Catholic News Service reports.
CWNews reports. (Warning! Subscriber access requirement!)
Apostolic Exhortation!
One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary
What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let’s be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed “pre-conciliar” and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything “post-conciliar.”
Further, not all “traditionalists” take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream —- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council — not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.
As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.
Aleuia!
How do the young folks say it?
B16 is THE BOMB!
“From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church’s history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety.”
Bravo, B16!
My thoughts:
YEEEEHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or is that an incorrect reaction?
I’ve got to admit — although I LOVE JP II
B16 is an absolute MOZART when it comes to writing!
Ok, perhaps I’m not the sharpest stick in the bunch, but what does all this mean? I read the full article at the other end of the Catholic News Service reports link, and it really didn’t say that much that seemed all that different from what the Church usually teaches.
– “The celebration and worship of the Eucharist enable us to draw near to God’s love and to persevere in that love”
– “The institution of the Eucharist demonstrates how Jesus’ death, for all its violence and absurdity, became in him a supreme act of love and mankind’s definitive deliverance from evil”
– “Celebrating the Eucharist, he said, ‘the church is able to celebrate and adore the mystery of Christ’ who is present in the bread and wine through the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Ok, maybe that much was just setting the tone for the rest of the document, or maybe it was for the uninformed, but that’s pretty much what I’ve known about the Eucharist already.
He doesn’t seem to be proposing any kind of radical change to the Mass, and certainly doesn’t seem to be making any kind of binding decisions.
He encouraged wider use of Latin and Gregorian chant. He endorsed a suggestion that Latin be used in international congregations. He encouraged an examination of the order and timing of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist. He suggested and called for several other items, but it wasn’t all that revolutionary looking to me.
Granted I didn’t read all of Sacramentum Caritatis, but really, what’s the big deal? Why the Alleluia? Why is B16 the bomb? I don’t mean to sound like I’m scoffing at the words of the Pope. I’m sincerely asking for an explanation, because I seem to be missing something. There’s been a lot of speculation about a big Papal announcement, and what it would mean for the Latin Mass, and the Mass in general. I saw Jimmy’s links-only post and thought “this is it!”. I was very disappointed…
Granted I didn’t read all of Sacramentum Caritatis
Did you read any of it at all except from the few excerpts featured in the various articles that Jimmy posted links to?
This reminds me of the other thread —
These days, to some people, reading a few excerpts from a book constitutes reading the actual book itself!
This is the same thing that’s been going on with the Vatican II Nay-sayers —
They don’t even take the time to actually read the 16 Vatican II documents and what it actually taught; yet, they come forth stating some outrageous things about it — like the one about Vatican II actually having established the hand-holding during the Our Father at Mass as well as the eradication of kneelers!
Beau;
I’m with you. I saw nothing different. No earth shaking news. Very simple recommendations with no teeth. “More Latin would be nice and I recommend it.” “The Tabernacle should be more central and visible, that would be nice too.”
He gives all the wriggle room necessary to do nothing, or worst to give words to those who wish to justify their typical liturgical abuses.
I’m very disappointed. I’m sure I won’t be alone.
Sounds like Esau is volunteering to rehash what the document says for those of us who don’t have the time to read it. 😉
Esau –
As a matter of fact, I did not read any of Sacramentum Caritatis. Sorry – I re-read my post, and my statement was ambiguous. I’m sorry if my post offended you or anyone else – I’m at work presently and didn’t have time to read and analyze a 131 page document on my lunch hour. My question is sincere though – what’s it all about? Why is it so exciting?
I assumed that Jimmy’s other links would be relevant synopsis of the document. Perhaps I’m wrong? Your response to my post was mere spleen-venting. If you have had the time to read the whole document, perhaps you could be kind enough to explain why it’s such a big deal. If you don’t have anything constructive to say, kindly keep your sarcastic responses to yourself.
Sounds like Esau is volunteering to rehash what the document says for those of us who don’t have the time to read it. 😉
Not at all —
You need to keep in mind that it is, after all, an Apostolic Exhortation.
But just because that is the case doesn’t necessarily mean that it carries any less meaning or significance.
