Catholic FAQ


We were unable to reach our goal for the summer but we have reached 98%
Please consider donating if you can and keep us in your prayers.


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Karl Keating's E-Letter: 2008
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

 
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Sep 9, '07, 6:16 pm
Karl Keating Karl Keating is offline
President, Catholic Answers
 
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 1,025
Religion: Catholic, of course
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Pax et Caritas is incorrect. I am not "becoming more and more Traditional[ist]," nor am I about to pop out of "the Traditional[ist] closet."

My current liturgical views are identical to the ones I held a decade or two decades ago.

While I consider myself a traditional (lower-case "t") Catholic, over the years I have distanced myself from some Traditionalist commentators because their arguments have been (a) uncharitable, (b) exaggerated, (c) otherwise badly argued, (d) just plain wrong, or, occasionally, (e) outright dishonest.

As for my views about the Old Mass itself, I have been amused that, in all these years, no Traditionalist reporter, blogger, or writer ever actually asked me what I thought of the Old Mass. They all seemed to assume that I must be against it because I criticized some prominent Traditionalists.
__________________
Karl
  #32  
Old Sep 9, '07, 7:04 pm
Pax et Caritas Pax et Caritas is offline
 
Join Date: April 7, 2007
Posts: 1,387
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Keating View Post
Pax et Caritas is incorrect. I am not "becoming more and more Traditional[ist]," nor am I about to pop out of "the Traditional[ist] closet."

My current liturgical views are identical to the ones I held a decade or two decades ago.

While I consider myself a traditional (lower-case "t") Catholic, over the years I have distanced myself from some Traditionalist commentators because their arguments have been (a) uncharitable, (b) exaggerated, (c) otherwise badly argued, (d) just plain wrong, or, occasionally, (e) outright dishonest.


Would that apply to the Traditionalist who argued that the old Mass had never been abrogated, and that pro multis should have been translated as "for many", instead of "for all" in the consecration?

The Traditionalist were correct on both of those points. With your intellectual abilities, I actually thought you knew the truth the whole time, but just went along with the contrary opinion since it was what Rome had been either explicitly saying, or at least implying, for all those years.

The "pro multis" argument was so obvious, that I thought you were on the side of the Traditionalists. In fact, in one of you letters (I think in This Rock), in an attempt to defend the errroneous translation, you said, if I recall, "I can do no better than quote James Akin on this poiint", then proceeded to quote James Akin giving, in my humble opinion, an extremely weak and twisted "explanation" (which of course proved to be dead wrong). I thought that was your way of saying "I have no answer to give, and the best I can do is quote this bad one".

Is that what you were doing, or was I giving you too much credit?
  #33  
Old Sep 9, '07, 7:17 pm
Warren Stassi Warren Stassi is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2007
Posts: 50
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

"This above all to thine own self be true"
  #34  
Old Sep 10, '07, 9:03 am
Karl Keating Karl Keating is offline
President, Catholic Answers
 
Join Date: April 1, 2004
Posts: 1,025
Religion: Catholic, of course
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas View Post
[/b]

Would that apply to the Traditionalist who argued that the old Mass had never been abrogated, and that pro multis should have been translated as "for many", instead of "for all" in the consecration?

The "pro multis" argument was so obvious, that I thought you were on the side of the Traditionalists.

Is that what you were doing, or was I giving you too much credit?
I think the "pro multis" thing has been misconstrued by many. It isn't that "for all" was a "mistake," as though the guys making the translation didn't know elementary Latin. The use of "for all" was an alternative formulation that emphasized something different from what was emphasized by "for many."

Theologically, both phrases are true: Christ died for everyone, but not everyone will take advantage of what he did. Everyone is redeemed, but not everyone is saved.

It is not true that Christ died, as a Calvinist might say, for the elect only and that everyone else was left out in the cold, having no chance whatsoever for heaven. Nor is it true that Christ's sacrifice will result in everyone going to heaven (universalism). He opened the door, but we still have to decide whether to accept his invitation to enter. Quite a few people won't, as the Gospels make clear.

So the translation of "for all" wasn't a "mistake" in the usual sense of that term. That doesn't mean it was a smart decision--I think it wasn't--and it doesn't mean that the change affected the validity of the Mass--it didn't.
__________________
Karl
  #35  
Old Sep 10, '07, 9:37 am
Warren Stassi Warren Stassi is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2007
Posts: 50
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

I giving you too much credit? maybe we are now seeing eye to eye
  #36  
Old Sep 10, '07, 3:53 pm
Pax et Caritas Pax et Caritas is offline
 
Join Date: April 7, 2007
Posts: 1,387
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Keating View Post
I think the "pro multis" thing has been misconstrued by many. It isn't that "for all" was a "mistake," as though the guys making the translation didn't know elementary Latin. The use of "for all" was an alternative formulation that emphasized something different from what was emphasized by "for many."

