Catholic FAQ


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
  #46  
Old Sep 13, '07, 11:17 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy View Post
I notice that EWTN is really gearing up, and they're going overboard, as you would expect. It's not just the use of the Latin form of the Mass, they're really going medievil with all the trimmings of the servers holding the vestments of the priest, even though there's no reason to do it anymore.

I say this based on that little video clip they're using to advertise the coming event.

They have the power of the network to hammer home their point of view. People should realize that every Latin Mass was not celebrated with deacon and subdeacon, with vestments and everything in sight being made of gold. Your basic Latin Mass was a priest with two altar boys. Lucky if you had both an organist and choir.

Beware the neo-medievilism of EWTN. We can bring back the Latin Mass, but we don't have to regress to the Middle Ages.
Thou canst be sure that they will startle us, as they intend.
Crumpy:

What EWTN is broadcasting is a celebration of the Solemn High Mass. As an Acolyte, I'm sure that you'll recall that all of those things you're denigrating are appropriate to a SOLEMN HIGH MASS.

I attend the Anglican version of the same (a 16th Century English translation of the Serum Rite, which was one of the Rites those creating the Tridentine Latin Mass used in formulating the TLM) every Sunday. And, I have recently attended a TLM with a friend of mine who's a regular member of that congregation (The Mass was a Missa Cantata).

I've often attended Low Masses without an Acolyte because none was available, although a single acolyte is customary. I'm sure that we're all aware that the TLM can be celebrated in many different ways from a Low Mass to the Solemn High Mass. But, If you're going to broadcast a TLM to a world where most of the people have never seen one, let alone attended one, shouldn't you send out what you believe is the most beautiful form?

The people at EWTN are doing their best to present and teach the Catholic Faith in all of its fullness in the hopes that the Faith would attract people to, or back to, the Catholic Church. I'm sure that, like the rest of us, they make missteps and mistakes. Since the people at EWTN present themselves as no better, or no worse, than other faithful Catholics, shouldn't they receive the same benefit of the doubt you would ask us to give you?

I regularly watch EWTN, and they are no more "neo-medievil" than a whole lot of other faithful Catholics, and they aren't "Trying to bring back the Middle Ages", Just trying to bring people back to the Lord and His Church. As a Brother in Christ and a Catholic, I would hope that you would applaud that effort, not make baseless accusations based on your interpretation of one promo for an "upcoming attraction".

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #47  
Old Sep 13, '07, 11:36 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
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 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?
Pax et Caritas:

I would much rather the "Liturgists" have followed the tradition and practice of the Church, both East and West, and translated it correctly. But, It doesn't matter if it's a wretched translation (It is of both the Greek and the Latin). The fact is that our Lord gave St. Peter a guarantee that He would build the Church "...Upon this Rock, and the gates of hell will shall not prevail against her." (Mark 16:18)

What that means is that even that wretched translation can't render the sacrifice of the Mass, and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into our Lord's Body and Blood, null and void.

He guaranteed it and still guarantees it. As St. Thomas said, "What the Truth has spoken, that for truth I hold."

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #48  
Old Sep 13, '07, 11:39 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
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 Traditionalists 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 Traditionalists 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 erroneous translation, you said, if I recall, "I can do no better than quote James Akin on this point", 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?
Pax et Caritas:

I would much rather the "Liturgists" have followed the tradition and practice of the Church, both East and West, and translated it correctly. But, It doesn't matter if it's a wretched translation (It is of both the Greek and the Latin). The fact is that our Lord gave St. Peter a guarantee that He would build the Church "...Upon this Rock, and the gates of hell will shall not prevail against her." (Mark 16:18)

What that means is that even that wretched translation can't render the sacrifice of the Mass, and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into our Lord's Body and Blood, null and void.

He guaranteed it and still guarantees it. As St. Thomas said, "What the Truth has spoken, that for truth I hold."

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #49  
Old Sep 13, '07, 11:43 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Kelley View Post
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?
Joe:

Well Said. Amen.

