|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 23, 2011 0:10:23 GMT
A late reply here: "Dynamic equivalence" is a well-known approach to translation, though in this case it was certainly taken much too far (e.g. watering down references to the spirit as incomprehensible to modern man). A case can be made that "pro multis" means "for THE many" - i.e. "for all". There is a distinction between those for whom the sacrifice is offered (all) and those for whom it is efficacious (because they accepted it). The sacrament goes back to the first century, as it was instituted by Jesus. I presume you mean the rite. The official text of the rite is the Latin. If you want to show that the rite itself is defective you must begin with the Latin, not the translation. The definition of what constitutes proper form is very broad indeed. The sacrificial nature of the Mass may have been diluted in the NO/OF but it is certainly not denied altogether. I would refer you to Michael Davies' detailed analysis of the Old and New Mass prayers (I think it is in POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS) in which he argues that the changes though in his view harmful do not invalidate the Mass. This brings us to a related topic which is fundamental to the difference between us. Central to my position is the argument that a Rite approved by the Pope has an extraordinarily high presumption in favour of its validity. You get round this by claiming that the Popes since 1958 were not real Popes. I will raise a few questions in a separate post.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 23, 2011 0:28:30 GMT
Sirivacantism has one advantage over other forms of sedevacantism in that it starts by arguing on the basis of empirical fact that John XXIII never was Pope because someone else was elected. The trouble with this is that the empirical evidence is extraordinarily flimsy - a problem with the smoke, a few rumours and claims by people with dubious credentials. There are regular leaks from conclaves, and by your argument 2/3+1 of the cardinals actually voted for Siri - yet no-one of cardinatial rank or anything resembling it comes forward to support this claim. Siri himself lives until 1989, functioning as Archbishop of Genoa for most of that time. He promotes traditionalist orders, he is a serious candidate at three subsequent conclaves, his memoirs and public statements are quite critical of certain aspects of Vatican policy - but he never lets slip the big secret and you claim it's because he's kept under wraps by the conspirators. If their control is so tight, why does he do these other things - and why don't they eliminte him as soon as they have control of the Papacy? Furthermore, your statement that an enforced refusal of the Papacy by Siri would be invalid so that no further Pope could be elected seems to me to be unsustainable. There is such a thing as the falling into desuetude of a legitimate right which is not claimed, and it seems to me that is what would happen here. Otherwise one might suggest that Cardinal Rampolla and not Pius X was the legitimate Pope in 1903, for example.
Let us take the Great Western Schism as a counter-example to your theory. It is quite clear that Pope Urban VI was elected with a howling mob outside the conclave demanding the election of an Italian rather than a French Pope. Within a year of the Conclave, all but one of the Cardinals who elected Urban publicly repudiated his election as invalid because made under duress. This is a much stronger case than anything the Sirivacantists or sedevacantists can advance - yet the overwhelming view of the Church has been that Urban was the legitimate Pope because it is unacceptable that a publicly-proclaimed Papal election should be retrospectively invalidated.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 23, 2011 15:28:56 GMT
Other problems with the Church are easier to prove, the destruction of the mass, the ugly new churches, the ecumania in Assisi, so I sometimes wonder if my efforts are not better spent exposing these other things but I'll give it a go.
Sirivacantism has one advantage over other forms of sedevacantism in that it starts by arguing on the basis of empirical fact that John XXIII never was Pope because someone else was elected. The trouble with this is that the empirical evidence is extraordinarily flimsy - a problem with the smoke There was no problem with the smoke. The stove did not have a will of its own, damp straw=thick dark smoke dry straw=white fluffy smoke
The signal indicated a pope was elected. The Vatican radio announcer exclaimed "there can be no doubt a pope has been elected!" This signal has been used for hundreds of years. I mean we all stop at traffic lights, red stop, green go, pretty much the same thing here. So, I'm just going by the signal a pope was elected at this time.
"a few rumours and claims by people with dubious credentials."
Fr. Malachi Martin: Yes there are problems with Malachi Martin but that doesn't mean he is lying either.