Theologically, both phrases are true: Christ died for everyone, but not everyone will take advantage of what he did. Everyone is redeemed, but not everyone is saved....

So the translation of "for all" wasn't a "mistake" in the usual sense of that term. That doesn't mean it was a smart decision--I think it wasn't--and it doesn't mean that the change affected the validity of the Mass--it didn't.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both "for all" and "for many" are acceptable. You are saying that, since we know that Jesus died "for all", there is really no problem with using those words at the consecration. Likewise, since "many" (not all) will be saved, it is also perfectly fine to use the words "for many".

In my opinion, there is a big problem with that argument. The problem arises from what the Church has told us what those particular words refer to. According to the teaching of the Church, the words in question refer specifically to "the fruit" of our Lord's passion; that is, to those who will be saved. They don't refer to those who our Lord died for.

Catechism of Trent: "...The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, (7) but were joined together by the Catholic Church under guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from amoung the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. [b]When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles.[/u]

"With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did his passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou has given me, because they are thine. (Catechism of the Council of Trent).


St. Thomas taught exactly what the Catechism of Trent taught:

I'd be interested in your response.
  #37  
Old Sep 10, '07, 10:45 pm
The Cardinal The Cardinal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Posts: 64
Religion: Roman Catholic
Send a message via AIM to The Cardinal Send a message via MSN to The Cardinal
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Ouch Warren that was just a bit harsh!!
__________________

Saint Mary Magdalene
Pray for us

Saint Anastasia
Roman Catholic Church
Playa Del Rey, CA
  #38  
Old Sep 12, '07, 9:17 am
qmvsimp qmvsimp is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2004
Posts: 1,078
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy View Post
But, the big thing is, I don't even attend Mass, anyway. The priests have gone way overboard here, and they don't even teach what the Catholic Church teaches. Even a new bishop has not made a difference in that. I think he allows the dissent because he would have to fire too many priests (if he could) and we're very short handed anyway. So, he lets these dissident priests have their way, while he (I hope) is bringing in a new generation of orthodox priests.
I find it sad that you don't attend mass. If the priest has been validly ordained, then you benefit by participating in the sacrifice on Calvary. The rest of the stuff may not be theologically correct, but the sacrifice is universal. What you're doing is allowing the theological (and political) mistakes of the priest and bishop to prevent your participation of the sacrifice.
  #39  
Old Sep 12, '07, 9:29 am
qmvsimp qmvsimp is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2004
Posts: 1,078
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Keating View Post
Pax et Caritas is incorrect. I am not "becoming more and more Traditional[ist]," nor am I about to pop out of "the Traditional[ist] closet."

My current liturgical views are identical to the ones I held a decade or two decades ago.
You know Karl, it never ceases to amaze me. Us orthodox traditional Catholics who have always followed the Pope and Magisterium in accordance with Catholic doctrine, were labeled heretics when we defended the Church's right to impose the NO since the LM was a tradition(small t). And now that it's coming back and again we defend the Church, we're now all of a sudden Traditionalists. A true Traditionalist would defend the Church and the Magisterium as a divine institution and would recognize that Traditions (capital T) come directly from Jesus and the apostles and not from Sixth Century edicts.
  #40  
Old Sep 12, '07, 11:49 am
Joe Kelley Joe Kelley is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 24, 2004
Posts: 15,760
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by qmvsimp View Post
I find it sad that you don't attend mass. If the priest has been validly ordained, then you benefit by participating in the sacrifice on Calvary. The rest of the stuff may not be theologically correct, but the sacrifice is universal. What you're doing is allowing the theological (and political) mistakes of the priest and bishop to prevent your participation of the sacrifice.
My Father always told me that on the last day I won't be asked, "Who said the mass?" The question will be, Were you there?
__________________
I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,
  #41  
Old Sep 12, '07, 2:59 pm
H Opey H Opey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Posts: 338
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

I have never been to any Latin or should I say Tridentine Mass but we hope to participate in one. We will not have one around here tho.
My reasoning being that it is more reverent. And those intimidated by the Latin, doesn't the Missal have English on the opposite page? Well, I may not understand everything, but what I understand in our NO I do not think is right. So it is a toss up.
  #42  
Old Sep 12, '07, 3:14 pm
The Cardinal The Cardinal is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Posts: 64
Religion: Roman Catholic
Send a message via AIM to The Cardinal Send a message via MSN to The Cardinal
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Hey Opey,

