Padraig McCarthy responding to Bishop’s latest statement on New Missal
Just a note on today’s statement from the bishops after their Summer meeting this week: http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2011/06/16/june-general-meeting/
You may wish to put my comments on the website.
The statement from the bishops contains the following sections:
1. Benedict XVI 60th anniversary of ordination.
2. Safeguarding children.
3. National and International Eucharistic congresses.
4. New Missal
The final item in the statement contains the following (my emphasis):
“New Missal
The Missal contains all the prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass. From 11 September next, in dioceses and parishes throughout Ireland, people will experience the first changes to their prayers and responses at Mass. Only a small number of changes will affect the congregation and the order, structure and readings of the Mass are not changing.”
They probably mean to say that the changes in parts spoken by the congregation are small in number, in the context of the overall number of changes.
It is not in fact true that “Only a small number of changes will affect the congregation”.
Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, paragraph 33:
“The prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.”
All of the changes, including changes in the prayers spoken by the priest in the name of the people, affect the congregation.
Where people speak the prayers themselves, they have perhaps a better opportunity to get to grips with them.
It seems to me that it will be more difficult for them to get to grips with changes in prayers spoken by the priest, when they have to listen to many sentences on average longer than people normally deal with, and when vocabulary and structure used are not in normal everyday use.
The first item in the bishops’ statement says: “Bishops congratulate the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI as he celebrates the 60th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood on 29 June”, and invites parishes and dioceses to mark the occasion. This is fine.
However, the fact that it is the first of the items led me to speculate on the order of priorities in the minds of the bishops. I would have used this as the closing item.
The Lord be with you!
Pádraig
Yeah so anyway I was saying that I think we are smart, we the Irish people are able to understand. I think the above is a bit patronising.
Fr. Padraig,
‘It seems to me that it will be more difficult for them to get to grips with changes in prayers spoken by the priest, when they have to listen to many sentences on average longer than people normally deal with, and when vocabulary and structure used are not in normal everyday use.’
The main argument of your article, and Fr. Brendan Hoban’s article earlier this week seems to be that the laity will not be able to understand the new texts. I find this utterly patronising. The dumbing down of almost every aspect of the liturgy (homilies, music, ceremonial etc.) over the last generation has, I believe, done much to drive people away from churches. It, and the ACP’s current attitude, is also damaging the reputation of the Irish Church among Catholic communities abroad.
If parishes are provided with the right resources, ie. a leaflet with the texts of the congregational responses the old texts will be forgetten fairly quickly. I actually think it will be good for people to have to read prayers like the Credo from a sheet for a few weeks as it will focus mind on what it actually being prayed. The current Our Father, Hail Mary, and lots of popular devotional prayers already contain the ‘elitist language’. The Eucharistic prayers will become familiar to the ear over time. The length of sentences is a non-issue. I don’t think worshippers will be listening out for full stops.
The new translation has been on the cards for some time and is part of a process initiated by Blessed JPII (though that is rarely mentioned as it’s much more convenient to vilify the present pope). If there was ever a time to cause a fuss about it, surely it has passed and energy would be best directed towards ensuring a smooth transition come the autumn.
And with your spirit!
David
The problem isn’t ‘high’ English, but bad English. The Anglican churches retain very traditional prose but at least their liturgical texts possess literary merit. Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer exudes solemnity and decorum. By contrast these new translations come across as mediocre and artificial. They are an insult to the very principles of translation.
The Vatican should have stayed out of the process altogether. Benedict XVI may be the Vicar of Christ, but he has no qualification or expertise whatsoever in the art of literary translation, and neither do the Roman Curia.
It is not the laity only that will not understand the new texts. I am unable to understand the Preface for the Feast of the Holy Trinity:
“For with your Only Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit
you are one God, one Lord:
not in the unity of a single person,
but in a Trinity of one substance.
For what you have revealed to us of your glory
we believe equally of your Son and of the Holy Spirit,
so that, in the confessing of the true and eternal Godhead,
you might be adored in what is proper to each Person,
their unity in substance,
and their equality in majesty.
Thank you, Padraig, for your comments. I appreciate your giving your opinion, – and echo itC4.
I note that the Bishops’ statement provides no response whatever to any of the serious issues raised in relation to the new translation and its introduction. If they have answers to these concerns, why are they not giving them? If they have not, why are they going ahead with imposing this translation as the only one for use?
My prayer and sympathy is with all priests who find themselves in a dilemma in relation to this whole matter.