Paul Williams: Paul Williams wrote that there are State Department declassified documents that say Siri was elected and then threatened via the French Cardinals into abdicating after he had been elected. Nobody else has been able to find these files. That too does not mean they don't exist, just because a file has been declassified doesn't mean just anyone can go and see it. So Williams may also be lying but its funny that it is the same lie.
Fr. Charles Roux: Fr. Roux said that Siri was elected Pope and was "forced aside without actually abdicating" he also mentions a fight "shoving match" at the stove.
Paul Scortesco: On information obtained from the vatican noble guard claimed that Cardinal Tedeschini(spl?) and then Cardinal Siri were elected in 1958. Scortesco was later found burnt to death in his bed shortly after his letter was published.
Siri was also confronted twice on whether he was elected pope. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGk14Fau41U
"There are regular leaks from conclaves, and by your argument 2/3+1 of the cardinals actually voted for Siri - yet no-one of cardinatial rank or anything resembling it comes forward to support this claim."
It's a fact that after his election John XXIII kept the Cardinals in the Conclave for an extra night even though many of the Cardinal were ailing. Cardinal Tisserant wrote in a letter about the 1958 conclave that there were many sessions but he could say no more that the secret had been applied more severely than ever. As far what happened inside that conclave, we can only guess but some claim that Siri was kind of duped into stepping aside as opposed to having been threatened. "Siri himself lives until 1989, functioning as Archbishop of Genoa for most of that time. He promotes traditionalist orders, he is a serious candidate at three subsequent conclaves, his memoirs and public statements are quite critical of certain aspects of Vatican policy - but he never lets slip the big secret and you claim it's because he's kept under wraps by the conspirators. If their control is so tight, why does he do these other things - and why don't they eliminte him as soon as they have control of the Papacy?" The theory is that they needed a real pope and a fake pope. The enemies of the Church have often succeeded in electing men to the papacy who they deemed unfit for the task, Pius X may have been an example. Cardinal Gibbons explains that Pius X was in tears begging that they not elect him, but once he received the grace of the papal office he turned out to be an excellent pope. So they elected Siri, forced him or convinced him to step aside and then elected John XXIII who would be free from the grace of the papal office but would appear as the pope. [/size] Furthermore, your statement that an enforced refusal of the Papacy by Siri would be invalid so that no further Pope could be elected seems to me to be unsustainable. There is such a thing as the falling into desuetude of a legitimate right which is not claimed, and it seems to me that is what would happen here. Otherwise one might suggest that Cardinal Rampolla and not Pius X was the legitimate Pope in 1903, for example. Actually that information about Rampolla is wrong, the veto was presented as Rampolla was rising (getting a large number of votes but not quite the required majority). But you're right, there is that but there is a clause to the effect that if the pope is validly elected these things apply.
And back to the smoke, suppose it was just a mistake and the fellows at the stove kept dumping dry smoke into the fire despite the 200, 000 people cheering outside. If we then got a pope who more or less kept with tradition then I think we could dismiss it.
But ask yourself what uou would do if you were usurper and managed to get control of the papacy in the why I suggested. There you are sitting on the throne with 500,000 million people believing your the real deal, how would you go about destroying the Church without blowing your cover. Call a council for no particular reason, start making changes to the mass, set the next usurper up by making him Cardinal and indicating he is your desired successor. Receive Nikita Krushchev's daughter at the Vatican after soviet regimes murdered million of Catholics.
And there is all that about Roncalli being removed from his teaching position at the lateran seminary, his connections to freemasons and communism.
