 07, 2005.
EPISTLE (I. Cor. XIII. 1-13.) Brethren, if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not; dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; is not ambitious; seeketh not her own; is not provoked to anger; thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part: but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.EXPLANATION In this epistle St. Paul speaks of the necessity, the excellence and the nature of true charity. He says that all natural and supernatural gifts, all good works, even martyrdom, cannot save us if we have not charity; because love alone can render our works pleasing to God. Without charity, therefore, though ever so many prayers be recited, fasts observed , and good deeds performed, nothing will be acceptable to God, or merit eternal life. Strive then, O Christian soul, to lead a pious life in love, and to remain always in the state of grace.
Can faith alone, as the so-called Reformers assert, render man just and save him?
Faith alone, however strong, though it could move mountains, without love, that is, without good works performed for love of God and our neighbor, can never justify or save us. For, when St. Paul says, that man is justified by faith without works, (Rom. III. 28.; XI: 6.; Eph. II. 8. 9.) he means to refer to those works which were performed by command of the law of Moses, and which, as they were external and without true charity, were of no avail; he did not refer to those works which are performed in a state of grace with a lively, love- inspired faith. Therefore the same Apostle writes to the Galatians: (Gal. V. 6.) Faith only availeth which worketh by charity; to Titus: (Tit. III. 8.) It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men; and he exhorts the Colossians (Colos. I. 10.) to be fruitful in every good work. St. James confirms the same by saying: (James II. 17- 24.) So faith if it have not works, is dead in itself; by works man is justified and not by faith only. That this is the true doctrine of Christ is evident from His own words, when He says: "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and shall be cast into the fire." (Matt. VII. 19.) At the day of judgment Christ will demand good works from all men, (Matt. XXV. 35.) and will not judge them only according to their faith, but by their good works, which true faith must always produce. (Apoc. XX. 12.) Would Christ and His apostles demand good works, if faith alone be sufficient? "The devil's also believe and tremble," (James II. 19.) they believe, but they are not saved, and their faith but increases their torments. Therefore, the assertion that faith without good works is sufficient for justification and salvation, is plainly against the doctrine of Christ and His Church, and must of necessity lead man to vice and misery, as shown by the history of the unhappy separation of the sixteenth century
Are good works available which are performed in the state of mortal sin ?
Good works performed while in a state of mortal sin avail nothing in regard to eternal life, writes St. Lawrence Justinian, but aid in moderating the punishment imposed for disobedience and the transgression of God's commandments. They bring temporal goods, such as honor, long life, health, earthly happiness, etc.; they prevent us from falling deeper into sin, and prepare the heart for the reception of grace; so the pious Person writes: "Do as much good as you can, even though in the state of mortal sin, that God may give light to your heart."
ASPIRATION O God of love, pour the spirit of true charity into my heart that, according to the spirit of St. Paul, I may endeavor to be always in a state of grace; that all my works may be pleasing to Thee, and meritorious for me.
GOSPEL (Luke XVIII. 31-43.) At that time, Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said to them Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man. For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and scourged, and spit upon; and after they have scourged him, they will put him to death; and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things, and this word was hid from them, and they understood not the things that were said. Now it came to pass, when he drew nigh to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way-side, begging. And when he heard the multitude passing by, he asked what this meant. And they told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he cried out, saying: Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. And they that went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace. But he cried out much more: Son of David, have mercy on me. And Jesus standing, commanded him to be brought unto him. And when he was come near, he asked him, saying: What wilt thou that I do to thee? But he said: Lord, that I may see. And Jesus said to him: Receive thy sight; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he saw, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.
Why did Christ so often foretell His passion to His disciples?
Because He wanted to show how great was His desire to suffer for us, for we speak often of that which we crave; and because He wished His disciples when they should see Him treated as a criminal and martyred, not to think evil of Him, or imagine themselves deceived, but remember that He had foretold all minutely that all happened of His own will.
Did not the disciples understand anything of what He predicted in regard to His future sufferings?
