|
Post by bernard on Sept 3, 2011 7:57:04 GMT
Hi everyone, I hope this isn't too intense a video for my first post. I was raised in an Irish Catholic family in Canada, went to Catholic schools and mass every week. Around 6 years ago I learned of the traditional mass, vatican II, etc, and I have been pretty obsessed ever since. Here is a kind of motivational movie I made for Irish Catholics using scenes from the 1973 movie "Catholics" later renamed Conflict with Martin Sheen and Trevor Howard. This film was made in Ireland. Apparently it is set in the future 40 or 50 years from 1970, so basically around our time. The film is about a group of monks on an island of the coast of Ireland who go over to the main land and say the old mass every week. Then a TV crew did a special on them and people from all over the world started to go there for the old mass. Rome sends a priest (Martin Sheen) to tell them they have to conform to the new way of saying mass. This video brings up the best dialogue in the film, interspersing the scenes with a song about the mass rock (where catholics used to say mass in the hills during cromwells invasion). www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ztuPBCV88
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2011 21:07:29 GMT
Bernard you clearly have a talent for media, I hope you use it for good! ;-) I'm not certain we are in agreement on your videos about papal imposters at all at all but I hope you post often. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 6, 2011 6:27:53 GMT
Thanks for watching. I wasn't going to bust out the papal imposters videos here. Things are a bit different in America, there are lots of independent and traditional groups. In Michigan alone I think there are 12 traditional parishes.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 6, 2011 10:45:24 GMT
He's not just a sedevacantist, he's a Siri-vacantist; that is, he subscribes to the claim that Cardinal Siri was really elected pope in 1958 but refused the office under threat by communists, and that his refusal was invalid so that he remained the true Pope after 1958 and the Vatican Council was invalid. He also appears to believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is actually invalid. Incidentally, he believes that the Jesuits poisoned the eighteenth-century Popes Clement XIII and Clement XIV, which is a myth propagated by anti-Jesuit writers and shows his level of critical discernment. His use of the nom de blog Bernard is explained in his first video - he claims to be fulfilling the same task of discernment which St Bernard of Clairvaux carried out in the schism between Anacletus II and Innocent II. The difference is that there were two publicly proclaimed rivals, whereas Cardinal Siri never made any public claim to be Pope and claims that he did so in private rest on witnesses of doubtful authenticity (to say the least). It also beggars belief that if the supposed conspirators were able to poison cardinals with such ease they would have allowed Siri to live until 1989. It's a historical romance as dodgy as THE DA VINCI CODE (and one source is the noted fraud Malachi Martin). Don't fall for it. For further information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirianism
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 6, 2011 11:16:26 GMT
Jeeze, you could have waited til I brought the subject up. Not that I was going to. Just thought I'd see what traditional Catholics in Ireland thought of the video, the one with Martin Sheen in it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 6, 2011 22:22:05 GMT
Is this a one man forum? I quick scroll through and all the posts are by the same guy. He gets a new member, does a background check on him and proceeds to write a long paragraph insulting him before he even makes his second post.
May I suggest you Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 7, 2011 9:17:20 GMT
It's not a one-man forum though I am the most frequent poster. Someone else founded it, it fell on hard times, and I am trying to keep it going as a discussion space for Irish Catholics of an orthodox persuasion. (Liberals are not excluded if they behave themselves; we used to have some atheists but they were mostly kicked out for being abusive.) I raised the Sirivacantism issue because Banaltra mentioned it, and because when I followed the link to your CATHOLICS video your "Papal Impostors" videos are visible beside it. It is relevant to your CATHOLICS video because it clarifies the implications of your presentation. You are not saying that catholic traditionalists have been treated shamefully by the Church authorities (as has often been the case) - you are saying that the Church authorities are not the legitimate authorities, that those in communion with Pope Benedict XVI are not real Catholics, that the Novus Ordo is not the Mass any more than a Protestant service, and that the position of traditionalists is exactly the same as in the Penal Days - i.e. persecuted by a non-Catholic body. I did not mean to insult you personally but to criticise your views. You are free to advocate them here, just as the atheists were, but I thought it advisable to point out to everyone where you are coming from. There are some intellectually serious sedevacantists (notably Fr Anthony Cekada) but they refer to matters of common knowledge. Sirivacantists claim to possess some sort of untestable inside knowledge based on very shaky evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 7, 2011 9:58:43 GMT
I would add that the Penal days analogy seems uncomfortably prescient when it is applied to what the Irish Church is likely to face and is facing from the Irish State and from various clerical quislings, but applying it to the Vatican is utterly destructive. Without Peter we are lost.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 7, 2011 13:05:40 GMT
It's not a one-man forum though I am the most frequent poster. Someone else founded it, it fell on hard times, and I am trying to keep it going as a discussion space for Irish Catholics of an orthodox persuasion. (Liberals are not excluded if they behave themselves; we used to have some atheists but they were mostly kicked out for being abusive.) I raised the Sirivacantism issue because Banaltra mentioned it, and because when I followed the link to your CATHOLICS video your "Papal Impostors" videos are visible beside it. It is relevant to your CATHOLICS video because it clarifies the implications of your presentation. You are not saying that catholic traditionalists have been treated shamefully by the Church authorities (as has often been the case) - you are saying that the Church authorities are not the legitimate authorities, that those in communion with Pope Benedict XVI are not real Catholics, that the Novus Ordo is not the Mass any more than a Protestant service, and that the position of traditionalists is exactly the same as in the Penal Days - i.e. persecuted by a non-Catholic body. I did not mean to insult you personally but to criticise your views. You are free to advocate them here, just as the atheists were, but I thought it advisable to point out to everyone where you are coming from. There are some intellectually serious sedevacantists (notably Fr Anthony Cekada) but they refer to matters of common knowledge. Sirivacantists claim to