To you, we get that. I am sure you are not alone in the world about that. But others are just fine with the sounding of the alarm, including my Catholic girlfriend who is nothing short of appalled at the entire story now that she knows about it. She understands well the implications, and she didn’t have to have them explained by me.
Why are you still beating that dead horse? Everyone here who is not you understands that. Can you move on to the next part please?
So your girlfriend thinks these people should rot in Hell then?
Why are you so anxious to put everyone else’s thoughts into your words having so much trouble making your own clear to the readers here? Maybe you are an all perfect and all knowing person, God himself?
On a related topic, if you were serious in your post above that you are saying outrageous things in order to get banned, PM me and I will be glad to discuss with you how I can help. This being GD, it is offlimits to actually discuss here as I understand it.
Well only one action has been taken, and that is the lifting of the excommunication. Excommunication = damnation. So if you are pissed off about what’s happened then you are pissed off that the excommunication was lifted because NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED.
:rolleyes:
FinnAgain pulled up a four year old post out of context in order to make a personal attack because he wanted me to shut up and be cowed by using ‘anti-semitism’ as a weapon because he didn’t like my argument. That’s all there is to it.
No it is not. The days when the church claimed for itself the role of final arbiter of the saved and damned are in the past. Certainly it would be the official position of the church that being excommunicated would make salvation more difficult, but it does not indicate an automatic ticket to hell.
I am not “pissed off”. Can you give me a number, more or less, of how many times you are going to put words into my mouth I didn’t say, rather then simply speak for yourself?
And how long before I can expect those cites from you instead of, well, whatever it is you are sending? I asked long long ago, many times. Are you working on it?
As for nothing else happening, the Liturgy has changed to roll back some of the V2 modifications as I understand it.
It is these things in combination, combined with the public pronouncements of all involved, including the (still pending?) deportation of the Bishop in question from his home in Argentina, that is trouble.
Maybe the subtleness is difficult to grasp for everyone, oh well, I guess
Huh?
This collection of messages from you, I am gonna have to think of borrowing it to illustrate a collection of named fallacies by example some rainy day.
Not really.
The Tridentine Mass, (which is only authorized for celebration in Latin), has never been rendered inoperable. However, the rite of 1972 has been decalred the Ordianry celebration of the church. There are a number of groups, (of which SSPX is only one), who have sought to continue to celebrate using that rite. This they have been permitted to do under a number of rstrictions with the permission of the local bishops. A couple of years ago, when Benedict raised the issue of allowing more people to celebrate using the Tridentine Mass, someone dug up an old version that included a reference to praying for the conversion of the “perfidious Jews” and demanded to know why the church was going back to that prayer.
Unfortunately, that demand got passed around the media before someone went out and noted that the phrase had already been removed from the Tridentine Mass in 1962. Now, the prayer that replaced it could also be deemed insulting, but it was not nearly the slur that got people up in arms. In response to the uproar, the pope issued a further modification to that prayer to tone it down further.
More recently, a change was made so that groups wishing to celebrate in the Tridentine tradition no longer needed to seek permission from the local bishop. (There is some confusion as to whether they can simply demand that some local priest accede to their wishes or whether they have to go find a priest who will honor their request, but the matter was removed from the authority of the bishops.)
The prayer in question is recited exactly one time a year at the Good Friday service as part of a general petition for a rather lengthy list of people.
There is no general movement within the church to “roll back” the liturgy. There has been an effort made to satisfy the desires of several different groups (most not related to SSPX) to worship in a way that they find edifying while that rite has been successively modified to make it less offensive.
No?
No. Cece was being a bit flip, which is his province, but he was not taking the time to explore all the nooks and crannies of moral or dogmatic theology.
Well that’s why I was making the argument of it as a recognition and not a punishment. Basically a warning, “If you don’t change your ways you’re hellbound.”
However, you then took that basic idea and attempted to turn it into a slur against a third party who does not even post here as a way to offend a poster with whom you were in conflict.
Just drop this hijack.
OK. Glad to get this back on track.
Can you give the actual examples of the “lesser slurs”? Isn’t judging the severity of a slur in the ears of the be-slurred, not the slurror anyway?
Isn’t this kind of uncertainty and repeated changing while trying to decide the “right” level of slur playing into the hands of SPXX and their ilk (possibly referring the Mel Gibson side of things, I know not RCC, but still claiming ultra-traditional, right?) by showing the Vatican doesn’t get it, is too far removed from Traditional beliefs and too modern to even realize it, etc?
From there it is a very slippery slope indeed to increasing numbers who would go back to traditional services and prayers and arguably everything else associated with those eras could start to look nostalgic too.
Was just thinking that the Easter weekend services I have been to the last few years have been kind of uncomfortable in that regard. Maybe I will try to look into it in advance this year so I can report back.
I don’t recall if I went to Good Friday last year or not, it seems Easter Mass had something to note about the Jews too. That likely would have been at a Jesuit church, which I am told tends to have more educated priests too, which makes it even weirder.