The thing is, anything produced by a committee is going to be a compromise. Years ago, the Adoremus Society produced a very nice translation, but it was ignored.
This translation may not be perfect, but it is a massive improvement and will hopefully pave the way for a return to Latin.
I was at a TLM a few weeks ago. The readings were in English. The rest was in Latin. Perfect. What more could you want?
One of my criticisms of the N.O. is the words – it’s all words, words, words. No one can pay attention to that many words.
If someone has a TLM missal to hand, they might post the translation for Trinity Sunday. That would be most interesting.
“The thing is, anything produced by a committee is going to be a compromise.”
The new translations are more than a compromise. They are an insult — both to God and to the worshipping community.
The idea of a ‘quick fix’ is repugnant to the reverence and seriousness with which we are supposed to treat the sacred liturgy, and will end up doing even more damage by entrenching mediocrity. That attitude is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place.
I predict we’ll see more defections to the Anglican Communion, where the liturgical language is both poetic, reverent, AND traditional.
The new translations are none of these things. They’re not even grammatically correct for pity’s sake. In many ways they’re even worse than the current texts.
Perhaps we should simply outsource the job of translations and liturgy generally to our seperated brethren — the Anglicans and the Orthodox?. Rome has shown itself utterly incompetent when it comes to matters liturgical. Other Christians who take liturgy seriously could show her how it’s done.
Seen the latest on Fr. Corapi?
Off-topic I know but interesting all the same:
http://www.fathercorapi.com/default.aspx
Martin I hope by the Traditional Latin Mass (“TLM”) you do not mean the Roman Missal of 1962 — which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered ‘traditional’. At best it is an earlier element in the reform process.
The Roman Canon is mutilated in the 1962 Missal with the addition of St. Joseph. Its rites of Holy Week are a travesty — fabricated 50s rubbish — created by the very same people, almost to a man, who later engineered the Novus Ordo (though they made a much better job of the latter). Pius XII — who is in many ways the architect of the Novus Ordo — made other unsavoury changes to the liturgy, such as supplanting the traditional feast of Sts Philip and James with “St. Joseph of the Worker” (to appease Communists) and claiming (in Mediator Dei) that the Church’s liturgical tradition was contingent on papal authority, overturning the ancient adage ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’.
It will not do to claim these are minor alterations: (1) The Roman Canon is the very heart and centre of the Roman Rite. Traditionally it was considered untouchable. (Even Bl. Pius IX, on being petitioned to add St Joseph’s name to the Canon, replied: “But I am only the Pope.”) Adding his name to the Canon set a precedent and confirmed the idea that a pope could do whatever he wanted to the liturgy. To accept this while also rejecting the Novus Ordo is arbitrary and hypocritical (2) In the Middle Ages, Holy Week was the very heart of the liturgical calendar, around which a Christian’s life revolved.
In many ways the Novus Ordo is a MORE traditional rite than the “Extraordinary Form” (ugh!).
Shane, if the 1962 Missal is good enough for the SSPX, then it’s good enough for me. I say that tongue in cheek. But, correct me if I am wrong, the SSPX are OK with the 1962 Missal. Are you more traditional than them?
I think it is a bit far-fetched to say that the Canon is mutilated by the addition of St. Joseph.
I don’t doubt you make some interesting points, but be careful in your Liturgical preoccupation that you do not neglect your own soul. I think that is the biggest danger for all of us in the online Catholic community.
I read somewhere that if you are spending more time in X, Y, or Z, than you are in prayer, then you are in trouble.
Martin, the SSPX used to celebrate according to the pre-Pius XII form in its early days. Marcel Lefebvre ordered his priests as of Easter 1984 to celebrate the 1962 Missal – the last pre-conciliar editio typica of the Roman rite – in order to show Rome that he was willing to meet them half-way. I don’t think it impressed them one bit, and it encountered significant resistance in the SSPX at the time (some SSPX priests still quietly celebrate the older form).
It had never been seriously questioned at the time that the 1962 Missal was abrogated (despite Benedict’s very questionable assertion to the contrary in Summorum Pontificum — a claim that has been challenged by leading canonists.) Traditionalists in those days appealed to either Quo Primum or ‘immemorial tradition’ to justify their continued celebration of the older liturgy, not on the grounds that the 1962 Missal (which they didn’t use anyway) had never been abrogated. The ‘Agatha Christie’ indult for priests in England specified use of the ‘1967 rite’ but most priests who took advantage of it also celebrated it according to the pre-Pius XII form.