I mean there's a lot more but I'll leave it at that for now. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 28, 2011 7:57:13 GMT
A case can be made that "pro multis" means "for THE many" - i.e. "for all". There is a distinction between those for whom the sacrifice is offered (all) and those for whom it is efficacious (because they accepted it). From Rama Coomaraswamy's The Problems with the new mass www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/problemsnm.htmThe culmination of sacrilege occurs in the use of the new form of the Words of Consecration over the wine with the mistranslation of the Latin word multis (“many”) in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae by “all” in almost all vernacular versions, a change which (to use St. Thomas Aquinas’ words), clearly “determines the predicate,” with a meaning that is different from the meaning traditionally intended by the Catholic Church. The excuse given for this mistranslation was that there is no Aramaic word or “all,” a philological falsity propagated by the Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias and one which has been repeatedly exposed. 49 Moreover, of the various Mass rites which the Church has traditionally always recognized as valid – some 76 different rites in many different languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times – NOT ONE has ever used “all” in the form for the Consecration of the wine. What makes this particular mistranslation most offensive is that the Church has always taught the word “all,” for very specific reasons, is purposely not used! St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, explains why not in an opinion that is also confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent, earlier in Church history: The words pro vobis et pro multis [“for you and for many”] are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. or, as the theologians say, this precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all – it saves only those who cooperate with grace. [Treatise on the Holy Eucharist, emphasis mine]. 50 It is pertinent that Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) discussed this issue and stated that this teaching “explains correctly” Christ’s use of “for many,” as opposed to “for all” (De Sacrosanctae Missae Sacrificio). In view of the constant teaching of the Church, this change from “many” to “all” in the modern language translation from the original Latin of the New Order of the Mass cannot be accidental. 51 The Latin original of the Novus Ordo Missae still uses multis (“many”),but how often does one hear the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin? Moreover, this mistranslation occurs in almost all the vernacular versions: e.g., in German, fur alle; in Italian, tutti; and in French, the vague word la multitude. 52 In Polish, for some reason, “many” is retained. Rome clearly approved the change “translations” (Documents on the Liturgy, No. 1445, Footnote R 13). According to Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, Paul VI reserved to himself the approval of the vernacular translations of the Institution Narrative, and especially of the word multis. Given all this background, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heresy of apocatastasis is being promoted by the wording of the “Consecration” of the New Order of the Mass – i.e., the heresy held by many of our “separated brethren” (such as the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Chsitodelphians, Rationalistic Protestants, Universalists and Teilhardians), namely, (the false notion) that all men will be saved. 53 The sacrament goes back to the first century, as it was instituted by Jesus. I presume you mean the rite. The official text of the rite is the Latin. If you want to show that the rite itself is defective you must begin with the Latin, not the translation. Also from Problems with the New Mass Several points should be made in this regard: 1) Latin is for all practical purposes dead as a liturgical language. Those who point to the Latin original of the Novus Ordo Missae to prove the Catholicity of the vernacular Mass, or who use the Latin to exonerate the post-Conciliar Popes of promoting a Mass that contains heresy must recognize this fact. 2) Almost every defect in the New Order of the Mass we have discussed applies to the Latin version as much as to the English. 3) We have already given evidence that critical aspects of the translations have had direct papal approval, and we shall show below that they are advocated by official curial documents. 4) The mistranslations have been in use for decades, and complaints about them, as with the New Mass itself, have been repeatedly ignored by Paul VI and John Paul II. We are forced to conclude that the mistranslations are not “abuses,” but an integral part of the “Liturgical Revolution.” Rama takes on Davies in this short article which he accuses of 'dropping the football at the 10 yard line. catholicapedia.net/Documents/ACRF/documents/COOMARASWAMY-Michael_Davies_liturgical_shipwreck.pdf
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 28, 2011 12:06:27 GMT
This would be the same Rama Coomaraswamy who was a well-known Guenonian "Traditionalist" (i.e. a neo-gnostic syncretist) and claimed to have been illicitly ordained to the priesthood (though married) by Malachi Martin? We are arguing in circles here. I am saying that these translations are capable of an orthodox interpretation and the fact that they have received formal papal approval shows they must be read in the orthodox sense (in contrast to, let us say, the Anglican Ordinal where the fact that Cranmer clearly intended to break with the Catholic understanding of priesthood implies that the rite should be interpreted in a heterodox manner). You start from the assumption that they can ONLY be read in a heterodox manner and that therefore the Popes who approved them cannot have been real Popes. Given that the mistranslation has been corrected in the new Mass translation into English, this is a rather unfortunate issue for you to choose to "prove" that all post-1958 Popes are irrdeeemable heretics.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2011 9:55:43 GMT
Now that I have looked more closely at Coomaraswamy's critique of Davies, some bizarre anomalies come to mind:
(1) He criticises Davies for saying the TLM evolved, asserting in an extraordinarily cursory fashion that it goes back to the Apostles and any changes since then were trivial. He makes no mention whatsoever of the existence of other rites and uses within the Church. (Davies argues at some length that the TLM is enriched by elements from the Gallican Uses.) There is BTW a historical parallel with the NO. In the C18 many local French and Italian uses were simplified by rationalist reformers, which is one reason why C19 liturgists like Gueranger campaigned for their abandonment in favour of the Roman Rite - but they did not maintain that the sacraments celebrated according to these rationalised uses were actually invalid. It is much easier to claim the NO is invalid if you imply the Latin Rite never had any other use except the TLM- as for the Eastern Rites, I suspect Coomaraswamy ignores them because he sees Orthodoxy as a separate esoteric Tradition a la Guenon rather than a branch of the same olive tree; however I have noticed this ignorant dismissal of the eastern Rites in other sedes such as Fr Cekada, and it was also a fairly common attitude among C19 ultramontanes.
