Text Of The New Icel Translation

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1244649' date='Apr 15 2007, 06:49 PM']Justin,

Papal Infallibility does not mean everything the Pope says is infallible. There is a non-infallible magesterium. It's not as if the Pope can't sin or can't make a personal error.

The Pope does not write the translations, there are committees made to do such things. Why do you suppose the Pope constantly requires new translations to be made? Obviously he sees problems in them.[/quote]

*nods* I am aware of the distinction between supposed personal infallability (something my Catholic friends have helped me learn over the past few years), and the actual function of the Magisterium. However, I would have grave doubts that Benedict leaves such an issue to his personal decisions--if I were in Peter's Seat, I would certainly pray for guidance. However, the concept of the Magisterium also extends to those Bishops who are in communion with the Pope--of which, the Pope is first among equals. To doubt the ability or accuracy of the work of the bishops in ICEL is also to call into question the accuracy or ability of the Magisterium. And at the same time, I am aware of the importance of following one's personal conscience on certain issues, though I would not pretend to be able to discern where the line between obedience and personal conscience would fall.

And I understand that the work of ICEL falls under the category of "ordinary Magisterium," and therefore is not infallable and can be reformed or recalled if necessary.

My big thing is this ... I have to wonder if at least some of the argument against the forms of the post-V2 liturgy may be based in emotional traditionalism, rather than in a logical desire for consistancy. I quite understand that if one holds a doctrine that is to be translated into another language, it should be translated accurately. What I don't understand is why people are dividing on an issue for what look like emotional reasons, rather than tangible issues of doctrine.

[quote]There is so much to read on what is going on in the contemporary earthly Church.
Here's some more [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CONSELIB.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/CONSELIB.TXT[/url][/quote]

I will peruse this in greater depth, though it will take a while. Thank you for the link.

[Aloysius]

when it comes to liturgy; everything is important because everything means something and everything done in the liturgy affects the way the average pew-sitter who doesn't study theology believes. for most Catholics, the only way they know their faith is by sitting in the pews every sunday and watching it unfold. so every tiny detail means something; something that elicits an affective visceral response not directly gaugable by this or that specific doctrinal explanation; it affects the way people live their faith and feel their faith, that's why sometimes what you call "emotional traditionalism" is important; because we want people to experience the same faith that has been experienced by pew sitters for thousands of years; and any tiny alteration will have unintended consequences we cannot fully understand.

a liturgy is its own microchosm of a culture. it's intricately woven in all its asspects; to change one minute aspect is to affect everything. that's why liturgical reform should be a ground treaded upon with extreme caution.

anyway, language is not a fluid as many people think it is; well, at least not in the way many people think it is. you can alter the usage of a word, but its old meaning will usually stick with it in the feelings elicited by the word. so if we start saying "person" instead of "man", we may think we have not affected the semanticity but we have indeed; a person is an abstract concept consisting of how one is presented to the world (from the latin for mask, persona); it carries with it a lot of semantic baggage and people still feel that. moreover, people still feel and understand when one says "man" generically, especially in poetry this is evident. they have been trained by elitists from the top down to form some sort of indignation when it is used in this manner, but they still feel what it means quite clearly; and it means something a lot deeper than "person", a charecter in a fiction can be a person, an ANGEL can be a person, indeed there are three Persons in God Almighty. but only a real flesh and blood union of body and soul can be "man" or "anthropos" in a striking, profound, and poetic way that really connects with the soul of speakers of the English language.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Greetings, Aloysius,

You've certainly given a very passionate, heartfelt reply ... but again, your reply seems to be an appeal to the emotions, rather than an appeal to reason. And as it stands, there are several problematic issues with the substance of your reply.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1244779' date='Apr 15 2007, 08:02 PM']when it comes to liturgy; everything is important because everything means something and everything done in the liturgy affects the way the average pew-sitter who doesn't study theology believes. for most Catholics, the only way they know their faith is by sitting in the pews every sunday and watching it unfold. so every tiny detail means something; something that elicits an affective visceral response not directly gaugable by this or that specific doctrinal explanation; it affects the way people live their faith and feel their faith, that's why sometimes what you call "emotional traditionalism" is important; because we want people to experience the same faith that has been experienced by pew sitters for thousands of years; and any tiny alteration will have unintended consequences we cannot fully understand.[/quote]

Such a cry for traditionalism stirs the heartstrings, but is, fundamentally, meaningless. The "logical appeals" used are highly questionable.