The English novelist, Evelyn Waugh, was a founding member of the Latin Mass Society. He died in 1966, long before the introduction of the Novus Ordo. His life was totally devastated by the *pre-conciliar* liturgical reforms. Writing to Archbishop Heenan (3rd January, 1965) he said: “Every attendance at Mass leaves me without comfort or edification. I shall never, pray God, apostatize but church going is now a bitter trial.”
This is a reference not to the Novus Ordo, which did not even exist at the time, but to the 1962 Missal (albeit with a simplified Ritus and without the Judica Me and Last Gospel).
Waugh had written to the Tablet (March, 1963) proposing the establishment of a Uniate Church for disaffected traditionalists: “Will you promote an appeal to the Holy See for the establishment of a Uniate Latin Church will shall observe all the rites as they existed in the reign of Pius IX?” By suggesting going back to rites as in the reign of Pius IX, he is directly rejecting the liturgical reforms of Pius X, Pius XII and John XXIII. In other words he is rejecting the 1962 Missal — which at the time (1963) was still the only Roman Missal in use.
In a letter to the Catholic Herald (7th August, 1964) he pointed out that “many of the innovations, which many of us find so obnoxious, were introduced by Pius XII.” These innovations are of course codified in the 1962 Missal.
Waugh and the traditionalists of his era viewed the Missal of 1962 as a betrayal of the Church’s liturgical tradition and wanted nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Waugh’s last letter was to Lady Mosley (March 30th, 1966) in which he complains: “Easter used to mean so much to me. Before Pope John and his Council – they destroyed the beauty of the liturgy. I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the faith doggedly, without joy.”
Note *Before Pope John and his Council*. He is referring here to Pius XII’s drastic revision of Holy Week, which was of course a trial run for the Novus Ordo (though Paul VI restored quite a lot of the features of the traditional Holy Week that Pius XII abolished).
Like most traditionalists at the time, Waugh loathed the 1962 Missal and resented its promulgation. I’m sure he would have rejected Summorum Pontificum with the indignant contempt it deserves.
This might help you Shane:
http://www.chastitysf.com/q_anger-mass.htm
Shane, are there any webpages I can read which summarise the changes made and the reasons for the changes which resulted in the 1962 Missal? Thanks in advance if you are able to provide any reading materials!
I always thought that the 1962 Missal was the gold standard. I didn’t realise there were any issues with it. Certainly, in my experience, Waugh’s criticisms are presented by traditionalists as objections to the N.O. but as you’ve shown his criticisms were not actually directed at the new Mass.
Reading articles authored by some leading members of the ACP leave me wondering as to the quality of theological education they received. Often their articles are illogical, lacking in nuance and historical perspective, and illustrative of a lack of familiarity with the actual teaching of Vatican II.
I have read books and articles by one member of the leadership team where he encouraged dissent from definitive Church teachings (i.e. infallible teaching) on such matters as the reservation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders to men and the intrinsically evil nature of contraceptive acts. Now, in more recent times, the ACP is using its website to foment opposition the the changes in the liturgy that have been authorised by the Magistium. Given that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life, then nothing could be more insidious or anti-Catholic than this. One consolation we can have, however, is that the theology of the leaders of the ACP, which increasingly seems to be driven ideological obsessions, is as dead as the dodo. It has no appeal to the younger generation, nothing to contribute to the new evangelisation, only a sad waste of priestly charism.
Eamonn Keane, you seem to commit quite a howler yourself in describing the teaching of Humanae Vitae as infallible (the Pope went out of his way to make clear that it was not to be taken as infallible). Creeping infallibility reaches new proportions when you see criticism of the new translations as an attack on the Eucharist. It is in fact a DEFENCE of the Eucharist. By the way, the 2010 translation is not the one approved by the English-speaking bishops and given the papal recognition; there are thousands of changes, mostly disimprovement.
Here is something which is very much relevant:
“Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God.” (Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113).
and:
“There is talk of renewal in the doctrine and in the conscience of the Church of God; but how can the living and true Church be authentic and persistent if the complex structure that forms it and defines it a spiritual and social ‘mystical body’, is today so often and so gravely corroded by dissent and challenge and by forgetfulness of its hierarchical structure, and is countered in its divine and indispensable constituent charism, its pastoral authority? How can it claim to be a Church, that is a united people, even though locally broken up and historically and legitimately diversified, when a practically schismatic ferment is dividing it, subdividing it and breaking it into groups which are more than anything else zealous for arbitrary and fundamentally egoistical autonomy, masked by Christian pluralism or liberty of conscience?”