YBiC, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #50  
Old Sep 13, '07, 2:43 pm
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional Ang View Post
Pax et Caritas:

I would much rather the "Liturgists" have followed the tradition and practice of the Church, both East and West, and translated it correctly. But, It doesn't matter if it's a wretched translation (It is of both the Greek and the Latin). The fact is that our Lord gave St. Peter a guarantee that He would build the Church "...Upon this Rock, and the gates of hell will shall not prevail against her." (Mark 16:18)

What that means is that even that wretched translation can't render the sacrifice of the Mass, and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into our Lord's Body and Blood, null and void.

He guaranteed it and still guarantees it. As St. Thomas said, "What the Truth has spoken, that for truth I hold."

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Pax et Caritas and my other Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The reason our Lord Jesus Christ can guarantee the Mass is because the Mass, and the Wondrous Miracle we are priviledged to participate in every time we offer it to our Lord, is something He does, not something we do.

Most of those here know how I was brought back. Because of how I was brought back, I've become intensely aware of how the Glory of God (Hashem in the Hebrew) inhabits the Sanctuary during the consecration. Part of how that happens is that the Anglican Mass, for all of Anglicanism's falts, gives enough quiet time for me to notice God's Presence.

I attended the weekly Masses of a Campus Ministry of a Jesuit university for the better part of 1-1/2 years (late 1970's, scheduled Lectors at the Masses for the parish on the grounds of the university, attended and then sang in the "young adults' choir" at another parish (late 70's-early 80's), and lectored at still another parish while being a member of the Knights' of Columbus (mid 80's). With few exceptions, I don't recall ever being conscious of the Glory of God in the Sanctuary - It seemed as if we were too busy to settle down to notice His Presence.

The TLM I attended was an "Indult Mass" which was attended by a Church full of people of all ages: Young families, families with teenagers, Middle-aged people (such as myself), and older people. It was a holiday weekend, and the Archdiocese had done almost nothing to advertise this Mass (held on one Sunday a Month), and still the Church was 80% full. It was NOTHING like the article in the Tidings.

And, Yes, I could fell the Presence of the Glory of God.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

PS: Karl, could you please have someone delete my post #47 http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....0&postcount=47 as it's was corrected by my post #48. The computer/server was acting strangely, and the double post was the result. Please delete #47, as #48 is the preferred post.
Thank You, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #51  
Old Sep 13, '07, 3:54 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 passioncrosslov View Post
However, I do believe the only reason the NO is valid is because the Key of the Kingdom say so, period!
But only because the Keeper of the Keys allows time to make the transition to the "for many". As most know, BXVI is an outspoken critic of all faulty (and deceitful) translations of the liturgy.

Maybe the Vatican should threaten them with making the Mass invalid, both going forward AND retroactively (similar to what Pope Leo XIII did) and they'll probably change the wording immediately to conform to the Latin. But I can't predict how far BXVI will push it.
  #52  
Old Sep 13, '07, 4:39 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 Traditional Ang View Post
Pax et Caritas and my other Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

The reason our Lord Jesus Christ can guarantee the Mass is because the Mass, and the Wondrous Miracle we are priviledged to participate in every time we offer it to our Lord, is something He does, not something we do.
That last statement needs some clarification: The sacrifice of Calvary was something that Christ alone did. The Mass, however, which is a representation of that same sacrifice, is accomplished by the priest acting "in persona christi", by virtue of the fact that he possess the sacerdotal character of Christ upon his soul, which he received at his ordination. This sacerdotal character upon the soul of the Priest enables him to act in the person of Christ, so that he can absolve sins and offer the Mass. Through this character, the Priest can perform actions that Christ alone is worthy of performing.

Now, in order for the mass to be valid, certain requirements must be met: 1.) You must have a validly ordained Priest; 2.) The priest must use the correct "form" (correct words); 3.) the proper "matter" must be used (bread and wine), and 4.) the priest must have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (offering Mass). If one of these is lacking, the Mass is invalid.