After all, it does come from the Successor of St. Peter and, as such, deserve respect in that regard.
However, with B16, it’s of even greater import, at least to me, as he has a keen theological understanding, which I very much admire.
To simply dismiss this work of his as merely a redundant teaching of the Church is to ignore the subtle aspects of Catholic theology and the reality that most folks don’t even begin to grasp!
“Celebrating the Eucharist, he said, ‘the church is able to celebrate and adore the mystery of Christ’ who is present in the bread and wine through the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Whoops! “In” the bread and wine? That’s not true, and it’s not what the Pope wrote either.
Whoops! “In” the bread and wine? That’s not true, and it’s not what the Pope wrote either.
Excellent example, Mr. Potter!
I know! Like really!
The ‘cliff notes’ version here (as you’ve remarkably pointed out) very much fails in doing justice to the actual substance present in the Exhortation.
Sir,
Martin Luther said about the distruction of the Church is that”Tolle Missam Tolle Eclessiam’, it is actually happened at the involvement 5 Protestant fellows.The sacramentum caritatis is not enough, the tradition of the church and the Pope V Mass should be implimented with all forms.
AVE MARIA .
By the way, Beau, don’t be discouraged upon hearing it’s a 131-page document.
I did a print preview and it only comes to around 60 pages. Mind you, pages of that is merely the Index and footnotes.
I think the version these folks have is one with all the formal ‘fluff’, decoration and the like, which made it a 131-page document.
Jordan, Esau –
Very good point about the quote I put in my original post. It was copied/pasted from the article, with the exception that I put single tics around the Pope’s words instead of double tics. The article quoted the pope as saying, “the church is able to celebrate and adore the mystery of Christ”. The author of that article (not the Pope) wrote “who is present in the bread and wine through the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Our Lord is not IN the bread and wine, he IS the bread and wine.
Also, I do not mean to make light of the document or the Pope’s words in general. The fact that he wrote it as the Successor of St. Peter makes it significant, and lends his suggestions, encouragements, and endorsements a special weight. What I’m still trying to understand is: Why is this document so important beyond the fact that it was written by the Pope? It seems to me from reading the cliff’s notes (an accurate description) that he’s not saying anything new, nor giving any concrete direction.
I’ll have to read the full document tonight. Hopefully I’ll get it at that point.
Amy at the Open Book blog has an extensive summarized take on the Exhortation.
The pope in his exhortation obviously “exhorts” the faithful to do certain things but, at the risk of sounding sceptical, about 70% of the American Catholic Bishops will just ignore the fact that it was even written. Until the Church cleanses itself of the homosexuals in positions of leadership there will be a continuing substantial resistance to deep liturical reverence and devotions.
Esau –
Thanks for the update on the actual size of the document. 60 pages is a lot easier to tackle than 131 in a single evening.
I agree with Esau, the exhortation needs to be read in it’s entirety, and not just picked at for uncovering new restrictions or regulations. And I see all of Pope Benedict’s exhortations and writings as sort of a spiritual ‘clutch’, which is trying to engage the world, but does so in a skillful way which is smooth, forceful and ‘unjerky’.
So, some might complain: “Where are the condemnations? Where is the line drawn distinguishing the ‘heretics’ from the ‘faithful’?”..and such! But Pope Benedict doesn’t want to draw this line, he rather tries to coax those men “of little faith’.. even as Jesus did on so many occasions!
And so I think this is all part of the Master plan, ‘the Reform of the Reform’ so talked about in the last couple of years. But it seems that it will be a smooth reform, with no great or shocking earthquakes, new inquisitions or multitudes of papal condemnations. I think Pope B16 is appealing to the free will and heart of the Faithful, and reminding all of us of our essential unity…which if we indeed forgot we had unity(which highly seems to be the case in the present Chruch)…we can now be reminded that it is to be found in one distinguished place….The Sacrament of Love, The Holy Eucharist!
Mr. Benziger:
Core to the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church is strict adherence to the AUTHORITY of the Pope & the Council of Bishops.
How can I even claim to abide by Traditional Church Teachings if I have, in fact, arbitrarily substituted my own authority over that of the Church, which Christ Himself gave to the Pope & the Council of Bishops? How exactly am I unlike Martin Luther if I do the very thing he had done in the past?