1: "everything is important because everything means something." While I tend to agree with the basic statement (Wiccans also have a liturgy that is highly symbolic), the remainder of the argument does not address, or even consider, whether the proposed changes more accurately or less accurately demonstrate the meanings.
2: "for most Catholics, the only way they know their faith is by sitting in the pews every sunday and watching it unfold." A most hasty generalization. Here in America--one of the most educated populations in the world--making such a hasty generalization not only deliberately ignores the possibility of self-education on the part of American Catholics, but insults the efforts of those who make such an attempt.
3, a: "so every tiny detail means something; something that elicits an affective visceral response not directly gaugable by this or that specific doctrinal explanation." Attempting to gauge the efficacy of a liturgy by the "visceral response" is a most inappropriate way to go about things. The pursuit of correct doctrine is not based in the viscera, but in the mind and the heart.
3, b: More specifically, the primary intent of Mass is not education, but worship. While there is an educational portion of it (else there would be no homily), the primary purpose of the Mass is [i]latria[/i].
4: "any tiny alteration will have unintended consequences we cannot fully understand ... a liturgy is its own microchosm of a culture. it's intricately woven in all its asspects; to change one minute aspect is to affect everything. " Both an appeal to ignorance, and a "slippery slope" argument.
5: "that's why liturgical reform should be a ground treaded upon with extreme caution." On this we agree completely--though I honestly feel that you are ascribing far less caution to the ICEL than they are applying to the issue.
6: "anyway, language is not a fluid as many people think it is." False, but understandably so: such knowledge requires somewhat specialised study of linguistics. You claim that the emotional reaction to a word changes less slowly than the meaning: the opposite is actually true. The denotation of words is relatively conservative, especially in literate cultures: having a written language tends to conserve the denotation of words. Connotation, however, relates more to spoken language, and conntations are extremely mutable.

Aloysius, for you to attain the level of traditionalism you aspire to, you would be performing the Mass in Aramaic--the language of Jesus Christ--or Greek--the language of the Early Church, and the language that would have been used by the first churches. You would be having Mass in the house of a local believer, for no churches would be built. And you would be doing so according to the standards and understanding of the First Century believers, else you could not possibly "experience the same faith that has been experienced by pew sitters for thousands of years."

The experience of faith is certainly assisted by the form of the specific ritual used, but [i]Catholics do not call the specific form of liturgy "Lord.[/i] What you are arguing for is not a tradition of liturgy, but an ossification of liturgy, setting said liturgy on a pedestal, and offering your latria not to God, [b]but to the form of the liturgy itself.[/b]

As a Catholic, you know how grave a sin such a thing would be. Even as a non-Catholic and a non-Christian, I would warn you away from such an error, for my faith also holds such foolishness to be a grave wrong. The precise wording of the Liturgy in English is not immutable, infallable, nor inviolable.

I tell you sincerely: language changes,and traditions change with the language. A tradition that remains inviolate will become irrelevant to the people who practice said tradition: it will fall into disuse and be discarded. And that is precisely what I do not want to see happen to the liturgy specifically, nor to Christianity in general.

Please accept the above criticisms as being given in an attitude of humility and charity. As I have said before, it would be inappropriate for me to offer criticism on the substance of he liturgy or the doctrines involved, but I can comment on hyper-traditionalism.

[mortify]

[quote]To doubt the ability or accuracy of the work of the bishops in ICEL is also to call into question the accuracy or ability of the Magisterium.[/quote]Are bishops part of the ICEL? But anyway, if you realize there is a non-infallible magesterium why do you have a problem with people addressing potential errors?