– Pope Paul VI, Holy Thursday, 1969.
I think I almost qualify for canonisation at this stage! Not one response so far has disagreed with my assertion that the statement from the Conference of Bishops is incorrect when it says: “Only a small number of changes will affect the congregation”. The quotation from the Liturgy Constitution of Vatican II makes this quite clear. I sent an email to the office of the Conference pointing this out, but up to now there has been no alteration in the statement on their website.
I would like to point out that I did not say that people would be unable to understand the new translation; simply that they would find it more difficult (as I do myself). Again, no response has disagreed with this. I do not hold that there is nothing of value in the new translation. I do hold that Paragraph 20 of Liturgiam Authenticam has been allowed to eclipse the aim stated in Paragraph 25.
Par. 20: “The original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.”
Par. 25: “So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision.”
The bishops were probably trying to downplay the changes. And besides, the changes are, in a sense, minimal. It’s not as if we are returning to ad orientem worship or Latin or any of those things, as wonderful as that would be. No, these changes are fairly minimal. 🙂
Out of interest Pádraig, how do personally feel about the imposed changes when they ditched the Latin Mass and smashed up the altar rails, all without a whisper of consultation with the lay people?
Martin – I grew up with the Latin Mass; in Rome we had lectures and exams (written and oral) through the medium of Latin. I think it would have been better not to “ditch” (as you call it) the Latin Mass as it was done, but the welcome for the vernacular Mass has been overwhelming.
You feel deeply about “smashed up” altar rails, but that kind of emotive language does not contribute to rational discussion. The removal of separation between the congregation and the altar area helps to convey that people and priest are united as a celebrating community. Regular members of the congregation nowadays have a much greater sense of their full conscious and active participation in the liturgy.
And a question for you: Perhaps you may disagree with me when I say that the new translation will be more difficult to understand, but do you still think it patronising of me that I think so?
Pádraig, I am upset about the altar rails. And about the tabernacle. And the statues.
I think that the whole priest facing the people thing was a big mistake. It was not mandated by Vatican II – it was a novelty introduced into Catholic worship. The priest went from being a sacrificing priest to a performer for the audience, and the notion of sacrifice has been lost in favour of a community celebration, and let’s be honest, not a very good celebration at that, hence the need for constant novelty and innovation. Ask any Catholic what they think Mass is and you will get an idea of the widespread confusion and ignorance.
I guess it depends on what you mean by full, conscious, and active participation. If it means people carrying stuff around, then I guess so, but if it means people uniting their own spiritual sacrifices with that of Christ, then I am not sure that is a widespread form of participation. I only really found out about that recently. So much for my Catholic education.
I have looked at the new translation. I’m pretty happy with it. Is it perfect? No. Will it be the last translation we get in English? I don’t think so. What I thought was patronising was the way you insinuated that the average pew-sitter would have difficulty with it. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. In any case, you can’t dumb everything down so that the translation is comprehensible to the stupidest member of the congregation. If you do that, what about the other 99 who actually have a brain in their head? People aren’t stupid and I know that I am tired of being talked down to in sermons with no content and being given a really dumb translation with baby language. So what if it takes a bit of effort, or heaven forbid people might have to actually study the prayers before Mass in preparation so that they get the meaning.
Martin: “a performer for the audience”? No – rather, one who serves in the ministerial priesthood serving the community in the exercise of the holy and royal priesthood in which they share in different ways.
“the notion of sacrifice has been lost in favour of a community celebration”? They are not mutually exclusive; we need both.
“not a very good celebration at that”? The celebration is not an act of the presiding priest, but of the assembled community and of each participating member. The level of celebration can vary from person to person.
“What I thought was patronising was the way you insinuated that the average pew-sitter would have difficulty with it.” I insinuated nothing. I simply stated what I think – see above. Anyone is free to diagree. I do not think it good that the bishops try to minimise the changes.
“you can’t dumb everything down so that the translation is comprehensible to the stupidest member of the congregation.” There is no question of dumbing down. Profound mystery can be communicated in dignified language without the need for the use of forms of language which become an obstacle. “The stupidest member of the congregation” is also a full member of the church. Liturgiam authenticam paragraph 25, which I quoted above yesterday, is still important.
“I am tired of being talked down to in sermons with no content.” If this is your experience when you participate in Mass, perhaps you need to discuss the sermon non-aggressively with the one who delivered it. It may take a bit of effort.