Thanks for the update on the actual size of the document. 60 pages is a lot easier to tackle than 131 in a single evening.
No problem, Beau!
I can empathize!
I mean, with JP II (although I LOVE and ADMIRE the guy), his writings could come off so verbose at times, it becomes quite difficult to manage with all the pages of his writing in terms of his encyclicals.
I hope you do end up reading it.
Although you might not find the theological aspects of it as fascinating and compelling as I do, I hope you might find some value in its reading as I have in mine.
God bless!
Verbose is not the right word.
Dense is better. He used a spiral-like presentation style that would:
state-expand-restate
(move to next point)
state-expand-restate
…an like so, onward and upward so that no stone in his logical presentation was unturned and no statement could be easily taken out of context. It certainly flowed from his philosophy-teaching background but no doubt was influenced by the care he had to take while writing and preaching under the watchful eyes of the communists. The more we learn about how focused they were on him, the clearer it becomes that JPII was under Mary’s special protection and guidance from day one.
The best “take” so far is on Fr. Z’s blog, http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/
As of this writing, his blog has been suspended – probably due to excessive bandwidth usage. (His blog really is that good.)
Caine —
Thanks for the clarification on JP II’s style.
Although, I’ve got to admit, ever since I read the writings from Cardinal Ratzinger, he seems to make many magnificent and profound points all in terse language.
I very much enjoy his writing style as compared with JP II’s.
The one work of JP II that I actually found excellent as well as concise was his Crossing the Threshold of Hope, which to me carried much meaning personally.
Esau is 100% correct. This document should be read in its entrirety. As I was reading it I wanted to run to Church and be in the Lord’s Presence.
Lot’s of nice words but not likely to change anything in practice. Perhaps Pope Benedict is too old and too mild mannered to bring the Church the discipline among its clergy that it needs. We continue wandering in the desert.
Paul Zummo:
Esau is 100% correct. This document should be read in its entrirety. As I was reading it I wanted to run to Church and be in the Lord’s Presence.
Tell me about it!
I wished I was in Church doing Eucharistic Adoration!
Michael:
Perhaps Pope Benedict is too old and too mild mannered to bring the Church the discipline among its clergy that it needs.
Do you know the phrase (I think it goes): ‘You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar’?
If B16 didn’t introduce a ‘reform of the reform’ in ‘baby steps’ and, instead, were to act the ‘heavy-handed’ dictator, just how many people would he be able to influence then?
Most likely, he’d be encouraging revolt rather than reform.
He has to win them through a Spirit of Peace, not violence.
Esau,
I do not doubt the Pope’s intentions or even his erudition but this simply more of the same honey which has failed to attract. If a reform of the reform is what is needed I cannot help but believe this exhortation is a lost opportunity. The devout will read it and may even rejoice that it states what they believe but without concrete goals and disciplinary means to back it up, the Mahoneys of the world simply claim they have already implemented everything in the document and the abuses will continue. Life is short and perhaps all we can hope is to offer our suffering up for our and others sanctification. The greater hope that Benedict’s pontificate might start to turn the corner on the Universal Church’s sorry state seems to remain unfulfilled.
Esau,
Crossing the Threshold of Hope was an interview – that’s why it read better. I think the other books in that vein (esp. Rise, Let us be on our way have the same voice – a personal narrative style. Now those Theology of the Body catecheses…??? Those be stuff of a different gravity! I would compare them to the condition of the universe prior to the Big Bang: infinitely small compared to the dense matter and tremendous potential energy stored within.
B16 (and his counterpart Pre-16) really writes more like that sort of teacher who is still on fire with the love of his subject matter, and who’s not afraid to express the poetic levels of his personal investment in the material. I agree that this is engaging and catchy (like a virus), but his honest forays also makes him vulnerable to being mis-construed or purposefully taken out of context more often than JPII (see Regensberg incident). I can’t wait for Jesus of Nazereth to come out, but there’s a good chance there’ll be something in there goofballs will be able to take and run with. The Pope sort of accepted that as a possibility and referenced it by saying that it was a work of “personal” exploration.
