Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) Jeff, Who are you talking about? Me and Donna? I don't think either of us questioned the validity of anything. I certainly didn't. As for which is more "fitting", it doesn't really matter to me. I have no preference. Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 8 2006, 04:06 PM']In Hebrew, there was the concept of "the all which are many". Hence, the flexibility in language. This is why the translation "for all" does not present a problem. [right][snapback]906810[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes it does present a problem. Today, especially in this culture, we do not possess the mentalities associated with the Hebrew language. In OUR culture "for all" literally means ALL people, ALL spirits, everyone. "For many" means exactly what it sounds like it means: many, but NOT all. Failure to see this fact of conrete social reality is simply the failure to remove one's mind from abstraction to what is actually taking place in practice. It's astonishingly weird how we must consider existence through two lenses now: the "pragmaverse" and the "abstractaverse" (pardon the invention of words). It's even weirder how hard it is for some to realize that words actually have meaning in concrete reality, and that not all people are educated in the etymological roots of those words, and are thus incapable of making the necessary distinctions. Why should such an exercise be forced on people who lack the training to even be aware of the need to engage in the exercise? Why not just say it like it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Both the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are extremely valid Holy Sacrifices. There is no question about it. The only doubts begin to arise when you consider which ritual actually contributes more grace to the interior life of the Church. There IS a reality here! And in case you haven't noticed, old Ratzinger has wondered the same thing. The implementation of liturgical reform through Novus Ordo was frought with administrative corruption, bungling, and apparently ZERO prayerful reflection about the effects on the faithful of the introduction of such a vastly different ritual form. I think in the near future (heck its happening now in some places) you will see some "progressive" backtracking on the rite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amator Veritatis Posted March 15, 2006 Author Share Posted March 15, 2006 Perhaps further discussion on the words of Consecration might be directed to the other thread regarding the SSPX and FSSP, of which I am the author. Having recognised that a discussion regarding the Consecration had arisen on the other thread, I made a post comparing the two without actually drawing many conclusions and none of my own. In any event, perhaps this discussion would be better moved there to prevent excessive threads and divided commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:21 PM']Why should such an exercise be forced on people who lack the training to even be aware of the need to engage in the exercise? Why not just say it like it is? [right][snapback]912385[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The People of God aren't stupid. If you want to play that card, "for many" could suggest to the faithful that some are predestined to hell, since the blood was only shed "for many". The answer here is not to attack "for all", but to provide proper catechesis, just as we should provide proper catechesis vis a vis "for many" and any other element of the Sacred Liturgy which can be misconstrued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:34 PM']The only doubts begin to arise when you consider which ritual actually contributes more grace to the interior life of the Church. There IS a reality here! [right][snapback]912423[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Come on! Whether the Liturgy uses "For all" or "For many" has nothing to do with the grace available to the Church, or those attending Mass. It's a legitimate diversity in language. We need to get over it. There are more important things in life. Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:38 AM']The People of God aren't stupid. If you want to play that card, "for many" could suggest to the faithful that some are predestined to hell, since the blood was only shed "for many". The answer here is not to attack "for all", but to provide proper catechesis, just as we should provide proper catechesis vis a vis "for many" and any other element of the Sacred Liturgy which can be misconstrued. [right][snapback]912440[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell. You just made an illogical jump. It DOES suggest that it is possible to actually GO to Hell by one's rejection of Christ and his way. Proper catechesis... yeah you're right. And it isn't happening! Ratzinger actually speculated in one of his many writings that it would more effectively catechize people if the priest was turned around again, because many have lost the sense that what we're doing at Mass is directed to God, not ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:48 PM']Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell. You just made an illogical jump. [right][snapback]912470[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And "for all" doesn't suggest anything improper either. "For all" has been declared a legitimate form for the Liturgy. If it is causing confusion in anyone (which would be pretty rare IMO), the answer is not to attack "for all", but to give proper catechesis. If you prefer "for many", that's fine. But just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean you have to attack the other. Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:40 AM']Come on! Whether the Liturgy uses "For all" or "For many" has nothing to do with the grace available to the Church, or those attending Mass. [right][snapback]912446[/snapback][/right] [/quote] There is no way you can conclusively prove that statement. What could be more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass oh Christian?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:50 PM']There is no way you can conclusively prove that statement. What could be more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass oh Christian?! [right][snapback]912475[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, let's see. You claim the Church has deprived its children of grace because it changed the language in Mass. I don't need to prove anything. This statement is absurd on its face. The grace of the Church doesn't depend on this or that Liturgical form, this or that way of doing things. The Liturgy is the Liturgy. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:50 AM']And "for all" doesn't suggest anything improper either. "For all" has been declared a legitimate form for the Liturgy. If it is causing confusion in anyone (which would be pretty rare IMO), the answer is not to attack "for all", but to give proper catechesis. If you prefer "for many", that's fine. But just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean you have to attack the other. [right][snapback]912474[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Do you know where confusion comes from? Inconsistency. You're looking at this from a secular point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:52 PM']Do you know where confusion comes from? Inconsistency. You're looking at this from a secular point of view. [right][snapback]912480[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well when the secularites come into the Church, they can be catechised along with everyone else. You think non-Catholics care about whether it says "for all" or "for many"? This is something only we Catholics go on and on about, because we're crazy like that. How many angels can dance on the pin of a needle that is engraved with the words "for all"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:48 AM']Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell. You just made an illogical jump. It DOES suggest that it is possible to actually GO to Hell by one's rejection of Christ and his way.[/quote]Actually if you wish to adhere to the strict literal understanding that you are imposing to refute "for all" then "for many" does imply that the Bloody was not shed for some meaning they are predestined to hell. That was Era's point. If you want to refute the use of one an strict literal grounds, you must apply that to the other as well. If this is the case, then "for many" would mean that there are some for whom the Blood was not shed. We know that is not true as you indicated in a later post. One must accept Christ (oversimplification), but the point is that if you wish for a strict, first glance literal reading, for many would exclude certain people which is predestination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:52 AM']Well, let's see. You claim the Church has deprived its children of grace because it changed the language in Mass. I don't need to prove anything. This statement is absurd on its face. The grace of the Church doesn't depend on this or that Liturgical form, this or that way of doing things. The Liturgy is the Liturgy. Period. [right][snapback]912479[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So we could leave stuff out of the ritual and it wouldn't matter? Ok let's just get rid of the Eucharistic prayer. It will still be the liturgy. It's just outward forms thats all. You need to get with the program. God became FLESH! He became MATTER and FORM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:55 PM']So we could leave stuff out of the ritual and it wouldn't matter? Ok let's just get rid of the Eucharistic prayer. It will still be the liturgy. It's just outward forms thats all. You need to get with the program. God became FLESH! He became MATTER and FORM! [right][snapback]912489[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Canon has been changed too. John XXIII added St. Joseph to it. *HORRIFIC GASP* *THE HORRORS! INCONSISTENCY!* Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now