They may, certainly, have well understood He was to suffer, for which reason Peter tried to dissuade Him from it; (Matt. XVI. 22.) but they did not comprehend why or for what He would suffer, or how He would rise again. All this the Holy Ghost gave them to understand, after it had come to pass. (John XIV. 26.) The light of the Holy Ghost is of so much value, that without it even the clearest doctrines of faith are not understood.
Why does Christ so often call Himself the Son of Man?
He wished to show, in the Jewish way of speaking, He was also man, a descendant of Adam, and that we should be humble, and not seek or desire high titles.
Why did the blind man call Christ the Son of David?
Because, like all the Jews, he believed that the Messiah, according to humanity, would be of the house of David, as was promised. (Ps. CXXXI. 11.)
Why did Christ ask the blind man: What wilt thou that I do to thee?
This He asked, not because He was unaware of the blind man's wish, but to enable him the better to prove his faith and hope that through Christ he would receive his sight; and to teach us how willing He is to help us, and how it pleases Him if we confidingly place our wants before Him. We should learn from this blind man, who would not be restrained by the passing crowd in his ardent and reiterated request, not to pay attention, in the work we have commenced, to human respect, or human judgment, but to persevere, and not allow ourselves to be led astray by the world's mockery or contempt. We should also learn to be grateful to God, and faithfully cling to Him, if He has once opened the eyes of our mind, and healed our spiritual blindness, which is far more deplorable than physical blindness, for nothing can be more miserable than not to see and understand God, not to know what is necessary for our salvation, and what is pernicious.
Why is this gospel read on this Sunday?
The Church wishes to remind us of the painful passion and death of Jesus, and to move us by the contemplation of those mysteries to avoid and despise the wicked, heathenish amusements of carnival, sinful pleasures which she has always condemned, because they come from dark paganism, and, to avert the people from them, commands that during the three days of carnival the Blessed Sacrament shall be exposed for public adoration, sermons given, and the faithful exhorted to have recourse at this time to the Sacraments of Penance and the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, with the reception of which Pope Clement XIII. (Breve, 23. June 1765) connected a plenary indulgence. A true Catholic will conform to the desire of his holy Church, considering the words which St. Augustine spoke, at this time, to the faithful, "The heathens (as also the wordly people of our days) shout songs of love and merriment, but you should delight in the preaching of the word of God; they rush to the dramatic plays, but you should hasten to Church; they are intoxicated, but you should fast and be sober."
PRAYER O most benign Jesus! who didst so desire to suffer for us, grant, that we may willingly suffer for love of Thee; that we may hate and flee from the detestable pleasures of the world and the flesh, and practice penance and mortification, that by so doing we may merit to be released from our spiritual blindness to love Thee more and more ardently, and finally possess Thee forever.
-- jake (j@k.e), February 07, 2005.
Nick:
Quite the elitist:''On the revised calendar, this day is called Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time (year A, cycle 1). Oh the beauty of innovation,''
You don't approve? Maybe we should declare you the new Pontiff of Christ's people? Or you should write a book on the evils of innovation?
If the Church names it Ordinary Time, it's ordinary. It's good enough for God; because HE chooses the bishops.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.
Eugene, was the Church in error for almost 2,000 years when She called it Quinquagesima Sunday?Does renaming it actually change it in any way? If so, what did it change? And if not, then what was the point of renaming it?
On the other hand, maybe my thoughts don't really matter. After all, I'm probably just a member of "that tiny minority," and as such, insignificant. Who is the elitist?
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 07, 2005.
Isn't it elitism, having the gall to challenge the Holy Spirit and our Popes and prelates, about Calendar usage? The Church wasn't ''robbed'' of something *holy or indispensable* when her calendar underwent these revisions. It had nothing to do with ERROR or corrections. This is a figment of your inflated imaginations. You are not the protectors of the Catholic faith.The hierarchy of Christ's Holy Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. You may take it or leave it. The Church will continue in holiness with or without you. --I hope it can be WITH, if it pleases you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.
"The Church wasn't ''robbed'' of something *holy or indispensable* when her calendar underwent these revisions."No, just something beautiful. And for what?
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 07, 2005.
Your immortal soul is what God finds beautiful. Keep it from temptation to sin. You sin by defying the authority of the bishop. PERIOD.If you're moved by beauty, contemplate the most Sacred Heart of Jesus; and offer Him your acts of humility. Not pride, which moves you to question the Church herself.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.