I’m not criticizing his style, though. It is THE epitome of the “spirit of Vatican II”, and anyone that wants to have at him can bring it on!
Lot’s of nice words but not likely to change anything in practice. Perhaps Pope Benedict is too old and too mild mannered to bring the Church the discipline among its clergy that it needs. We continue wandering in the desert.
The holy spirit gave us B16. I don’t think that He was being careless when He did.
Crossing the Threshold of Hope was an interview – that’s why it read better..
Actually, that was part of my little inside joke that I think you, by your comment here, missed in my previous comment:
The one work of JP II that I actually found excellent as well as concise was his Crossing the Threshold of Hope…
… his honest forays also makes him vulnerable to being mis-construed or purposefully taken out of context more often than JPII (see Regensberg incident).
It’s his intellectual style that some do not account for when engaging his writings and simply dismiss his references as obscure. I do admit there is an academic quality at times to his writing as well; however, for the most part, there’s a lot of ‘meat’ to it.
One cannot really ignore the profundity that’s evident in most his writings.
For example, one thing he states in his Exhortation:
The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his selfgiving.” (21) Jesus “draws us into himself.” (22) The substantial conversion of bread and wine into his body and blood introduces within creation the principle of a radical change, a sort of “nuclear fission,” to use an image familiar to us today, which penetrates to the heart of all being, a change meant to set off a process which transforms reality, a process leading ultimately to the transfiguration of the entire world, to the point where God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28).
This very much reminds me of a similar profound statement he made at World Youth Day 2005 where he explored this thought even further:
What is happening? How can Jesus distribute his Body and his Blood? By making the bread into his Body and the wine into his Blood, he anticipates his death, he accepts it in his heart and he transforms it into an action of love. What on the outside is simply brutal violence, from within becomes an act of total self-giving love. This is the substantial transformation which was accomplished at the Last Supper and was destined to set in motion a series of transformations leading ultimately to the transformation of the world when God will be all in all (cf. 1 Cor 15:28). In their hearts, people always and everywhere have somehow expected a change, a transformation of the world. Here now is the central act of transformation that alone can truly renew the world: violence is transformed into love, and death into life. Since this act transmutes death into love, death as such is already conquered from within, the resurrection is already present in it. Death is, so to speak, mortally wounded, so that it can no longer have the last word. To use an image well known to us today, this is like inducing nuclear fission in the very heart of being – the victory of love over hatred, the victory of love over death. Only this intimate explosion of good conquering evil can then trigger off the series of transformations that little by little will change the world. All other changes remain superficial and cannot save. For this reason we speak of redemption: what had to happen at the most intimate level has indeed happened, and we can enter into its dynamic. Jesus can distribute his Body, because he truly gives himself.”
I think that quantum entanglement might be a better analogy than nuclear fission – unless we are going to use lead altar screens 😉 😉 But I have no authorization to teach at such a level.
Diogenes is wrong.
The document does mention that Catholic politicians must oppose homosexual marriage, just not in those words. It’s in paragraph 83.
Hey look its the man from RCB!
Granted, I’ve only skimmed it, but I really, really, really like the phrase “eucharistic culture” and how he aligns all aspects of life to the Eucharist.
“I think that quantum entanglement might be a better analogy than nuclear fission”
I really had to think about that one too! I kind of thought ‘fusion’ made more sense! However, I’ll need to do a much more thoughtful analysis of that ‘nuclear fission’ analogy when I have the time. But if anyone understands it well and can explain it somewhat, I’d be glad to listen!
I’ve got to admit that I never thought I would see the term “nuclear fission” used in a Vatican document (except perhaps one on nuclear nonproliferation.)
I understand Michael’s frustration. I expect he lives in California. But look Michael, we belong to a Church whose history goes back some two thousand years. I’ve read that in the cases of most Ecumenical Councils that it take sixty years for all of the changes instituted by the council to be integrated into Church practice. Trent abolished some liturgical practices which had existed in some localities for a century. How long do you think it took for the changes of the Tridentine Mass to reach all of the Church? Even more so in the days before instantaneous communication, with the protestants banging at the door?