I have read the Irish Bishops’ pamphlet “Introducing the New Missal” but have had to go to an American website for content on the New Missal. The pamphlet states that there was “consultation”. Was there? Prior to the Ryan Report I was more actively invloved in the parish and never once heard of any such consultation. The ACP are unhappy with it – were they consulted? I am geting tired of being told by the Hierarchy that “we are the church” – “we” as in our presence and purse but not in our views. Those supporting the new missal are saying that it is going back to the original. The Last Supper as I understand it the basis for the Mass – did Christ speak in Latin (the language of the conqueror) or the language of the Pharisees? When Christ spoke he did not create the linguistic barrier that is now being created in the new missal. I note in the Preface I of the Blessed Virgn Mary reference to “the glory of virginity”. My wife’s reaction was the Church again relegating the married woman/mother to second class citizenship in the church. What is this fixation with human sexuality and the distortion of it – do we not have enough evidence over the years that the Chuurch and its teachings in this area have harmed those that minister and the people with this fixation. One of the benefits of living in a nominally Christian country is that you can worship Christ elsewhere. It saddens me that the New Missal is going to again create a barrier between the clergy and and the people with its convoluted language.
Sean, virginity is a more perfect state than marriage. That’s the teaching of Christ. He said so in the Gospels.
Meanwhile, this morning, I took delivery of a shiny little booklet from CTS – the Order of Mass. My dad had a good look at it. So he said to me, ”What’s the problem? I see nothing wrong with it.” He was impressed with the changes.
There is no problem. If there are any problems, it is because they will have been created by those who want there to be a problem. This is the real problem.
Seán – The new order of Mass in a 75-page document is on http://www.liturgy-ireland.ie/2010%20Order%20of%20Mass%20Final%20UK–no%20prefaces.pdf.
The two versions, the current and new Order of Mass are on http://www.catholicireland.net/liturgysacraments/roman-missalthe-order-of-the-mass.
I put together a booklet (from which this second website material is taken) with the current version and the new version side by side, and gave copies to the bishops’ conference in February, with a suggestion that it be sent to every parish in Ireland so that parishioners would have the material. I heard nothing more.
MArtin, you might give me the gospel references to virginity as the more perfect state than marriage. And also if male virginity is included. Mind you if we strived for this perfect state we would not be around to discuss this issue!! Thanks
Jesus said, ‘At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.’ – Matthew 22:30
Men and women can be virgins. You might read this document SACRA VIRGINITAS on the topic: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas_en.html
An excerpt:
”15. This then is the primary purpose, this the central idea of Christian virginity: to aim only at the divine, to turn thereto the whole mind and soul; to want to please God in everything, to think of Him continually, to consecrate body and soul completely to Him.
16. This is the way the Fathers of the Church have always interpreted the words of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles; for from the very earliest days of the Church they have considered virginity a consecration of body and soul offered to God.”
I also picked this up from somewhere else:
”I think that what has to be understood is that while the consecrated life of the religious… is objectively superior to that of the secular state, married, ordained or single, it is the state in life that is superior, not the person. Otherwise, we fall into all forms of clericalism and other isms.”
Note that priests only take vows of obedience and celibacy. The consecrated religious take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
Pope John Paul II , Vita Consecrata, no. 32:
“As a way of showing forth the Church’s holiness, it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ’s own way of life, has an objective superiority. Precisely for this reason, it is an especially rich manifestation of Gospel values and a more complete expression of the Church’s purpose, which is the sanctification of humanity. The consecrated life proclaims and in a certain way anticipates the future age, when the fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, already present in its first fruits and in mystery,[62] will be achieved and when the children of the resurrection will take neither wife nor husband, but will be like the angels of God (cf. Mt. 22:30)”
There is a lot there to read in the link I gave!
Listen ACP and listen good: I welcome this amended translation, I am not confused, I am not angry in fact I am ecstatic! This move glues my backside to the pew a little tighter, I may not be the smartest, but I understand consubstantial (and if I didn’t I would Google it and discover it’s meaning in seconds), I am intelligent enough to understand that the word ‘men’ is not exclusive and means all – not just males. I will not struggle with a little insert – I will gladly use it as easily as I have always used a missalette, a parish newsletter and other paraphernalia that I can pick up in any Church porch on the way into or out of Mass. If a Priest has trouble with a sentence of 60 or more words, it is time for him to go back to school. There is more to punctuation than the full stop. Most of those who fret and whinge about the arrival of amended translation don’t even use the one that is now in force properly; experience has shown that most of the clergy in this so called ‘association’ have no problem pushing and pulling words and sentences at their own whim, making the liturgy their personal possession in the misguided notion that they are serving the good of their congregations. This at best is misguided interference and at worst is the most pathetic kind of veiled old school clericalism.