I don’t think it is just Masses though - I have been to 3 Confirmations, and 2 8th grade graduations in Orange County the last couple of years - I seem to recall some surprising words, and I know the kids (family) think they know about Jews because they studied them for a few days in religion class in Catholic School.
Nothing particularly special about the OC Diocese except I learned later that they had paid out a (at the time I think) largest ever settlement with respect to Priest abuse cases. That made me wonder if they were bringing the flock back in by going back to the roots., possibly under the radar, because who is at these events anyway?
But I speculate…
“Good Friday Mass! New! Now 37% Less Offensive!”
Heh!
Isn’t one of the SSPX demands to remove the ability of local groups to make their own decisions on anything, including the level of offensiveness as you put it, and then impose the oldest, most offensive version from the top?
I’m not sure where you are getting all this sliding around.
1962, before Vatican II was fully convened, the prayer referring to the “perfidious Jews” was replaced by one praying for the Jewish people.
1972: The new order of the mass is promulgated that includes a fairly inoffensive prayer for the Jews.
2006: Pope Benedict indicates that people wishing to celebrate the Tridentine Mass may be permitted to do so without jumping through hoops. (This is not aimed at the SSPX folks who are still outside the church, but at other members of the church who simply like the traditional Latin celebration.)
At that point, there is a minor outrage on the part of people who don’t even bother to find out that the offensive prayer has been abandoned for over 44 years.
2007: Pope Benedict rephrases the prayer once more to make it less objectionable.
Here is the 1962 prayer:
Here is the 1972 prayer:
Here is an unoffical translation of the newer version that remains in the Tridentine Mass (which they might not be able to celebrate, anyway–see next.):
(I’ve also encountered a claim that I have not yet been able to verify, that Bendict’s motu propio regarding the Tridentine Mass explicitly excluded the liturgy of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter from his permission–meaning that on those days the people must use the 1972 Order of the Mass, so the Good Friday prayer from the Tridentine celebration is moot.)
Not sure what you mean by “demands.” This group has about zero power or influence in the Church right now. But I’m sure you are right that one of their goals is to take the Church back to the days when priests & the hierarchy spent a lot less time worrying about what the laity had to say about things…this is one of the key areas in which traditionalists and progressives disagree, and I’ve seen small manifestations of the tension it has caused within my own parish.
But, see, you missed a step. They have been reinstated as members of the Church (no different from me, as a member of the Church). They have not been reinstated as bishops. There’s a huge, huge difference there, and you just glossed over it. They still are unofficial and unable to set policy. ALL they get to do now is take communion, like any Catholic. They have no more power in the hierarchy of the Church than I do.
I think the average Catholic thinks guys like this ought to be considered the wackos that they are, quite frankly, and they don’t particularly want to be associated with any of it. The reason I’ve even posted this defense of the Church’s actions is not because I am hoping the SPXX will lead us down the path of anti-Semitism, by any means. My purpose to it was to try to diffuse concerns that arise from a misunderstanding of what the Pope has done here. My response to FinnAgain above puts it in a nutshell…nothing that has happened reinstates any power to these Bishops or to the SPXX. I can see how a person might think that it’s just the first baby step to restoring power back into their hands, but I actually see it the opposite, or at least an attempt at the opposite. I believe that the Pope believes that the healing power of the Eucharist will help bring these men back in line with Church teaching.
Possibly. On the other hand, judging by the clear reactions of outrage from the bishops of most countries, (notably, Germany, the U.S., the U.K., and Argentina), as well as the pope’s reaction, it is unlikely that any deliberately offensive stuff is going to be tucked back into the mass. (Offensive stuff that is inadvertantly stuffed in is always a problem, of course.)
Where am I getting it from? From the place where ignorance yearns to be fought 
Thanks for the list.
Can’t say for sure which I heard, maybe 1972. I guess soon I will get to check again as I said.
Maybe I was reacting in part to hearing the Jews mentioned at all, including at this point in the service.
Weren’t there other Benedict-imposed changes in the call/response portions of some prayers at Mass? maybe the “Lord hear our Prayer” one, maybe “May God be with you/ and also with you” one? Sorry, don’t know the names, although the execution of the Mass is getting pretty rote to me by now.
Back to the principle of tolerance? Isn’t the “less offensive” version of this still offensive? Whether or not it really refers to Jews as killers of Christ or not in some deep obscure doctrine (and if we have learned nothing in this thread, it is that there are serous internal debates about what is contained in Doctrine), aside from that, why even mention another group?
I think Jews don’t have problem with the Trinity. I would say their break with the Catholic/Christian faiths come well before that and is more fundamental.
In the Mass during the consecration of the Eucharist, there is a rote recitation referring to the “new and everlasting Covenant”.
That right there is the heart of the matter. Jews believe their Covenant is fine and final, Christians believe it was not final and now they have a covenant that has left the Jews out until they in essence decide they want back in.
Jews are happy with their Covenant, and after 2000 years, if the Christians want to have a Covenant too, well, bully for them. Let their be 2 Covenants, it is a big world. That sounds very tolerant to me, yet I can’t help spending time while I wait for everyone to take their Communion, if they are in the least bit puzzled about why their doctrine’s insistence that there can only be one Covenant, theirs?