When I was about 14 I expressed an interest in attending a latin Mass so my Grandmother who hadn't been to one in 30 + years decided to take me and I can't tell you how much I loved it! At the time I didn't know any latin, but I assure you it was not difficult to follow and the translations are there so you know exactly what's going on. One thing I love is when the priest blesses you with the host and prays in latin "May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto everlasting life. Amen". That alone is something I wish the NO would have preserved.
__________________

Saint Mary Magdalene
Pray for us

Saint Anastasia
Roman Catholic Church
Playa Del Rey, CA
  #43  
Old Sep 12, '07, 3:20 pm
H Opey H Opey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Posts: 338
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Cardinal, I agree and I can't wait! I have looked up some on the internet, but they mainly were "teaching" masses (which it boggles my brain that any Bishop would complain about not having resources or priest for that matter when lil ol me has access to it!)
I just can't wait! I was hoping to go to Hanceville but that is not going to happen now. Will have to settle for the TV. Thank God for EWTN!
  #44  
Old Sep 12, '07, 6:47 pm
BobP123 BobP123 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Posts: 2,696
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Keating View Post
I think the "pro multis" thing has been misconstrued by many. It isn't that "for all" was a "mistake," as though the guys making the translation didn't know elementary Latin. The use of "for all" was an alternative formulation that emphasized something different from what was emphasized by "for many."
OK, but if it's Catholic (meaning universal) why don't ALL translations say "for all"? Why do Polish and Latin say "for many" and a few others say "for the multitudes"? Seems like consistency certainly wasn't a by-product of Vatican II.

Quote:
So the translation of "for all" wasn't a "mistake" in the usual sense of that term. That doesn't mean it was a smart decision--I think it wasn't--and it doesn't mean that the change affected the validity of the Mass--it didn't.
They always have to throw in the "it is still valid" mention whenever this topic is brought up. But is validity all there's to it? Seems like there should be more to a Catholic Mass than whether it's valid or not.

Good newsletter, though.
  #45  
Old Sep 12, '07, 9:24 pm
passioncrosslov passioncrosslov is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 103
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

[quote=Karl Keating;2703095]I think the "pro multis" thing has been misconstrued by many. It isn't that "for all" was a "mistake," as though the guys making the translation didn't know elementary Latin. The use of "for all" was an alternative formulation that emphasized something different from what was emphasized by "for many."

Theologically, both phrases are true: Christ died for everyone, but not everyone will take advantage of what he did. Everyone is redeemed, but not everyone is saved.[quote]Wow, I feel so little voicing my thoughts among you great theologians and learned since I am neither. I personally believe the words of Our Lord should not be changed because He said it Himself (if I remember it correctly), "Heaven and earthly shall pass away, but by words will not pass" (even to the last punctuation). "For many" should be left as it is. The words of consecration are His words and no one has the right to presume that "He did not know what He was talking about, therefore this is what He meant". Karl's explanation is not wrong, but translation must be translation and not replacing it with interpretations (for Mass and Scripture) because one interpretation could lead to another (mis)interpretation and so on... Sometimes I think: how dare we change Christ's words! How dare we!

Quote:
It is not true that Christ died, as a Calvinist might say, for the elect only and that everyone else was left out in the cold, having no chance whatsoever for heaven. Nor is it true that Christ's sacrifice will result in everyone going to heaven (universalism). He opened the door, but we still have to decide whether to accept his invitation to enter. Quite a few people won't, as the Gospels make clear.

So the translation of "for all" wasn't a "mistake" in the usual sense of that term. That doesn't mean it was a smart decision--I think it wasn't--and it doesn't mean that the change affected the validity of the Mass--it didn't.
I've looked up from the few bibles I have on hand and they are all "for many". I believe even King James version preserve this part. Now, if most/all bibles "dare not to change His words" at least for this most sacred moment of Christ's life on earth, why was it changed at the most important part of the Holy Sacrifice, the beating heart of our Church? Let the Incarnate Word be, "I AM".

However, I do believe the only reason the NO is valid is because the Key of the Kingdom say so, period! The wonderful outcome of this was that the depth of Our Lord's compassionate love and mercy is evermore revealed through making Himself available for us even with all our boldness and arrogance in changing His very own words, making my heart pumping even more in ecstasy!

Again, please excuse my littleness.

A humble handmaid
 

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Karl Keating's E-Letter: 2008

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8298Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5063CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4349Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: James_OPL
4033OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3849SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3603Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: James_OPL
3257Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3210Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3182Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3063For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: ineeda



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:34 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.