You got one thing right about this being a pivotal moment because it is a moment when you get to decide to stay put and join us or push off and annoy someone else. Oh and one other thing – if you want to gain any credibility in the mind of those of us who take these things seriously, try to get some credible speakers and not some disgruntled has beens who openly promote dissent and childish non-compliance or silence tactics simply because they see nothing good with anything Catholic. Shame on you all.
Martin, two points. Mt 22.30 does not by any stretch of the imagination declare virginity to be superior to marriage. Such a claim is evidence of latent Manichaeism on your part.
Secondly, it would be helpful for you to do a basic introductory course in theology before arriving at the conclusion that because something is placed on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels, it means that Jesus said it. This is to misunderstand and misrepresent what a Gospel is. A simple example: the synoptic Gospels sometimes give three different wordings to sayings of Jesus in a particular scene. In most of these cases Mark’s earlier wording has been changed by either Matthew or Luke to serve their own legitimate literary purposes.
Not all religious take vows of poverty chastity and obedience.
Fergal, it’s clear from your piece, that orthography, grammar and syntax are not important issues for you, so it will not be surprising to learn that you do not have any difficulties with the new translation.
You may interpret the word men to mean all. Many people do not share your view. Upon what evidence do you base your claim about the actions of most of the members of the ACP?
The fact that the ACP decides to publish your insulting rant says more about their concern for freedom of speech than it does about the coherence or validity of your position.
Dear Gerard,
I’m not sure you realise this, but there is great irony about the ACP being pedantic about language, when at the very same time, from their own lips, they dissent from Magisterial teachings, e.g. the non-ordination of women and sexuality – key elements of your manifesto. It’s kind of strange. If you are going to be pedantic, at least be consistent. Apply all the zeal about the new translation issue into those other issues too. Then we shall see consistency and I am sure we’ll all welcome those new and exciting sermons inspired by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Theology of the Body, coupled with Mass offered according to the liturgical books, adhering closely to the words and rubrics.
Blessings of God,
Martin
I don’t, in fact, see any irony at all, much less inconsistency, between a concern for language and the ACP’s putting forward views on the current position of the church on sexuality and the ordination of women. Please point it out!
I suppose you would also accuse the Patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal José Da Cruz Policarop of dissent when he said recently, that there will be women priests when God wills it.
I’ve no idea what that Cardinal is talking about. I can only think that perhaps there is something lost in translation, or he was manipulated by a journalist. In any case, the views of one Cardinal do not in any way affect what has been set forth definitively by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
To be honest, for the Church to go back on everything that has come before on this issue, the 2000 year Tradition and all the teachings and pronuncements about it, IF the Church could and did change this teaching, the Church would be a total and perpetual laughing stock with both the members of the Church and the wider world. It would be the equivalent of the Church saying, ‘Yesterday black was black, but today, it is white.” – this from the self-professed ‘infallible, indefectible Church’!
I honestly don’t think you guys have thought any of this through. Besides the theological and Traditional weight in support of the teaching, there is the credibility issue, and the tremendous harm this would cause to the Church. It would be much worse than the Protestant Reformation. Such an agenda cannot be the work of God, it is surely a vision of division by the Devil himself.
IF the Church were to introduce priestesses, the Church would shatter into a million and one pieces!
I recommend Peter Kreeft who did a talk about this and it is free from his website. It goes over all the reasons for the teaching and the spirit behind the drive for women priests. I’d love to get into a dialogue with the ACP about this because I think there is so much superficial exchanges but little intellectual exchange. This ought to be remedied.
Women and the Priesthood — Why “only boys can be the daddies”
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm
Your posting shows so little awareness of the distinction between faith and belief, or of the development of doctrine, that it will be difficult for your views on the ordination of women to be taken seriously. There are some introductory courses in theology available in Dublin, or online.
Gerard, my views happen to matck with the Magisteryum of the Catholic Church. I’m just a poor pesant boy, I have no money for high-falutin acadamik coarses! What do ya think this is!?
All I know is the faith is my belief and that’s good enuff for me.
By the way, what is dis online thing ye speak of? Is that like computers or what?