"...pride, which moves you to question the Church herself."Nope. Pride has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's love and appreciation of Tradition. Love of our Holy Church as She has always been, and sadness at the thought that some people feel they have to change it.
And, I repeat, for WHAT? What have we gained?
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 07, 2005.
Yep, it's just pride. But ask away; what for?My love and appreciation of Tradition hasn't changed. Did you think you were the only one? Tradition is in the eye of the beholder.
The Creeds
The seven sacraments
The holy priesthood
Veneration of saints and Our Blessed Mother
The Gospel and Holy Scripture
Works of Charity
The Communion of Saints
Respect and obedience to our superiors in the hierarchy.
Trust in Christ's holy promises
Loyalty to the Pope and his bishops.
Faith in God.All of that means Tradition. We share in it all, we're all Traditional.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.
You haven't answered my question, and the reason is clear. You can't. So I'll answer it: We've gained nothing by renaming Quinquagesima.And you continue with the totally irrelevant "pride" thing, after I've explained to you that it isn't about pride. I suppose that's an easy accusation to make. You don't know me or anything about me. You think you have me all figured out, but you haven't. Maybe your pride won't let you see that.
You think we have no right to question the bishops? I'm sure Cardinal Law would agree with you.
Can I safely assume that you are as loyal to Archbishop Lefebvre as you are to any other bishop? Does your loyalty go back as far as Pius V?
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 07, 2005.
Please forgive me for speaking frankly to you. I see that you weren't interested in my opinion.Cardinal Law and any Cardinal can count on my loyalty. In answwer to your question here: NO, we do NOT have the ''right'' to question a pastor or bishop or Cardinal. If their actions are bad, we must remain silent and pray for them. We have to obey; as long as the Cardinal or bishop is in authority. We do not raise ourselves up to their status; only God can do anything about a poor prelate. THIS is Tradition. Not dissent and irritation because ''Quinquagesima'' hasn't been preserved. It doesn't mean a thing, unless God intervenes. If you believe He ought to intervene, feel free to get in God's face. Just get out of mine. You don't impress with your petty grievances.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 07, 2005.
Nick: Quite the elitist: ''On the revised calendar, this day is called Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time (year A, cycle 1). Oh the beauty of innovation,''You don't approve?
I called it beautiful, what more do you want?
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.
Did I ask for something? I only want to know if you approve? --Maybe NOT? Should YOU govern Christ's people? Or write books about the evils of innovation? When have I declared the Latin Rite had anything wrong with it? Or the previous Calendar of the Church?I can concede our bishops their authority to revise it all. Even the beauty of QUINQUAGESIMA SUNDAY, & purple vestments, with our great nostalgia for that old splendor. If it seems right to the Holy Spirit. Because I believe in the Holy Spirit, and in the Catholic Church. Why don't you?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.
"Because I believe in the Holy Spirit..."Can you elaborate as to exactly what you mean when you say this?
"Why don't you?"
Could be very specific as to how Nick doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit?
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 08, 2005.
I'll elaborate in context what is meant by ''I believe in the Holy Spirit.''The proper context is: ''I can concede our bishops their authority to revise it all.'' Since they act under His authority. Not by mens' authority to reform or revise a liturgical calendar, or whatever else. The Church doesn't require the input of Emerald or Eugene or Nick to continue or to suspend any practice or custom or discipline.
In order to be VERY specific, ''very specific as to how Nick doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit--'' Doesn't he?
My full context is, ''I can concede our bishops their authority,'' since the Holy Spirit guided our Councils. If YOU or Nick don't concede such authority, perhaps you have no respect for the Holy Spirit. I asked: Why don't you?
Let's be very, very specific. Just say you believe and say you can concede that authority to the bishops.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.
"I'll elaborate in context what is meant by ''I believe in the Holy Spirit.'' The proper context is: ''I can concede our bishops their authority to revise it all.'' Since they act under His authority."By no means would I ever doubt that the bishops do in fact have the authority to revise that which is revisable. After all, they have the Holy Orders, yeah? They do. And this is intrinsic to our Catholic Faith.