[quote]My big thing is this ... I have to wonder if at least some of the argument against the forms of the post-V2 liturgy may be based in emotional traditionalism, rather than in a logical desire for consistancy. I quite understand that if one holds a doctrine that is to be translated into another language, it should be translated accurately. What I don't understand is why people are dividing on an issue for what look like emotional reasons, rather than tangible issues of doctrine.[/quote]

Justin, if you think it's all about emotion and Latin you really need to read more. The issues are far greater and deeper than that.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='mortify' post='1245140' date='Apr 15 2007, 11:38 PM']Are bishops part of the ICEL?[/quote]

Yes: the current chairman is Bishop Arthur Roche, and all chairmen have been bishops, archbishops, or cardinals.

[quote]But anyway, if you realize there is a non-infallible magesterium why do you have a problem with people addressing potential errors? [/quote]Because many of the "errors" listed come down to emotionalism.

Because it concerns me to hear similar arguments coming from current Catholics and Sedevacantists.

More selfishly, because I'm tired of counselling Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) who leave their church for reasons of enmity, division, and strife within the Church. Don't get me wrong--I've met friends that I truly cherish in such counselling, and unless they leave the church for licit reasons (in my best judgement), I do my utmost to encourage them back to the Church, but I am sick and tired of catching Christian fallout. I literally weep for the pain these walking wounded have been through.

[quote]Justin, if you think it's all about emotion and Latin you really need to read more. The issues are far greater and deeper than that.[/quote]

Mortify, I [i]have[/i] been reading on this topic--extensively, and for far longer than I've been a member here. I know far more than I ever wanted to about Vatican II, the Econe consecrations, and other related issues.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1244779' date='Apr 15 2007, 08:02 PM']when it comes to liturgy; everything is important because everything means something and everything done in the liturgy affects the way the average pew-sitter who doesn't study theology believes. for most Catholics, the only way they know their faith is by sitting in the pews every sunday and watching it unfold. so every tiny detail means something; something that elicits an affective visceral response not directly gaugable by this or that specific doctrinal explanation; it affects the way people live their faith and feel their faith, that's why sometimes what you call "emotional traditionalism" is important; because we want people to experience the same faith that has been experienced by pew sitters for thousands of years; and any tiny alteration will have unintended consequences we cannot fully understand.[/quote]
I've been reading this thread with extreme interest.
I've seen this sentiment about how each and every little thing means soooooooo much. That was the deal with the Pharisees as well.
I certainly believe the details are important, but the details do not over-ride the intent or principles. I believe the effects of the detail are over-blown and have lead to the worship of rubrics and religion over principles. The details are important when they clearly ignore principles. Arguing over minutiae certainly becomes counter-productive. One of the reasons why I am now a non-Catholic is because I lost faith in a Religion that lost sight of the Principles while worrying about minutiae. What's the big deal about the accuracy of translation when the Bishops and Priests aren't communicating the Principle of the Real Presence and removing the Tabernacle from the Church and ignore other moral principles of Christianity?

[Theologian in Training]

[quote]What's the big deal about the accuracy of translation when the Bishops and Priests aren't communicating the Principle of the Real Presence and removing the Tabernacle from the Church and ignore other moral principles of Christianity?[/quote]

But, you see, that is why it is a big deal, because when we offer the Mass with a translation that stresses the sacrificial nature and the Real Presence of the Eucharist, we can convey to the faithful, if even, subtly, why they are there in the first place. I will give you that a lot of priests either fear or don't think it necessary to speak about the Real Presence, morality, or the like, and that is a fault on our side, however, since the Mass is such a large part of most Catholics, what better way to stress the importance of our faith than through that means?