Give B16 some time. He has worn the shoes of the fisherman for a mere two years. This could very well be step one. Now he can say “I and the bishops in communion with me have said…” and go from there.
Michael: I feel you, man. Mahony was the first person I thought of after reading some this exhortation.
I understand why the exhortation was worded as it was.
I also understand that many (Mahony and his cronies) will misrepresent it.
What I do not understand is why Mahony is allowed to remain “in power” (for lack of a better word … and really, that is the way that he appears to think of his position), considering that, given the cultural output of Hollywood, he is in arguably the most powerful archdiocese in the world in terms of cultural influence.
Many are we who pray for the man’s conversion … or barring that, for his early retirement.
On the topic of the exhortation, I guess I got caught off-guard in hoping for something else. But then, I suppose that this “something else” may not exactly be “on the topic” at hand. Kind of like the bulk of my post here.
Apologies,
Jared
The disappontment some traditionalists are feeling is that they are mistaking this Apostolic Exhortation with the expected motu proprio. I don’t believe the Holy Father intended this document to be a stinging rebuke of abuses and new norms for the liturgy. Rather, he is restating Catholic doctrine, which while not new, apparently needs to be learned by many, given widespread rejection of Catholic dogma on the Eucharist. I think this teaching on God as Love, and the Holy Eucharist which is the ultimate expression of this Love, is laying the foundation for liturgical reform. If the Vatican suddenly issues reforms in the celebration of Mass with no explanation beyond a papal “fiat”, what will happen? Exactly what happened after Vatican II – confusion and resentment in the pews. Instead, the Holy Father is laying out the true meaning and significance of the Holy Eucharist, which must be the true basis of any liturgical reform. Setting forth these principles BEFORE any changes in the status quo will help mitigate the confusion that may result from any change, either in reforms to the Pauline Missal or the freeing of the Tridentine Missal.
And even if no “new” material is in the document, it is not possible to exhaust the riches of the Blessed Sacrament. Reading this Exhortation as a guide to contemplating the Lord in the Sacrament of the Altar, rather than looking for a “hammer of heretics”, will bear spiritual fruit. Our Holy Father is a very learned man who is personally very devoted to the Eucharist; he has much to teach us, if we will learn from him rather than impose our own desires on him!
To those who wondered where the “something new” was—this isn’t that kind of document. A post-synodal apostolic exhortation sums up the happenings of last year’s synod of bishops on the Eucharist, and allows Benedict to remind the world of all the important things that were said at the synod, all the particular ideas and perspectives on the Eucharist that at this moment in time we, as the Church, would be wise to remember. It’s an exhortation, a “rah rah rah, this is what we believe” document, which is a great thing, but don’t look for any serious doctrinal development or normative reflections, etc. Those come in different kinds of documents.
We must keep in mind that there are mistranslations in the text of the exhortation,from the Latin to the English.
On Father Zuhlsdorfs site,”What does the Prayer Really Say”,he informs us that the English statement from the AE states,”…with the exception of the readings,the homily,and the prayers of the faithful,such litugies COULD be celebrated in Latin”.
The correct translation of the Latin:”exceptis lectionibus,homilia et oratione fidelium,AEQUUM EST ut huiusmodi celebrationes fiant lingua Latina”,follows,
COULD,and AEQUUM EST are the corresponding words.Aequum Est literally means,”it is reasonable,proper,right,or should.”
This completely changes the meaning of the English translation.It turns Latin into a nuetral language and not an imperative one.
considering this mistranslation one is assured of others.
Let us pray that our Holy Father makes the needed corrections to these mistakes before the Amchurch bishops use them to justify their continued disobedience in not promulgating Latin as the language of Holy Mass.
God bless you.
Jared —
Cardinal ‘Baloney’ — I mean, Mahoney — is a disgrace to his great predecessor, Timothy Cardinal Manning — not only that — the Catholic Church as well!
Enough said!
(God forgive me for my comment, but to think a great man like Cardinal Manning was ever succeeded by such a person as Mahoney, it’s just incredible to fathom!)
What’s unfathomable is that Mahony and others like him worldwide aren’t reprimanded. I’m not advocating an immediate firing, but come on, at least some strong words and concrete actions!