What remains unaddressed: the assumption that all changes made to the liturgy, even under the auspices of this real and valid authority, were actually made under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
This does not follow. Theologically, it simply does not follow.
"Not by mens' authority to reform or revise a liturgical calendar, or whatever else."
Of course not.
"The Church doesn't require the input of Emerald or Eugene or Nick to continue or to suspend any practice or custom or discipline."
That is absolutely correct.
"In order to be VERY specific, ''very specific as to how Nick doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit--'' Doesn't he?
I don't know.
"My full context is, ''I can concede our bishops their authority,'' since the Holy Spirit guided our Councils."
The statement "the Holy Spirit guided our Councils" to loosely stated enough such that many people can pull many different interpretations of this statement, many of which cannot square with authentic Catholic dogma and practice.
"If YOU or Nick don't concede such authority, perhaps you have no respect for the Holy Spirit. I asked: Why don't you?"
I do concede to the existence of such an authority. While I cannot speak for Nick, I would suppose he would admit the same.
"Let's be very, very specific."
Let's.
"Just say you believe and say you can concede that authority to the bishops."
I do.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 08, 2005.
I concede to html.
-- (em@cox.nett), February 08, 2005.
What remains unaddressed: the assumption that all changes made to the liturgy, even under the auspices of this real and valid authority, were actually made under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.----------------------What ''assumption''--????
They are made; not by inspiration, but with the Holy Spirit's tacit agreement. The many reforms haven't pleased everybody. But they don't have to if valid authority wasn't overstepped. And we can assume rightly that it wasn't.
Whatever we might think of ''tacit agreement'' on the part of God, it's not so dubious we cannot acknowledge it with humility. It's a lot more dubious that now, somebody unauthorized to judge can determine, ''This does not follow. --Theologically, it simply does not follow.'' Because it DOES follow, unless you deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in our Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.
"They are made; not by inspiration, but with the Holy Spirit's tacit agreement."Is that the same as Holy Ghost's approval in the positive?
"The many reforms haven't pleased everybody."
They've pleased most people it seems.
"But they don't have to if valid authority wasn't overstepped. And we can assume rightly that it wasn't."
Do you recall in the Old Testament when God granted the Israelites the kings which they were desiring?
"Whatever we might think of ''tacit agreement'' on the part of God, it's not so dubious we cannot acknowledge it with humility. It's a lot more dubious that now, somebody unauthorized to judge can determine, ''This does not follow. --Theologically, it simply does not follow.''"
What you said actually did not follow. Nor was what you said something that was taught by any of the reforms. Point being, it is a conclusion of your own making. In all honesty. The assumption, that is, that all which has happened has been under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Now we can certainly say that He allowed it to happen, because it did happen. That much is clear. But to posit that all that has happened is a direct product of His inspiration: you're on your own recognizance on this item.
"Because it DOES follow, unless you deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in our Church."
It does not follow.
The Holy Ghost is active.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 08, 2005.
NO, we do NOT have the ''right'' to question a pastor or bishop or Cardinal. If their actions are bad, we must remain silent and pray for them.St. Thomas would not agree with you:
"When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects."
We have to obey; as long as the Cardinal or bishop is in authority.
Only as long as it is not harmful to and/or contradict the faith.
It doesn't mean a thing, unless God intervenes.
So if there's no lightning strike, does that mean God approves?
You are not the protectors of the Catholic faith.
We are all called to protect the faith. It is a duty of every Catholic.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 08, 2005.
If you feel competent to correct your bishop, Isbel; by all means go for it. I'll get out of your way, I'm not a devil's advocate like you.As for Emeralds's great contributions here, we can only hope he knows what he's talking about. If he knows, more power to him, he is better than a mere Catholic, he's Jesus speaking. (He doesn't know.)
I've been patient with him, and he agreed the authority for Oh so many changes is with the bishops. I'm thankful for that crumb Emerald tossed me. AT LAST! But he's made me too tired to hang around waiting for another crumb, so--- Ciao ! ! !
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.
Hey Isabel, good to see a post from you. I'm gone for the next six weeks.lamentabili at sbcglobal dot net.
God bless, Gene.