Now, I am not arguing that the new mass is invalid. It is certainly invalid when the wrong words are used, and when invalid matter is used. So, for example when some priest substitute "this represents my body" (which some have been doing) for the words "this IS my body" the Mass is invalid (does not take place). When some priests use invalid matter, the mass is invalid. Fr. Corapi tells a story of a Diocese in the U.S. that used invalid matter for years. He explains that this is nothing to laugh at since these "masses" are not masses at all. I remember listening to Mother Angelica one day when someone called in and said: "At Mass last night the priest consecrated a cake. What that valid". Mother Angelica said, with utter disgust in her voice "Honey you got nothin".

So, when you say that the Mass cannot be invalid because it is something that Christ does, not something that we do, that is not exactly correct. It is true that the laity have no effect on the validity of the Mass, but the Priest most certainly does; and if just one of the necessary conditions is lacking, the "mass" is not mass at all. And unfortunately, this does happen from time to time in our day. How often is anyones guess, but it certainly does happen sometimes. That's what we get when we have priest tampering with the sacraments.
  #53  
Old Sep 13, '07, 5:22 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=Now, in order for the mass to be valid, certain requirements must be met: 1.) You must have a validly ordained Priest; 2.) The priest must use the correct "form" (correct words); 3.) the proper "matter" must be used (bread and wine), and 4.) the priest must have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (offering Mass). If one of these is lacking, the Mass is invalid.[QUOTE]
What is the source for this?
  #54  
Old Sep 13, '07, 11:49 pm
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

[quote=passioncrosslov;2717865]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Now, in order for the mass to be valid, certain requirements must be met: 1.) You must have a validly ordained Priest; 2.) The priest must use the correct "form" (correct words); 3.) the proper "matter" must be used (bread and wine), and 4.) the priest must have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (offering Mass). If one of these is lacking, the Mass is invalid.[QUOTE

What is the source for this?
Passioncrosslov and Pax et Caritas:

I've seen many of the same things both of you have, and they were abominations. What is worse is that these abominations caused so many of the faithful to fall or to leave the Church, and helped cause the terrible shortage of priests and religious we are suffering now.

I'm sorry Pax, but I had thought that you were questioning the validity of the Ordo Missae 1970, and I've heard so much of it that I probably hypersensitive to it.

Passion, I believe the first source for your list is Augustine, but I know that Pope John Paul II wrote this in his Encyclical "De Eucharistia":

1. Thankfully, the Lord can use even a very sinful man to confect the Eucharist as long as he has been validly ordained.

2. According to "De Eucharistia", the required words are, "This is my body," and "This is my blood". It doesn't matter whether the priest says "for many" or "for all".

I recall that I felt compelled to speak privately to the priest who was celebrating the Campus Ministry masses during my first year of college because he refused to say, "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood," among other things. For my trouble, he called me a "Jesus Freak".

3. I understand the requirement for unleavened bread and real wine - Because of that, none of the Campus Ministry masses I attended were VALID (along with some other masses along the way).

4. Since at least one of the Eucharist miracles (where the bread and wine were changed into physical flesh and blood) was done for a priest who no longer believed in the Real Presence, I have to assume that the necessary "Intent" is demonstrated by offering the Mass in obedience to the command of Christ and the Church no matter how one feels.

What I was trying to say is that the requirement on our side is rather small - We have to provide a validly ordained priest who says the Words of Consecration in obedience to the command of Christ and his Church. What we do is rather small in comparison to what God does. He takes plain bread and wine and changes it into the Body and Blood of His Son. For doing what Jesus tells us to do, we receive the Bread of Life and the Bread of Angels, and we get to see and share in the glory of God.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #55  
Old Sep 14, '07, 12:46 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

Passioncrosslov and Pax et Caritas::

First, an axplanatory note - I'm a wretchedly slow typist. When I was trying to edit my last post, I ran out of time.

When I read or hear someone talking about "for many" v."for all" I tend to thinl that person is either question the Ordo Missae 1970 or just about ready to. You may not have been, but I've been through it so many times that my naturally suspicious nature tends to overreact.

I'm sorry if I overreacted.

In my original post that you both responded to, I ASSUMED obedience on our part, that we would do as we have been commanded to do by our Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Mother Church - That we would give a validly ordained priest plain bread and wine, and that he would say the Words of Consecration in obedience to our Lord and His Church offering them to God the Father on behalf of the assembled congregation.