It kind of falls under the idea that if you tell someone something long enough they start to believe it. Unfortunately, for too long, we have referred to the Eucharist as bread and the Blood as wine, and we have taken fundamental truths of the faith and tried to make them more palatable, and more common, to the detriment of the inherent mystery that is contained within each. The way I see it is that some of us priests got tired of sounding so academic and so "theological," that instead of finding a way to help it make sense, we would rather ignore it altogether and talk about other things. But, again, this takes away the fact that, though we can understand, there is a point where faith must kick in, and we have to believe some of the greatest mysteries that our Catholic faith has to offer. This is why the Real Presence can never be fully proven, because all the arguments in the world, all the theological dissertations will mean nothing until we have faith. I can tell you, over and over and over again that the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, as a result of the words the priest speaks and by virtue of his ordination, but unless we have if even a mustard seed of faith, it sounds like magic or worse, a fairytale we make up to "draw the crowds."

The translation is trying to stir up and incite that faith that we need through means of the words that we use. If you hear "sacrifice "over and over again, rather than "bread and wine," you start to think about the Eucharist differently. If you hear "sin" rather than "fault" or "mistake" you start to think about what sin means and how it causes offense, and the degree to which it causes that offense. And, that thinking licits a response, be it negative or positive, but at least it offers a challenge, it offers the ability to believe or to leave.

The words we speak at Mass are important because they show us and help us to understand what Christ did for us and why He did it. Why do you think that when all the changes occurred, the one thing that was never allowed to change were the words spoken by Christ Himself "This is my Body," and "This is my Blood" because without those words the Eucharist does merely remain bread and wine, without those words every and anything Christ did was all in vain, because it was His sacrifice, it was His laying down His life, it was Him taking upon our sins that saved us. And, if the priest speaks those words and doesn't believe them, because he has fallen into the same mentality as some of the people, then what's the point. For, you see this translation is not just to correct faults and clean up the language, it is also there to remind the priest why he is there and the important task he has been given. Why else would the bishops think it so important to change the very langauge that priests speak (or should speak) every single day? It is just as much for the priests as it is for the people.

Perhaps, I too will be accused of appealing to emotion, but when something is so important to you, it is more than just something we rationalize and think about, but something that makes up every part of our being. If we don't love our faith than how can we profess it to others, and if we are not passionate about what believe, then why follow?

that is my long-winded .02 on the whole thing.

God Bless

Fr. Brian

[Anomaly]

You didn't address the qualifier in the question. How important is the translation when the Clergy don't communicate the Principle of the Real Presence? I'll be more specific. More attention is given to the placement of the choir than the Tapernacle. The fact that many priests don't themselves genuflect when crossing the tabernacle, much less encourage a culture of reverence. The fact that many priests don't even comment about poor behavior (talking, kids playing, etc.) during the Consecration, etc. The fact that the Tabernacle has been moved from a prominent place in the Church, especially in new construction. The fact that priests don't discuss when to recieve Communion or not.
Considering that, whether you call the Eucharist, Bread and Wine or the Sacrifice, is moot when what the Sacrifice is or the Bread and Wine is, isn't communicated by act and word.

[Theologian in Training]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1245577' date='Apr 16 2007, 11:22 AM']You didn't address the qualifier in the question. How important is the translation when the Clergy don't communicate the Principle of the Real Presence? I'll be more specific. More attention is given to the placement of the choir than the Tapernacle. The fact that many priests don't themselves genuflect when crossing the tabernacle, much less encourage a culture of reverence. The fact that many priests don't even comment about poor behavior (talking, kids playing, etc.) during the Consecration, etc. The fact that the Tabernacle has been moved from a prominent place in the Church, especially in new construction. The fact that priests don't discuss when to recieve Communion or not.
Considering that, whether you call the Eucharist, Bread and Wine or the Sacrifice, is moot when what the Sacrifice is or the Bread and Wine is, isn't communicated by act and word.[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, however, that is why the translation is so important, to underscore to both priests and the faithful alike, that there is something more going on at Mass than a dinner party with a few readings and a talk.