-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 09, 2005.
St. Thomas would not agree with you:"When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects."
We haven't been arguing over prelates who attack the Catholic Faith, Isobel. Only a reform in the Calendar, allowed by trust-worthy Catholic bishops. Why are we calling that ''an imminent danger for the Faith'' --and how does Saint Thomas view trust-worthy prelates? As my enemies? Or the enemies of the Faith?
You instruct us, thusly:
''We are all called to protect the faith. It is a duty of every Catholic.'' ----------------- I feel I'm doing that every day right here; both against non-Catholic bashers and against supercilious Catholic demagogues. --So, whatever you might believe, I can assure you of this:
NO, There is no ''right'' in the Church, given us to instruct, assail or malign ANY prelate. In some circumstances that becomes unavoidable. They're exceptions to the rule. Even then; we don't exercise a RIGHT. As you well put it, we may have a duty. I agree as far as that extreme. Otherwise it's a SIN to rebel against the clergy of our mother Church. --A SIN.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.
Eugene,Would you please explain how having a preference for tradition Catholic ways is equivalent to an act of rebellion?
(And you can drop the name-calling, if you don't mind. Anyone can do the same to you, with your own "supercilious" just for starters.)
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 09, 2005.
You have a preference for Tradition? But I love Catholic Tradition too.The Creeds
The seven sacraments
The holy priesthood
Veneration of saints, Our Blessed Mother
The Gospel and Holy Scripture
Works of Charity
The Communion of Saints
Respect/Obedience to superiors in the Catholic hierarchy.
Trust in Christ's holy promises, and in Sacred Tradition.
Loyalty to the Pope and his bishops; Love for Holy Mother Church
Faith in God, the action of Grace, PenanceWhat exactly does your ''preference for Tradition'' mean. that mine doesn't mean?
To contradict ordained bishops and prelates of the Church is rebellious & disloyal. To find fault with a bishop isn't so; but to disobey or defame him IS.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.
" What exactly does your ''preference for Tradition'' mean. that mine doesn't mean?"Well, here's a hint: What are we discussing?
We're talking about the new term "Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time" as opposed to the traditional term "Quinquagesima Sunday."
And I fail to see any rebellion in thinking that the traditional term was much nicer, more beautiful. Nor can I see any rebellion in feeling a bit sad that the change was made, in wondering why the change was made, or in being unable to find any improvement or advantage in the change.
Other traditions that I love are the Mass in Latin, Communion rails, fish on Friday (EVERY Friday, not just Lent), St Michael prayer after Mass, women covering their heads in church (btw, the Vatican never changed that), beautiful liturgical vestments, incense (yeah, some still use it, but some don't), etc.
In short, I love ALL the traditions. I'm not a salad bar Catholic.
And satan has never been able to convince me that the words "change" and "improvement" are synonyms!
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 09, 2005.
Dear ''Tiny''
Why not say to me, ''You don't love Jesus Christ and His Church as much as we do. Instead of hitching posts you have a parking lot outside your parish church.''I'd reply; ''Just keep on going to Mass faithfully. I certainly do love Jesus and his Holy Church, Tiny. That's why I assist at Mass, with my car parked outside.'' As for ''feeling sad'' about too many changes; no. It's not rebellion. But when you say: ''You think we have no right to question the bishops? I'm sure Cardinal Law would agree with you.''
You imply the very worst. That bishops can be disobeyed. Because we ''have rights'' as Catholics. That Cardinal Law is your idea of what a bishop is; and you have a right to defame his leadership. That's not feeling sad; it's feeling outrage at a priest. Worse; you feel you are his equal. Or, Why should he be allowed by God to stay a Cardinal and govern Catholics?
I feel the opposite. Which way is the more Traditional? When a priest is in the room, I stand up. I respect him, even if he's not my ideal of a priest. My house is his. My loyalty is his, I'm not his equal; he is called by God, not ME. He's a commander. I'm the troops. We both obey a higher authority.
If something happens and I feel sad, I will persevere. Jesus Christ went to sleep sad many evenings. I partake with HIM in all that's good and all our sadness. We're commanded by Him to carry our crosses and follow him. Not because they're ''much nicer, more beautiful.'' Getting ''SAD'' about passing things in this life trivializes so many martyrs who loved God enough to give their lives up for Him.