I know that there were abuses and abominations aplenty during the past 40 years - esp. in the 1970's & 80's. but, I would hope that with a new Pope who knows the Liturgy and who knows how to "reform the Reform" in a Church so in need of correction, that these abuses and abominations would disappear as those who have been doing them repented or were replaced by zealous orthodox Catholic priests and religious.

As I said, I understand that we have to do some things in obedience to Christ and His Church, but the real "heavy-lifting", the real miracle, is done by God the Father through the Holy Spirit. It is God who makes the bread and wine into the risen and glorified Christ in response to the offering of the bread and the wine and of Christ's Sacrifice by the priest who stands "in persona Christi".

Again, I apologize for any misunderstandings.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #56  
Old Sep 14, '07, 5:35 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=Traditional Ang;2719102][quote=passioncrosslov;2717865]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Now, in order for the mass to be valid, certain requirements must be met: 1.) You must have a validly ordained Priest; 2.) The priest must use the correct "form" (correct words); 3.) the proper "matter" must be used (bread and wine), and 4.) the priest must have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (offering Mass). If one of these is lacking, the Mass is invalid.

Passioncrosslov and Pax et Caritas:

I've seen many of the same things both of you have, and they were abominations. What is worse is that these abominations caused so many of the faithful to fall or to leave the Church, and helped cause the terrible shortage of priests and religious we are suffering now.

I'm sorry Pax, but I had thought that you were questioning the validity of the Ordo Missae 1970, and I've heard so much of it that I probably hypersensitive to it.

Passion, I believe the first source for your list is Augustine, but I know that Pope John Paul II wrote this in his Encyclical [I
"De Eucharistia"[/i]:

1. Thankfully, the Lord can use even a very sinful man to confect the Eucharist as long as he has been validly ordained.

2. According to "De Eucharistia", the required words are, "This is my body," and "This is my blood". It doesn't matter whether the priest says "for many" or "for all".

I recall that I felt compelled to speak privately to the priest who was celebrating the Campus Ministry masses during my first year of college because he refused to say, "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood," among other things. For my trouble, he called me a "Jesus Freak".

3. I understand the requirement for unleavened bread and real wine - Because of that, none of the Campus Ministry masses I attended were VALID (along with some other masses along the way).

4. Since at least one of the Eucharist miracles (where the bread and wine were changed into physical flesh and blood) was done for a priest who no longer believed in the Real Presence, I have to assume that the necessary "Intent" is demonstrated by offering the Mass in obedience to the command of Christ and the Church no matter how one feels.

What I was trying to say is that the requirement on our side is rather small - We have to provide a validly ordained priest who says the Words of Consecration in obedience to the command of Christ and his Church. What we do is rather small in comparison to what God does. He takes plain bread and wine and changes it into the Body and Blood of His Son. For doing what Jesus tells us to do, we receive the Bread of Life and the Bread of Angels, and we get to see and share in the glory of God.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
  #57  
Old Sep 14, '07, 6:10 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=Traditional Ang;2719102][quote=passioncrosslov;2717865]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Now, in order for the mass to be valid, certain requirements must be met: 1.) You must have a validly ordained Priest; 2.) The priest must use the correct "form" (correct words); 3.) the proper "matter" must be used (bread and wine), and 4.) the priest must have the intention of "doing what the Church does" (offering Mass). If one of these is lacking, the Mass is invalid.

Passioncrosslov and Pax et Caritas:

I've seen many of the same things both of you have, and they were abominations. What is worse is that these abominations caused so many of the faithful to fall or to leave the Church, and helped cause the terrible shortage of priests and religious we are suffering now.

I'm sorry Pax, but I had thought that you were questioning the validity of the Ordo Missae 1970, and I've heard so much of it that I probably hypersensitive to it.

Passion, I believe the first source for your list is Augustine, but I know that Pope John Paul II wrote this in his Encyclical [I
"De Eucharistia"[/i]:

1. Thankfully, the Lord can use even a very sinful man to confect the Eucharist as long as he has been validly ordained.

2. According to "De Eucharistia", the required words are, "This is my body," and "This is my blood". It doesn't matter whether the priest says "for many" or "for all".