possess some sort of untestable inside knowledge based on very shaky evidence. Thanks for clarifying. And I apologize for anything nasty i said in retaliation. Though I personally think that Cardinal Siri was elected pope I in no way expect other people to accept the claim, I understand that it is very difficult to prove and there are problems with both people in the film who claim he was pope. I do not mention Benedict XVI in the films but I certainly believe that Paul VI was false pope of which there have been roughly 40 throughout Church history. As for the Catholics video I do believe that this is Satan's new approach of destroying the mass ~by instituting an imposter mass via Paul VI. I thought the dialogue in the film was a good summary of the arguments put in watchable way. I hoped it would urge Irish Catholics who were thinking of abandoning the faith to reconsider. The most convincing argument however that the new mass is not valid is that the words of the consecration of the wine were changed. Pope Pius V in 1570 had written in very altar missal his bull de defectibus which states that if anyone changes any words in the consecration of the wine "he does not confect the sacrament." He wrote if anyone changed the words but the words signified the same thing he would still confect the sacrament but commit a grave sin. In Paul Vi's new mass the words of consecration were changed from "which will be shed for you and for many" to "which will be shed for you and for all" I don't see how this could not make the mass at least doubtful whereas with the tridentine mass there can be no doubt. Lastly, I do not contend that Catholics who attend the new mass are not true Catholics. My entire family attends the mass as I did until 6 years or so ago. But there are definitely things they need to know about, particularly about the mass. I was wondering just how familiar Irish Catholics were with the History of the Tridentine mass. Do they know about Quo Primum? Do they realize all the offratory prayers were removed in the new mass, most importantly the first offratory prayer.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Sept 7, 2011 14:47:53 GMT
bernard, that is the old ICEL rendering. The Latin remains 'pro multis' (which, incidentally, does not mean 'for many' but for the many).
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 7, 2011 22:11:18 GMT
Sorry, what is ICEL? And if the priest is speaking in English he should be saying "all" And then you still have the missing offratory prayers.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 7, 2011 22:32:51 GMT
ICEL = International Committee for the English Liturgy, the body which prepared the English translation of the Novus Ordo. The Latin Novus Ordo, which is the official version, says "pro multis".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 8, 2011 0:06:36 GMT
I see, you know that lord Christopher Monkton reported in the Universe of London that there were over 300 mistranslations in the English version of the Novus Ordo. How can you explain that?
And now they are going to change the English version to "for many." Does that mean they were wrong all these years. I mean these are the most sacred words ever spoken, the consecration of the wine remained completely unchanged for over 1300 years.
I don't believe this is incompetence. I have the 1958 missal with Latin on one side and English on the other. The English translation reads "for you and for many"
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 8, 2011 23:29:23 GMT
The translators into English used a style of translation known as "dynamic equivalence" - instead of word-for-word correspondence they claimed to be translating the underlying concepts. (E.g. a biblical translator addressing Esquimaux might replace references to heat/desert etc with references to cold/ice with which the audience might be more familiar). Unfortunately this seems to have led them to water down/omit references to spirits, to God as king etc on the grounds that these were less in tune with modern man. This is what the new translation is meant to put right, which is why the liberals have been attacking it. Of course what we are talking about here are (mis)translations not of the text of the Tridentine Rite but of the Latin text of the Novus Ordo. It is the Latin which is the foundational text and problems with the English translation don't affect the validity of the Novus Ordo. Furthermore, the predominant theological view for quite some time before Vatican II was that so long as the words of institution were preserved validity is preserved - for example, if a validly ordained priest used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer with the intention of celebrating Mass as the church does, he would indeed validly say Mass (its liceity would be a different issue).
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 9, 2011 3:18:02 GMT
The translators into English used a style of translation known as "dynamic equivalence" - instead of word-for-word correspondence they claimed to be translating the underlying concepts. (E.g. a biblical translator addressing Esquimaux might replace references to heat/desert etc with references to cold/ice with which the audience might be more familiar). "dynamic equivalence" sounds like a fancy term to bamboozle people. In all 72 rites of the mass not one uses the word "all" in the consecration of the wine. I don't care what kind of translation method they used, everyone is familiar with the words "many" and "all." Playing around with a sacrament that can be traced back to the 3rd century in order to "bring it in tune with modern man." I don't see how one cannot see the fraud here. Unfortunately this seems to have led them to water down/omit references to spirits, to God as king etc on the grounds that these were less in tune with modern man. This is what the new translation is meant to put right, which is why the liberals have been attacking it. Of course what we are talking about here are (mis)translations not of the text of the Tridentine Rite but of the Latin text of the Novus Ordo. In which nobody is familiar or has likely encountered in their lifetime. It is the Latin which is the foundational text and problems with the English translation don't affect the validity of the Novus Ordo. How can you say that?! The priest isn't speaking in Latin he's speaking in English. It's basic sacramental theology that proper form (words used by the minister) is required to confect a sacrament. The form has been changed. How can the sacrament be valid? Furthermore, the predominant theological view for quite some time before Vatican II was that so long as the words of institution were preserved validity is preserved - for example, if a validly ordained priest used the Anglican Book of Common Prayer with the intention of celebrating Mass as the church does, he would indeed validly say Mass (its liceity would be a different issue). "so long as the words of institution were preserved validity is preserved" If you are referring to form, the form has not been preserved. The words of consecration have been changed, in English anyway. And that doesn't get into the other defects of the new mass, particularly that the sacrificial nature of the mass has been removed or diluted to thee point that it bears no resemblance to the original.
|
|