When we've changed the cross you can rebel, Tiny. Quinquagesima Sunday is no cross. Nor is Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 09, 2005.
Tiny, “fish on Friday” was purely a cultural tradition. The Church never commanded anyone to eat fish, only to abstain from meat on certain days. And “the Vatican never changed” any requirement for women to cover their heads in church because there had never been any such requirement in church law in the first place. Yes, it was another cultural tradition. All women used to wear skirts or dresses in those days too. Now most of them wear pantsuits. All men used to have "short back and sides" haircuts. Get over it, it’s got nothing to do with the Tradition of the Church.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 09, 2005.
We haven't been arguing over prelates who attack the Catholic Faith, Isobel. Only a reform in the Calendar,I'm quite aware of that. But you said, "If their actions are bad, we must remain silent and pray for them." You made it sound as if we were never allowed to rebuke their actions. I was clarifying the fact that we are, and that at times we should, lest someone should be swayed into thinking they can never open their mouth.
Why are we calling that ''an imminent danger for the Faith''
I wasn't. Once again, just clarifying what you said.
NO, There is no ''right'' in the Church, given us to instruct, assail or malign ANY prelate.
I agree. Thank goodness I never said that.
-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), February 10, 2005.
Steve,I didn't say "Tradition," I said "traditions." As in "customs." Get it?
(BTW, "fish on Friday" was a reference to abstinence. That's how we used to refer to it when there were Protestants around, so they'd know what we were talking about. And veiling? It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262. The 1983 Code of Canon Law doesn't address the issue, so technically it still stands. But we need change, so we can feel "progressive" and, therefore, superior to our ancestors.)
Eugene,
I didn't want to get into this, but you leave me with no choice:
My nick, "Tiny" is a slightly sarcastic reference to the fact that the "tiny minority" isn't as "tiny" as some people obviously wish it were. Many Catholics recognize the abuses that are going on and we know who's behind them. It's not the bishops. The Bible tells us that God will allow satan into the Church, even to lead the elect astray. How will he do it? Here's a hint: Little changes pave the way for big ones. Get the faithful used to the idea that change is good, and then...
A while back, we started saying "Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time" instead of "Quinquagesima Sunday" and "Annointing of the Sick" instead of "Extreme Unction." Now we have women holding special worship services to Gaia during Mass, with their priests' permission. (Little changes pave the way for big ones.)
It's not about going to Church in a horse-drawn wagon vs a car. It's about being on guard. Changing terminology may seem harmless, but what will be changed next?
And regarding so-called "disobedience," we already have the permission and approval of our bishop to preserve our traditions here in NYC. Some other bishops in other cities might not allow it (why not? I can't fathom it), but Cardinal Egan, God bless him, approves of it and encourages us.
True story:
Last year, my boss asked Cardinal Egan to bless a few rosaries, and His Eminence said, "You know, it's a good thing you brought them to me; there's a lot of 'modernism' in the Church now. A lot of priests these days refuse to bless rosaries. Some don't even know how."
My boss said, "Wow. That's pretty sad!"
And the Cardinal answered, "Yes, it's extremely sad."
If my bishop can think that this whole modernistic approach is sad, so can I. And there goes your whole "disobedience" argument, my friend. Peace.
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 10, 2005.
Tiny said: And I fail to see any rebellion in thinking that the traditional term was much nicer, more beautiful. Nor can I see any rebellion in feeling a bit sad that the change was made, in wondering why the change was made, or in being unable to find any improvement or advantage in the change.
Eugene supplied us with a good list (twice): The Creeds, The seven sacraments, The holy priesthood, Veneration of saints and Our Blessed Mother, The Gospel and Holy Scripture, Works of Charity, The Communion of Saints, Respect and obedience to our superiors in the hierarchy, Trust in Christ's holy promises, Loyalty to the Pope and his bishops, Faith in God.
The first two things on Eugene's list didn't escape the "if it ain't broken, fix it anyway" syndrome:
1)Why did "credo" become "We believe" instead of "I believe"? Why did "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost" become "By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born"? Was there any improvement in replacing a beautiful word like incarnate? Do we understand it better now?