I recall that I felt compelled to speak privately to the priest who was celebrating the Campus Ministry masses during my first year of college because he refused to say, "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood," among other things. For my trouble, he called me a "Jesus Freak".

3. I understand the requirement for unleavened bread and real wine - Because of that, none of the Campus Ministry masses I attended were VALID (along with some other masses along the way).

4. Since at least one of the Eucharist miracles (where the bread and wine were changed into physical flesh and blood) was done for a priest who no longer believed in the Real Presence, I have to assume that the necessary "Intent" is demonstrated by offering the Mass in obedience to the command of Christ and the Church no matter how one feels.

What I was trying to say is that the requirement on our side is rather small - We have to provide a validly ordained priest who says the Words of Consecration in obedience to the command of Christ and his Church. What we do is rather small in comparison to what God does. He takes plain bread and wine and changes it into the Body and Blood of His Son. For doing what Jesus tells us to do, we receive the Bread of Life and the Bread of Angels, and we get to see and share in the glory of God.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Brother Michael,

First of all, thank you for reminding me of all the many good things in the liturgy. I do acknowledge and faithfully embrace these truths.

Secondly, the ONLY thing that really concerns me is that what Christ said and how He said it should be translated to the core with respect. Do you agree with me that the words of consecration are quoted from Our Lord's very own words? If so, then let it be exactly that. What exactly is the orginal Greek's script? Yet of course, we can interpret as we will but don't change the wording for translation. That is all. Looking at from a non-Catholic point of view, the "for all" tends to give an impression that, "Oh, Christ died for all. That means all of us are saved. Why bother becoming a Catholic?" On the other hand, "for many" tends to give the audience a reflective perspective: "For many...hmm... why for many... what exactly does it mean... Ah, could it mean for many of those who believe and accepr it (the Eucharist)?" Something like that.

Thirdly, otherwise, I do heart-fully believe His true presence, whether it is "for all" or "for many" because our Holy Mother Church ordained it. Even IF (and only IF) it is not actually valid despite the fact that the Church said it is valid (anyway), my faith in Christ's infinite love and mercy tells me that He still is present there, more humble than ever, for the sake of His poor little wandering flock. But because Christ gave the Key of the Kingdom to our first Holy Father, Peter, we all know that He is the True Presence.

Your sister in Christ,
  #58  
Old Sep 15, '07, 12:09 am
Traditional Ang's Avatar
Traditional Ang Traditional Ang is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2004
Posts: 3,988
Religion: TAC >>> Maronite Catholic
Default Re: Karl Keating's E-Letter of September 4, 2007

[quote=passioncrosslov;2722634][quote=Traditional Ang;2719102]
Quote:
Originally Posted by passioncrosslov View Post

Brother Michael,

First of all, thank you for reminding me of all the many good things in the liturgy. I do acknowledge and faithfully embrace these truths.

Secondly, the ONLY thing that really concerns me is that what Christ said and how He said it should be translated to the core with respect. Do you agree with me that the words of consecration are quoted from Our Lord's very own words? If so, then let it be exactly that. What exactly is the orginal Greek's script? Yet of course, we can interpret as we will but don't change the wording for translation. That is all. Looking at from a non-Catholic point of view, the "for all" tends to give an impression that, "Oh, Christ died for all. That means all of us are saved. Why bother becoming a Catholic?" On the other hand, "for many" tends to give the audience a reflective perspective: "For many...hmm... why for many... what exactly does it mean... Ah, could it mean for many of those who believe and accepr it (the Eucharist)?" Something like that.

Thirdly, otherwise, I do heart-fully believe His true presence, whether it is "for all" or "for many" because our Holy Mother Church ordained it. Even IF (and only IF) it is not actually valid despite the fact that the Church said it is valid (anyway), my faith in Christ's infinite love and mercy tells me that He still is present there, more humble than ever, for the sake of His poor little wandering flock. But because Christ gave the Key of the Kingdom to our first Holy Father, Peter, we all know that He is the True Presence.