What’s unfathomable is that Mahony and others like him worldwide aren’t reprimanded.
Believe me — they are.
It’s just that these days, anti-authoritarian stances are even adopted by not only secular society but certain clergy as well.
Even disciplinary actions might fall short if you seriously consider the ramifications.
So, right now, it appears that B16 needs to win their hearts first and foremost.
How about an hired assasin.
Sick an albino monk on Mahoney…hmmm…
Oh, that darn Fifth Commandment!
Mr.Esau,
Your write up is that”Christ himself gave the own Authority to the Pope and the Council of Bishops”.Our Lord Jesus Christ NEVER gave the own Authority to the council of bishops or Apostles,but He gave His own Authority To SIMON PETER only.Please refer;Mt.16:18-19 and Jn.21:15-17.
Mr.Esau,
Your write up is that”Christ himself gave the own Authority to the Pope and the Council of Bishops”.Our Lord Jesus Christ NEVER gave the own Authority to the council of bishops or Apostles,but He gave His own Authority To SIMON PETER only.Please refer;Mt.16:18-19 and Jn.21:15-17.
Christ NEVER gave the own Authority to the council of bishops or Apostles
Mr. Bengizer,
Do you actually read the Bible?
Look to the following where Christ had, in fact, given such authority to the Apostles and, therefore, passed on to the Bishops!
Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
What’s particular significant with Peter is that in Matthew 16:18, Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys of the Kingdom!
What is the significance of this?
Let’s look at the passages in Isaiah:
Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22:22 is ‘KEY’ to the language and typology of the ‘Key’ that Peter received in Matthew 16:18!
Hence, Peter is Father (i.e., ‘Papa’ or ‘Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church — just as the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such authority on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.
No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church!
Further, Mr. Bengizer:
You actually state that ‘but He gave His own Authority To SIMON PETER only.’
However, where is the RESPECT for this Authority when Rad Trads DO NOT EVEN OBEY the Pope, the Successor of Peter?
Yeah, a Rad Trad can simply make up the excuse, saying that in their eyes, the Pope is not Valid — but upon whose AUTHORITY are they declaring this?
Esau writes, in response to Mr. Bengizer:
Do you actually read the Bible?
Was that really necessary, Esau?
Sorry Smoky, but when Traditionalists proclaim how awesome the Duoay Rheims is and, yet, fail to even actually read it, it just seems all so sad.
Granted, Protestants may have their issues in terms of actually reaching a complete context of the passages in Scripture when they divorce it from the Oral Tradition passed down through the Ages from the Apostles unto their Successors; but, at the very least, they read their bibles though as well as have such great love for it!
That’s what I LOVE about them!
However, you rarely find such devotion in the nominal Catholic these days, which is made evident by the lack of bible studies in Catholic parishes.
Yes, we come to read a great part of the Bible in Church; but it would be nice if folks actually took up the Bible themselves and studied it.
I have noticed, Esau, a marked reduction in your use of all-caps and bold and stuff… and I appreciate it.
I also appreciate your love for the truth of the faith, and your zeal to defend it.
Esau,
I’m in the process of republishing selections from Archbishop Alban Goodiers “The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ” for the very purpose you talk about above…getting regualar Catholic parishioners to know the Gospel accounts/life and teachings of Jesus very well.
By handing out these detailed stories from the Gospels, they can become aware of many interesting details of these Biblical accounts, with some cultural history, Holy Land geography and even climate patterns, which really bring to life, the acts and teachings of Jesus, as well as the many people with which He interacted.
I think the problem that most folk have is that they don’t trust Bible studies anymore, because they have often been iniciated by liberals who want to give their own particular slant.
This is why, I think, the LIFE and ACTS of CHRIST, given ‘piece meal, in short weekly readings, by a renowned author such as Archbishop Goodier, can do such good, becasue the parishioners can learn very accurate details of the Gospel, without any liberal cohersing, hand holding, hugs, charismatic type prayers, group pressure etc…
Anyway, this is a project I’m currently working on…as well as a spanish translation from the same work. I hope it might do some good…but we’ll see when it’s finished? I know the text is good…I just don’t know about my graphic arts abilities! 🙁
Tim:
Thanks! I’ll try, at least, to refrain from such excessive mark-ups.