2) Why did extreme unction become anointing of the sick? Was this just a name change? Why did confession become reconciliation? (I've noticed that few people actually say, "I'm going to the reconciliation room" anymore. Most people have retained the more traditional terminology).
Back to the ...esima Sundays, is it really just a name change, or is it a more substantial change? Instead of a pre-Lenten season, we now just have "ordinary" Sundays.
There will be those who protest that changing names of things or tinkering with a few words here and there is nothing, and that those who prefer the old are in open rebellion. I'll be accused by Eugene again of thinking I should be the pope. Do I believe bishops and popes have the right to make these changes? Of course. But as Tiny said, it's not rebellion to ask why. It's not being elite" to prefer the time-tested. Why was there such a need to replace so many distinctly Catholic words with such blandness? The protestant "reformers" understood very well that changing terminology, even slightly, could in the long run change the way people believe.
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 10, 2005.
Sorry Tiny. I must have been typing while you posted, and I repeated some of what you said. You said it better.
-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), February 10, 2005.
Dear Tiny:
Your distress is not entirely without cause. There's a great need for stronger leaders and holier priests today than there was a century ago. But anybody who's read Catholic literature knows this has been true over many centuries, and will always hold true. It's a big Wheel of Fortune. First the wheel rises to it's apogee; then descends to the bottom; seemingly to ruin. Only it starts up again, relentlessly. That's the Church. You would do better to separate the decay of society from the Church's trajectory. --I think you're equating the two.I find your statement a bit over-heated: ''Many Catholics recognize the abuses that are going on'' ---------ABUSES? ''--and we know who's behind them. It's not the bishops.'' -----------But you keep blaming the clergy.
''The Bible tells us that God will allow satan into the Church,'' ------THAT ISN'T SO. The Bible never stated that at all.--
''. . . even to lead the elect astray. --How will he do it?''
The elect ''would be'' led astry, Tiny; by many great wonders which Anti-Christ (We know that isn't Satan,) has to work in this world; everywhere. Immense power, great victories and miracles; However-- NOT in the Catholic Church. You'd better read that Bible again. The quote marks around would be-- are to tell you this will NOT occur; because before that occurs Christ's return to this world takes place. His second advent prevents the fall of the elect; who are, I personally think-- all the Catholic faithful. (That's stuff for another thread, a long one.) No-- Satan is never going to come ''into'' the Catholic Church to lead us astray. That is a fabrication that's been circulating over some 50 years; stirred to a big tizzy by a few ''apparitions'' or ''visionary prophesy'' or fanatical conjurers within our Church. Visions that purport to signal the end. Questionable apparitions and prophesies the Church supresses without much sucess, because some supporters claim: ''Satan is taking over the Vatican.'' It's always that big lie. If a Big Lie is repeated endlessly, foolish folks begin to repeat it too. It becomes the truth.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.
Dear Nick,
A little attention to your attacks on the Church:1)Why did "credo" become "We believe" instead of "I believe"? -----Why did "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost" become "By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born"? ---------------Was there any improvement in replacing a beautiful word like incarnate? ------- ----------Do we understand it better now? 2) Why did extreme unction become anointing of the sick? Was this just a name change?
Why did confession become reconciliation? (I've noticed that few people actually say, "I'm going to the reconciliation room" anymore. Most people have retained the more traditional terminology).
------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Credo is I believe; and it means exactly what WE believe means-- Our Faith. We believe makes OUR profession of faith the faith of a Body, the Church. I call that a marvellous change. We worship God through Jesus Christ as His Mystical Body-- He's not worshipped by us as a ''Personal Saviour'' the way many good protestants worship-- (who are NOT in one body, but many sects.) I should think this would please you, Nick. Since protestants tick you off ? ? ?
"was incarnate by the Holy Ghost" [now] --"By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born and became Man"? ---------------Was there any improvement in replacing a beautiful word like incarnate? ------------ Absolutely, this is an excellent change. ''Became Man''--is the operating premise. Incarnated only means He took flesh. It's an abstract idea; stemmed from the doctrine called the Incarnation. But ''made Man'' is definitely better suited to the Creed. It's LANGUAGE, not abstraction.