Your sister in Christ,
PassionCrossLov:

You can find the Greek Script for Matthew 26 here (University of York):
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fish...in/gnt?id=0126

- and a prounciation key and literal translation for Matt. 26:26-28 here (from studylight):
http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible....Perform+Search

As I said in a previous post, "for all" is a wretched mistranslation of the Aramaic our Lord originally said this in, the Greek the Gospels were written in and the Latin the Catholic Church has used for some 1600+ years in the West. It can't possibly represent what our Lord said, and it's presumption of the worst sort to say that it's what He meant.

Although out Lord died for all, we recognize that many will reject His gift of eternal life and others give up and leave the "Straight and Narrow Way" because they find it to be too hard or inconvenient.

Regarding, "Why bother becoming a Catholic?" I refer you to the following article published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...tiones_en.html

Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox see the miracle God does in the Eucharist as a Great Mystery and a participation in the Heavenly Liturgy (Several Early Church Fathers wrote catechetical books for newly baptized Christians known as Mystagogia which spoke at length about this).

Think of it, If we're obedient, during the Divine Liturgy, God gives us a fortaste of heaven.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
__________________
"I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it... Ezekiel 22:30 NIV
  #59  
Old Sep 15, '07, 6:46 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

Read a lot of verbage this am. Didn,t find anyone saying thanks to EWTN..Thank you EWTN the mass was beautiful.Been so long since I have attended solem high mass (college days) you made my day.
  #60  
Old Sep 15, '07, 6:55 am
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 Traditional Ang View Post
As I said in a previous post, "for all" is a wretched mistranslation of the Aramaic our Lord originally said this in, the Greek the Gospels were written in and the Latin the Catholic Church has used for some 1600+ years in the West. It can't possibly represent what our Lord said, and it's presumption of the worst sort to say that it's what He meant.
I wanted to quote a document from an infallible council of the Church - the council of Florence. Like I've said, I don't claim that the new mass in the vernacular (with pro multis translated incorrectly) certainly invalidates the Mass. I personally have decided to suspend judgment on the matter.

That being said, if we read what the Church teaches on what is required for a valid Form (valid words) of consecration, the conclusion is not very comforting, which is one of the many reasons I never go to a new Mass. Let me quote what the Church teaches...

First, let's see what is required for a sacrament to be valid:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695)

Next we will see what the Form is for the consecration:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

Now, the question is this: Do the words "all" and "many" have the same meaning? If they don't, we have a serious problem since the above document from the Council of Florence says that substituting a word for a different word that does not mean the same thing results in the mass being invalid.

And if we consider that the Church has explicitly told us that the words "for all" are not the correct words to use (Catechism of Trent quoted earlier in this thread), it is very difficult to attempt to twist the meaning of "for all" and "for many" in such a way that they mean the same thing.

So, while I don't argue that the new Mass in invalid, it is not because I think it is valid. While it may be, there is a good reason to think it is not. I simply withhold judgment on the point.

Some will argue this: But Rome has approved it, therefore we can be certain that it is invalid. There are two responses to this: 1.) Papal Infallibility does not enter in when Rome simply approves a translation. Therefore, it is within the realm of possibility (although, of course, very unlikely) that Rome would ever approve an invalid Mass; 2.) John Paul II approved as valid a mass that has no words of consecration. You read that right. There is a Mass that has no word of consecration at all - they are competely left out - yet John Paul II signed a document saying that this "mass" is valid

For that "mass" to be valid, everything we have every been told by the Church about the validity of the sacraments (even at infallible Church Councils) would have had to be completely wrong. Fortunately, when John Paul II approved that "mass" his Cardinals spoke out against him, yet, nevertheless he did not retract his signature.

Something that is so obvious lets us know that it is within the realm of possibility for Rome to approve a "mass" as valid which, in reality, is not.

Just one more reason to attend the Traditonal Mass, where the words of consecration have not been tampered with.
 

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
8333Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5083CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4391Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4036OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: aellis422
3855SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3646Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3266Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3231Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3216Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: TheWhim
3079For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: georget



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.