[Aloysius]

My appeal to emotions was more of an explanation as to why emotional appeal is important in these discussions. Because the liturgy is inherently the way people experience the liturgy emotionally, we should be talking about what the natural visceral response of the sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful who are connected to the community of the faith as has been passed down; the sensus fidelium is not contained in the whims of a community affected by a modern cultural shift)

experiencing the same faith does not preclude any and all change; it means preserving the way the faith is expressed in its fundamental form. languages can change, areas can change, but the prayers and the way they are prayed are something that should organically change out of the sensus fidelium preserving the same expression of the faith, the same experience of the faith. people praying the liturgy in Latin were experiencing the same liturgy prayed in Greek before them; people praying the liturgy in a Church were experiencing the same liturgy prayed in houses before them; but when the language is fundamentally altered, sanitized, and changed and the laity and priesthood are blurred, and massive changes make fundamental cultural shifts that make people sense a disconnect between their worship and that of their grandfathers, this begins to alter the experience of the faith in the mass. emotions are important in liturgy.

I'm not supporting worshipping rubrics over latria to God, nor rubrics over intention. What I am saying is that the way the rubrics play out affects directly and powefully the way people believe. The Liturgy has to be preserved as something that people see as outside of their control, transcendent of their everyday speech, and reaching out towards the divine. Yes: latria is more important than education; but the way latria is performed in ritual alters the way people look at God in fundamental ways. lex orandi, lex credandi.

As regards linguistics: I am an undergraduate anthropology major and I do study linguistics, I am in a lingustics class right now. When I say language is not as fluid as some people think it is, I mean that words maintain their meaning in the viscera long after people stop consciously thinking of them in that way. There are conscious connotations which are absolutely fluid, but the emotional visceral reaction to words maintains much more stagnant than most people think. The word "man" still has all the visceral power that it always had, it is still a very strong word that people understand deep down when they here it used in its general meaning. When one hears the quote "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" they still get the feeling of man in its general meaning. "One small step for people, one giant leap for mankind" would automatically alter the way people understood that; it would weaken it, make it more abstract and less concrete. No one has altered their language to the point of being unable to immediately understand the usage of "man" in the generic form (now, I feel I must say, the quote I provided is actually a mistake, he was supposed to say "one small step for a man", but apply all I said to the difference between 'mankind' and 'humankind' and it still is absolutely true) and it would be very difficult to fundamentally alter language in that way.

it's like how we still subconsciously use the germanic parts of our language when we are being more sincere and the french parts of our language when we are being less concrete, more abstract, official, or insincere. there's an inherent visceral response to words; the word "person" retains all of its old meaning, nobody is getting the same visceral connotation of "person" as they would of "man", and they never will. person just means something absolutely different.

You are right about how fluid the conscious connotations surrounding words are. But words remain attached to their baser semanticity in the visceral reaction people have to them. that does not change as easily as some people think it does; or as some social engineers think they can make it do with their resurrected ghost of the oft refuted Sapir Whorf hypothesis.

as regards this: "any tiny alteration will have unintended consequences we cannot fully understand ... a liturgy is its own microchosm of a culture. it's intricately woven in all its asspects; to change one minute aspect is to affect everything. "

No, it's not a slippery slope argument. It's an explanation of the law of unintended affects. Very few things in social science can be attributed the status of "law", but this is one of them. altering one aspect of a culture always affects the whole culture in unforseeable ways. That's why I suggest CAUTION and a spirit of acceptance towards what has been passed down, a spirit of humble acceptance that feels unworthy to alter it unless the sensus fidelium absolutely calls for some minor alterations or restorations of previous practices (like the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday). I'm not calling on no change at all; I just think the sanitized language and the inclusive language is a bit damaging to the experience people have of their faith; it gives them an unnecessary sense of disconnect between them and past Christians.