Extreme Unction was incomplete terminology; the change to Annointing of the Sick is completely apropos. --Extreme comes from in extremis, or nearly DEAD. Used to be called Last Rites. Annointing of the Sick is more proper. This is annointing which by GRACE can bring healing. You should be glad to see this clarified, it's the strictly biblical application of that sacrament.
''--confession become reconciliation? (I've noticed that few people actually say, "I'm going to the reconciliation room" anymore. Most people have retained the more traditional terminology).'' So? That's an irrelevant observation. We confess: is that better than we are reconciled? Of course not. It's frankly a change intended to bring non-Catholics home (ecumenical) and what could be more productive? ''Confession'' for all its great values, is a dreadful thing for outsiders to contemplate. Like a courtroom, and to another man!
Reconciliation accomplishes what is most charitable about Jesus Christ's people; LOVE. Not accusations and shame. Sure we confess. But we feel shame too. Why pound it into souls who have come to repent? Let them come and be reconciled. It's every bit as Traditional and Catholic.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to fortify YOU in your faith, Tiny. ---------- -Are you a boy or a girl? I've wondered; because if it's a Lady, then I don't want to be so abrasive. You know, they say I'm cruel and all that. But really, I'm not. I get on fire sometimes is all; with the Holy Spirit! YEAH !!! --Praise God for it! (Some people don't like it, --But there it is.)
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.
Nick: No problem. Better to say it twice than not at all!"The protestant "reformers" understood very well that changing terminology, even slightly, could in the long run change the way people believe."
Exactly. It's very subtle, very clever, and it works. (And I'm sure you know who is the most subtle and clever of all!)
Eugene:
1.) If worshiping Gaia during Mass is not an abuse, then what is?
2.) If that sort of thing doesn't come from satan, then from whom? From the Holy Spirit? Impossible!
3.) Who will be more easily led astray: those who have a firm grip on God's Truth, or those who have been confused by these last 40 years of changes, and will accept a heresy from satan (or the anti-Christ) as just another harmless little change, because they won't know a lie when they hear it?
You say that those who are led astray won't be Catholics? I'm not so sure. The vast majority of Catholics that I've met don't know much about their own faith, especially younger ones. This is not just because it's unfashionable and non-pc to be Catholic these days, but also because these people aren't being taught their faith correctly by their own Church anymore (not in every diocese, but some). Another "little" change.
By the way, Eugene, I sincerely hope that you are right. I am hanging onto your first paragraph, so I can be a proponent of the wheel's next upswing.
Again, Peace.
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 10, 2005.
Eugene,You posted while I was typing.
Answer to your question: Boy. Oooold boy.
Don't apologize for speaking your mind. So many people are afraid to these days.
BTW, I like you. I don't think you're cruel or abrasive. (Okay, maybe just a little abrasive.)
-- Tiny (getting@bigger.com), February 10, 2005.
Thanks, Tiny.
You posed these objections:Eugene: ''--If worshipping Gaia during Mass is not an abuse, then what is?
--If that sort of thing doesn't come from satan, then from whom? From the Holy Spirit? Impossible!
-------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Permit me to give you the correct and most honest answer. To ''Gaiea''-- it's simple. I don't believe that's happening. Period. You got that from a crackpot. You will never substantiate it, and no bishop will ever support your claim.
To the 2nd leg of your problem: It wasn't the Holy Spirit, for sure. He protects the Catholic Church. You leave me with some doubt about your faith in Him. WHY?
Satan isn't welcome in our celebration of Holy Mass, Tiny. Here you come insinuating Satan takes part in Catholic Eucharistic celebrations, inviting us to ''worship Gaiea''-! ! ! give me a break! I'm not that stupid. ''Exactly. It's very subtle, very clever, and it works. (And I'm sure you know who is the most subtle and clever of all!) --'' If this is your idea of ''subtle'' you ought to be worshipping Gaiea. She's right up your alley; You're nuts! Lol!!!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 10, 2005.
Tiny,Greetings! Refreshing...
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 10, 2005.