If everyone would simply allow everyone else their Covenant, then problem solved. We are halfway there already I think! [ 
Always look on the bight side of life - *a greater religious scholar then I *]
Well, several things.
First off, I didn’t mention it because I don’t believe it’s important. As Alice stated, the issue really so much about the de-excommunication as it is how it was handled. I mean, it’s good and all that the scumbag can’t set policy, but that’s not the issue that has me (and a few others) thinking that it was handled obnoxiously at best.
Second, he may not have official power, but I think we can all agree that he has more political clout and influence than you do.
Third, and finally, I think that the real crux of the issue is that in the context of his reconciliation with the Church, the Pope didn’t take into account (through folly or malice) the effect that it would have… and that once it became a PR nightmare, then and only then did he make clear that their anti-semitism was a Bad Thing. That, in context with the struggles of the Traditionalists within the Church is, to put it mildly, a red flag for people who know the history of what’s tended to happen when the Catholic Church allowed/supported/promulgated anti-Jew and anti-Judaism statements.
As I’ve stated above, I have no problem, at all, with Catholics believing that salvation comes only through Jesus, or what have you. That’s fine. Even a belief that everybody in the world has to embrace Christ in order to receive redemption? Sure, no problem. I don’t agree but I don’t find that any more bothersome than the belief that the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao. But to specifically name Jews as a group that should be annihilated via conversion to Christianity echos more than a thousand years of blood and horror. And to do that while very, very publicly anti-semitic clergy are welcomed back into communion with the Church without an (unprompted) explicit and forceful condemnation of their anti-Jewish remarks… it’s just bad juju.
We’ll see what happens, but the current Pope has evinced none of the talent (or from what I’ve seen, the interest) in interfaith warmth that his predecessor had and was, justly, well respected for. I don’t think that most Jews give a toss if the Mass is read in Latin or pig latin. But I’d wager that a non zero percent of even American Jews remember Charles Coughlin.
the aims of the group, that which they wish to accomplish byut whatever means of persuasion are available to them.
That is not the view I am getting, even from you (see next). They appear to be on the vanguard of a key movement in the Church, and influential in their thought, esp. regarding the respect that Deniers can get in the Church as a whole, among other Deniers. In effect, they act as a bridge between two otherwise disconnected groups, and that in itself carries danger.
I understood from earlier that they are reinstated as Priest and Bishops, but kind of on probation pending further negotiation by both sides. It is not as though they were stripped of their Bishophood, I was told that can’t happen upthread. Yet it is not clear that they have lost the ability to get it back fully, which does seem to be an administrative matter. Had the Denier Bishop simply recanted and apologized, that probably would have been done already. Instead, he is rubbing the Pope’s nose in his inability to control him. That is the view from here.
Yeah, but does the average Catholio in the whole world really pay attention to the inner workings of the Vatican anyway? Can they even if they wanted to? It is not as thought here are unbiased reporters with transparent access there.
I never felt you felt that way
That is your view, but not the only one. And it is an external matter because to other Deniers, one of their own is thumbing his nose at the Pope, which emboldens and enables them. That’s the PR issue the Pope appears to miss. He has personally made a decision to let this guy back in the Church, whatever his responsibilities, when he has been and remains an avowed Denier.
In fact it may be worse if he is really just a lay person because now not only is he a martyr for his cause, but any lay person can come to the conclusion that the Pope(s) spent 20 years coming to s momentous decision and decided it was OK to be a Denier and act on it and still take Communion. That simply does not square with his proclamation that the Holocaust is a historical fact, etc. The proclamation is tangential to the real problem created, and people noticed it. that makes the problem even bigger.
Agreed it is probably an attempt at that, but it is ham-handed, ineffective, and had the opposite effect on Interfaith Dialog then I believe he wanted to send. Someone else here called it tone-deaf, I agree.
And their 100K followers and those who take solace and energy in the Denier movement for the level of attention they reached into the Vatican itself? I don’t see that toothpaste going back in the tube, do you?
Those did not originate with Benedict. There is ongoing reconsideration of the liturgy ever since Vatican II and a recent proposal did urge a return to a few forms that were more familiar forty years ago. I don’t see those as going backward so much as simply trying to find good expression of what the church wants to say.
While not embracing the in your face offensiveness of “Jews for Jesus,” the Catholic church is still an evangelical body that believes that it has a mission to convert the whole world. To the extent that one finds that offensive, nothing the church can do (aside from abandoning its perceived mission) will be wholly inoffensive. Certainly, the church can avoid the wolves in sheeps’ clothing of having Baptists dress up with prayer shawls and call themselves Jewish Christians, but at some point, some action is going to be regarded as offensive. As for praying for other groups: aside from people who are offended by prayer, I cannot see where the simple act of praying for someone is offensive. If the church perceives a mission to bring grace to the world, (with or without conversion), then praying for other people is just what one does. I would be surprised to discover that Jews and Muslims never pray for the beneficence of God to be poured out on other people, which is what most of these prayers are about–far more than praying for conversions.