(2) Coomaraswamy takes an extraordinarily "high" view of Papal authority. He maintains that it is never legitimate to disobey or criticise the Pope, and if he thought the post-Vatican II Popes were real Popes he would accept everything they did and ordered even though he regards it as manifest heresy. I have seen this in other sedevacantists, and it is the central incoherency at the heart of their position - for if the Pope is infallible to that extent, it is utterly inconceivable that a Pope could ever fall into heresy and so forfeit his office. This is the maximalist interpretation of infallibility advanced by C19 ultramontanes, and it is quite incompatible with the historical record which shows that some Popes have made foolish and unjust decisions, even extending to expressing in their private capacity theological views later condemned by the Church. (e.g. Sixtus V's attempted revision of the Vulgate, Clement XIV's suppression of the Jesuits, John XXII's semi-mortalist view of the Resurrection). This is the view of infallibility taken by WG Ward, which was not adopted by the magisterium, and it comes from the same mindset - that of a theoretician uninterested in history - except that Ward was a skilled logician and Coomaraswamy all too clearly is not.
(3) His dismissive attitude to Newman is very revealing. First, it contains manifest inaccuracies (Newman did not say that the Catholic University should be released from the control of theologians - he held that it should be centred on theology as the queen of sciences - but that an institution for the education of Catholic laity should not be subject to the same minute ecclesiastical supervision as a seminary - which does not mean he wanted no ecclesiastical supervision at all; the fact that the modernists claimed to derive their heresies from Newman and that Newman's biographer Wilfrid Ward suspected they were correct simply shows that they misunderstood the difference between Newman's view of development which incorporates the past- like a tree growing, or a man at different stages of life - and the modernist view of development as rejecting the past, like a train stopping at different stations, or an invasion killing off the previous population and replacing it with colonists). Second, it makes some outrageous assumptions - that the mere fact that Newman was accused of heresy means that he actually was a material heretic and it is not necessary to prove that this actually was the case, even though several Doctors of the Church such as St Thomas Aquinas and St John of the Cross were accused of heresy by contemporaries.
