Sojourner Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='1308427' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:02 PM']If the prayer was changed there would be no chance whatsoever that the SSPX would ever come back to Rome.[/quote] How utterly ridiculous. And shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1308431' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:03 PM']I'm not concerned about winning an argument here. I'm concerned about the LACK of concern for salvation I've seen displayed in some of these posts.[/quote] Oh goodness... "we win" well ok poor choice of words.... Pope wins. I dont have a lack of concern of the salvation of Jews and pagans... Good Night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='StThomasMore' post='1308427' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:02 PM']If the prayer was changed there would be no chance whatsoever that the SSPX would ever come back to Rome.[/quote] I'm sorry but that would be silly, and I doubt they really would do that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1308438' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:04 PM']How utterly ridiculous. And shameful.[/quote] Whether or not it's shameful it's true. If the 1962 Liturgy is altered in any way, shape or form the SSPX will not return to Rome, at least not as a group, though possibly some families may switch to traditional Latin Masses allowed by the Pope. [quote]I'm sorry but that would be silly, and I doubt they really would do that...[/quote] Bishop Williamson is pretty radical... Edited July 2, 2007 by StThomasMore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) nevermind. Edited July 2, 2007 by homeschoolmom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1308447' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:07 PM']Oh goodness... "we win" well ok poor choice of words.... Pope wins. I dont have a lack of concern of the salvation of Jews and pagans... Good Night.[/quote] Glad to hear it ... and I think the Pope's "win" here will be in humbly offering a compromise on a non-essential element of the faith in order to provide every inducement he can for salvation. That, I think, is a beautiful example of winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1308410' date='Jul 1 2007, 07:58 PM']And goldenchild doesn't care that his prayers might be offensive to someone else.[/quote] Honestly, not really. How better to show your love?: Pay lip service to them and allude to some sort of true faith in a non-Catholic religion? Or pray that they be saved? More loving to care for a friend's mortal body or spiritual self? I totally understand your reasoning as I have read many of the recent pontiffs encyclicals etc. and awhile ago read much of the former Cardinal Ratzinger's book which touches greatly on this issue. But for me I would much rather offend someone if it meant caring for their soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1308425' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:02 PM']But it is still [i]a[/i] reason, though, correct? So what if there are other reasons? That doesn't change the fact that this was done as a conciliation to bring faithless Catholics back into the church, and to encourage salvation of others. He doesn't put form over salvation. We shouldn't either.[/quote] Last I'll say of it, the Pope would seem to wish the prayer to stay so it should stay and we should be loyal to that. The Pope's a very smart and caring person, which would the salvation of all peoples to Christ is no doubt a big part of, he's most likey heard this like of disagreement with the prayer yet has seemed to leave it, I think thats a big deal. **goodness... I not a good writer person Edited July 2, 2007 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='1308469' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:11 PM']Honestly, not really. How better to show your love?: Pay lip service to them and allude to some sort of true faith in a non-Catholic religion? Or pray that they be saved? More loving to care for a friend's mortal body or spiritual self? I totally understand your reasoning as I have read many of the recent pontiffs encyclicals etc. and awhile ago read much of the former Cardinal Ratzinger's book which touches greatly on this issue. But for me I would much rather offend someone if it meant caring for their soul.[/quote] I don't mind providing offense where offense is necessary. But where none need be taken, it is foolish to cause offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) I agree, but at least for me, I would be hesitant to say that anything at all in the Mass is unnecessary. But I definitely agree that charity is always an important virtue. In my opinion the most important virtue, "the greatest of these is..." and all that Edited July 2, 2007 by goldenchild17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The prayers are not anti-Semitic. The real question is whether they can be improved to better serve the salvation of souls. This was a chief concern at the Second Vatican Council: [quote]The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand. --Decree on Ecumenism, "Unitatis Redintegratio"[/quote] I was reading one objection to the prayers which basically argued that the theology of the 1962 Missal is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. This is not true, and cannot be a valid argument. It is a Missal of the Church that has been approved for centuries and there can be no question about its doctrinal fidelity. However, there can be question about whether we can express what we are trying to say more prudently. The prayers of the Missal are Biblical in tone, but the New Testament was written in a specific time and context, when Israel had not recognized the time of her visitation. We are 2,000 years removed from that time and have the memory of shameful relations between Christians and Jews as well as the Shoah to consider. The Apostles often spoke pointedly to the Jews, but they were Jews speaking to Jews. The Church today is largely Gentile, and that is another difficulty we face in our witness to the Jewish people; they see Christianity as something foreign to themselves. We must never compromise the truth, but the Council desired that the truth be presented in a way that non-Catholics can understand and not mistake what we are saying because of words and phrases that give a false impression (even though there is nothing strictly wrong with those words and phrases). There is nothing anti-Semitic about praying for non-Catholics, and we should not hide that we have been sent to proclaim the Gospel to all nations. As far as possible we should do this in a way that promotes the "purification of past memories" spoken of by Pope John Paul II (see "Ut Unum Sint" #2). We don't want to aggravate the shameful history of Christian relations with Jews, because it only drives them further away from the Gospel. If the truth drives people away (as in John 6) then we must still proclaim the truth; but here is not a question of revealed truth in the Missal, but rather our shameful history with Jews, and how we can pray for them in the Liturgy so that revealed truth is not obscured by that history. Whether these prayers should be reformed or not is a legitimate question, as long as it does not become a judgement on the fidelity of the 1962 Missal to Catholic doctrine. This is a question of prudence. I am cautious about those who will push for changes publicly because often they base their argument on a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" about the Council. I know the Holy Father understands the legitimate issues involved and will do what is best for the Church and the salvation of souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Personally I would tweak the prayer, because I don't think a tweak like that would hurt the piety of the Mass. But I'll gladly roll with whatever the Vatican decides. no yes yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='Era Might' post='1308513' date='Jul 1 2007, 08:19 PM']... Whether these prayers should be reformed or not is a legitimate question, as long as it does not become a judgement on the fidelity of the 1962 Missal to Catholic doctrine. This is a question of prudence. I am cautious about those who will push for changes publicly because often they base their argument on a "hermeneutic of discontinuity" about the Council. I know the Holy Father understands the legitimate issues involved and will do what is best for the Church and the salvation of souls.[/quote] :applause: superb post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pio Nono Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 JMJ 7/2 - Thirteenth Monday Umm...according to Fr. Zulhsdorf, the words "perfidious Jews" weren't even in the edition of the Missal being approved for general use. Just to give another focus to this discussion. And whether the SSPX comes back to Rome because of something like that...men like Williamson will have to answer to God for that. That's all I'll say. I might say more if someone drew me a biretta-clad smiley for Phatmass use. [b]o{][/b]:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 [quote name='Pio Nono' post='1309203' date='Jul 2 2007, 08:19 AM']JMJ 7/2 - Thirteenth Monday Umm...according to Fr. Zulhsdorf, the words "perfidious Jews" weren't even in the edition of the Missal being approved for general use. Just to give another focus to this discussion. And whether the SSPX comes back to Rome because of something like that...men like Williamson will have to answer to God for that. That's all I'll say. I might say more if someone drew me a biretta-clad smiley for Phatmass use. [b]o{][/b]:-)[/quote] [img]http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n188/PhatmassWall/biretta.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now