A. Williams:
Good going there, brother!
May be once you’re finished, you can provide us a copy here to read?
And don’t worry about the ‘graphics art’; to me, at least, it’s the ‘substance’ that matters most.
I know of some works (e.g., books and other written materials) where the ‘graphic art’ was incredible but when you got to the actual ‘content’ of the work, it was terribly lacking!
God bless you in your endeavors and hope it’s successful!
Esau,
In re-publishing classic spirituality, wherein the content is very holy, even little items such as the proper font selections are essential. Since it is ‘fine art’, so to say, the details really make the reading better. I don’t plan on very sophisticated graphics though, because sometimes the art alone can draw attention away from the essential written message.
Anyway, thanks for the input and I’ll keep you updated on the progress occasionally.(BTW..The first reading is the Gospel account of “The Woman Taken in Adultery”)
Esau,
I want to fight you and beat the livin tar out of you.
Remember,”The bishops in union with the Holy Father”.Many of the worlds bishops are not in union with the Pontiff.
Limpopo
Aloha, my question is not related to this particular subject/discussion, but I am not sure where to post my question so please bear with me.
I am on my way to joining the Catholic Church (SOON – the days are numbered!) and in the past two days have been asked by three members of the parish what I know about subdeacons…go figure???? I know about deacons, but subdeacons – nothing! Perhaps they serve in the Navy!:}
Can anyone give me a clue, a link, a life-saver?
Is this some sort of Initiation Rite that I should be aware of?;)
Counting on you all for some HELP!! I’d hate to fail the test at this point . Many thanks!
Grace and peace.
Sub-deacons…
In the Navy…
*Snort*
Good one!
the subdiaconate was once a part of the path to the priesthood, the culmination of the “minor orders,” that began with tonsure, and included the offices of porter, lector, and acolyte. These “minor orders” were non sacramental steps of initiation for seminarians. Many eastern churches retain the discipline of the minor orders.
and, yes, subdeacons love the navy!
kaneohe:
I am on my way to joining the Catholic Church (SOON – the days are numbered!)
CONGRATZ!
Hopefully, it’s a One-Way Ticket and not a Round-Trip! ;^)
Esau,
I want to fight you and beat the livin tar out of you.
Remember,”The bishops in union with the Holy Father”.Many of the worlds bishops are not in union with the Pontiff.
Limpopo
Dan Hunter:
What part of ‘Core to the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church is strict adherence to the AUTHORITY of the Pope and the Council of Bishops’ that I stated did you not understand?
Your statement has ‘no teeth’!
(Yes–I actually read your comments in other threads)
Sir,
Mr.Esau; your comparison to the ” Church and the present form of Governments ” namely, Prime Minister and his cabinet is against the Decree of the Vatican Council-I. I am not a traditionalist/conservatist. I was an altar boy in the Novus Ordo Mass in the year 1967-69 when I was 12-14 years only. Nowadays I can see the changes in the Church,everything collapsed. I trust Benedict XVI will set right.
Alex, Novus Ordo refers to the New Order of Mass promulgated in 1969 and usually cited as the 1970 Missal. Perhaps you meant something else 1967-69?
It looks like Papa Ratzi has done it again! He is nothing short of AMAZING!
Mr.Esau; your comparison to the ” Church and the present form of Governments ” namely, Prime Minister and his cabinet is against the Decree of the Vatican Council-I.
Mr. Benziger:
It has nothing to do with making any such comparison with any such present form of government!
It has to do with what’s called “TYPOLOGY”, which, unfortunately, only Catholics who actually study the bible (such as Major Seminarians/Theologians) and Protestants (mind you, even ordinary Protestants — not even ministers!) know about.
The typology concerning Peter’s office can be found in the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament which regards the office of the Prime Minister that existed then.
This is very disconcerting.
Why is it that nominal Catholics these days are so ignorant about the bible that the only ones a person immersed in such studies can actually have a meaningful dialogue with in terms of discussing such details concerning the bible are Catholic Theologians, Protestants and Protestant Converts?