In short, Coomaraswamy operates on the basis of a notion of tradition as given once and thereafter utterly unchanging, as immune to rational explanation or elaboration, and as completely indifferent to historical fact. This leads straight to gnosticism, which is why Vatican I expressly condemned this version of Traditionalism as a heresy.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Oct 10, 2011 16:15:44 GMT
Among some random, half-developed thoughts that occurred to me today was that to maintain and grow Catholicism in Ireland we need to create a rich and inviting counterculture. I remember as a small child being both concurrently proud of Catholicism as an expression of my communal identity but also viewing the faith in terms of Holy Joes and old Biddies rattling beads. That was reinforced by bad, boring liturgy and catechesis. It gave the impression to me that Catholicism was stale, unattractive and something for the elderly. That stereotype is comparatively flattering when set against the prevailing impression of the Church among my generation today (eg. single mothers tortured in Magdalene Laundries, Christian Brothers battering small children half to death, prudish priests prohibiting dances, etc.) These stereotypes may do injustice to the breadth of Irish Catholic tradition but they are very powerful in forming peoples' attitudes and behaviour, and are therefore industriously promoted by the media. We need to give an account for what has happened and what went wrong; that is something that desperately needs more focus. But we also can't just stay on the defensive either; we must go on the offensive. Not to do so would render the Church incapable of evangelization. A local Church without a sense of itself, without an internal culture, without a sense of its history and purpose, and simply reduced to a mere doctrinal or salvific orientated institution would be utterly rancid and incapable of attracting potential followers. It would also lack the esprit de corps and cohesion so indispensible to robustly challenge the aggressively secular environment we live in and to survive in it. Unlike other countries, we have no real conservative/traditionalist Catholic infrastructure in Ireland. That makes it even more essential for us to harness and exploit all the resources and talents we have at our disposal. As the Irish Church was the historic Church of a whole nation, I think we have more reference points and an inheritance open to greater practical recultivation than the American Church. The current crisis and collapse of Irish Catholicism is horrible but it also offers exciting opportunities for the future development of a remnant Church. The prospect of a backlash is improbable but a counterculture that would be both coherent and attractive could be quite successful. Irish Catholicism could flag itself as an alternative to the vulgarity, hopelessness and anarchy of modern Irish society. The insipid iconography prepared for the EC2012 suggests our Church leadership just doesn't have a clue about this. We should work creatively and constructively with our inheritance. I think we could draw on the legacy of the (still nontoxic) early Irish Church or recultivate some of our native traditions (perhaps some food for thought here and here). Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Oct 10, 2011 19:53:00 GMT
Shane has a point here. We do need to reflect on the situation, but we can't do this for ever. If we are to find an answer, it will be within our own native tradition.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 12, 2011 11:53:51 GMT
I agree - as I have often said, all too often trads resemble the Gaelgeoiri in AN BEAL BOCHT who maintain that in order to be a true Gael it is not enough to speak the Irish language, it is not enough to speak only the Irish language - you must speak ABOUT nothing except the Irish language. I have also said before, and I will say again, that though I have always been an orthodox Catholic, for a long time I tended to see it in the same terms as membership of a political party - that it was enough to hold certain opinions and vote the right way on certain issues. That's not enough - we need to develop an interior spirituality and to reach out to our neighbours in the corporal works of mercy, for our own sakes as well as for theirs. (By which I do not mean that we should be afraid that we will go to Hell if we don't do these things, but that they are the right thing to do for its own sake.) One point that does strike me about the mid-century Irish Church is that it did present itself as engaged in a great work, as possessing a great heritage, and vocation as an adventure - for all its flaws in practice, that is something we have lost and need to regain. I don't agree with Shane's point that we have more potential than the Americans - I rather think that we have less and that in order to get out of the hole we are in it will be necessary to learn from the Americans, as in the nineteenth century it was necessary to learn from the French and the Italians. That enterprise had flaws, but it did strike deep roots into the Irish heart for over a century. A few points: To get anywhere we need institutions - they get a bad press at present but the point about them is that they allow the fruits of individual experience to be stored and shared, and they allow us to locate ourselves in relation to time and history. We should seek out and join and try to revitalise organisations like the Legion of Mary or the Pioneers. I think we should let a hundred flowers bloom, and that trying to impose uniformity is a great danger. There have been arguments among Irish Latin Mass revivalists over whether we should copy the baroque-style celebration that (say) the ICKSP prefer, or maintain what was good in the nineteenth and twentieth-century liturgical movement. My personal view is that both should proceed ad experimentam and see what good comes of them, so long as (a) they don't present themselves as the only possible approach and try to suppress all others (b) they don't turn into introversionist cults seeing themselves as the only real Catholics and all else as apostates. (For that matter, if somebody were to set about reviving the Sarum Rite, rood-screens and all, and get due authority to do so, I would be in favour of letting them try it so long and see what happens, so long as they do not present it as the only permissible way or something to which they are entitled.) What we really need is to be able to take something for granted and build on it - and I hope exchanging ideas and information through this forum can contribute to the work.
|
|