All I'm saying is that there is some degree of emotion and viscera that must be taken into account with discussions about the liturgy. I could put together a perfectly doctrinally correct liturgy if I put some time and effort into it; but if I didn't take into account the visceral reaction of those delved into the faith Catholics have been experiencing for thousands of years in the pews, it would turn out as sterile and surgical and would not feel organic, sacred, and transcendent. That's the way the faithful's sense, and that's the faithful who are connected to the historical community... the ones we would go to to do a cultural comparison to find out what the faithful were like hundreds of years ago, ie connected to the same tradition and culture...

anyway, I'm fine with a lot of the perspective being offered here: the perspective that calls upon Catholics not to obsess over little things in liturgy to the detriment of their worship. Catholics who know a lot about the rubrics should not allow it to distract them from their worship. debates about liturgical things such as this are meant to better educate as about the nature of the perfect united expression of the liturgy; they're meant to help us understand the far reaching effects on the average pew sitter who has no interest in theology. of course someone who studies theology on their own is capable of focusing nearly any type of liturgy on Christ in a proper way; but for those who do not know things so well, they ought to be safe to be formed in the faith correctly by experiencing the correct liturgy. but by no means let it distract you from worship; and certainly nothing I ever said even approached worshipping the rubrics over God. I'm mostly concerned with rubrics only insofar as they reflect the sensus fidelium and the unity of the Church's worship; I have no pharasaicle understanding of rubrics. I like the Eastern and/or pre-Tridentine perspective on rubrics much better; though post-Tridentine era that's nearly impossible for the Roman Church to go back to. but I don't see the modern liturgical liberality as anywhere remotely like the Eastern or pre-Tridentine perspective because of its disconnectedness from the past and because of its

but one last thing about the linguistics of man: can anyone honestly tell me that they do not totally understand what "man" means in its general form? anyone who speaks english as a first language has that as their base visceral understanding of the term, and despite all the consciously fabricated connotations one develops around it they retain that feeling; just like they intuitively see germanic based words as more sincere, and how they still get the abstract nature of the word "person" and the sterile and adjective nature of the word "human". english speakers still get it, they probably always will still get it (it could be wiped out in a few more generations with real vigorous work by social engineers, perhaps, but that won't lift up these replacement words to anywhere near the same feeling we get when we hear "man" generally spoken)

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Aloysius, I'm not going to have the time to give your post the quality and depth of reply that it deserves, and I so apologize for that. I will make one point, then my brief recap.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1246824' date='Apr 17 2007, 01:11 AM']My appeal to emotions was more of an explanation as to why emotional appeal is important in these discussions.[/quote]

An appeal to emotions is rarely, if ever, a valid method of seeking for facts. I quite agree that there is a strong emotional component in proper worship, but the process of deciding what is proper liturgy must be performed with cold, clinical precision, else that process can be swayed by nostalgia, or even by superstition.

For the rest--I will try to get back to it tomorrow. However, let me assure you that my problem with this issue is not a preference for one form of the liturgy over another. I frankly have only heard one NO mass, and have never heard a Tridentine mass--an oversight that I intend to correct, if there is a Tridentine mass available in my area. My issue is with the inconsistant logic of accepting the authority of the Magisterium on the one hand, yet questioning (or even, as some do, resisting or being schismatic over) the decisions of that same Magisterium.

As I noted, I am familiar with the Econe consecrations (which was my first introduction to this particular isue)--and frankly, Lefebvre was a heretic and a schismatic. That is his choice, and to tell the truth I feel that part of that choice may have been prompted by the diminishment of his faculties that occurs with all people when age takes its toll. Frankly, even though I personally do not accept the concept of the Magisterium, I feel that it is intendant on those who do to act in a manner in accord with the doctrine.

Finally, I want to assure you that at no point in this conversation have I taken the attitude of "fussing" at you, or of somehow being the "superior" teaching the "inferior." Aloysius, like you, I am striving towards God with all my heart, and trusting God for my shortcomings, and hoo boy I have a gracious plenty of them! I do not want to give even a fleeting impression that I somehow feel more knowledgeable, or superior, in any way to you or to anyone on this forum. What I am pointing to is an apparent problem with consistancy between one's claims and one's actions ... and even at that, I am persuaded in my heart that the reason for the inconsistancy is not because of any malfeasance on your part, but because you love God so passionately you want to do your best in His eyes.

[Aloysius]

I never thought you were. I merely cited my current undergraduate studies to inform you that I am not ignorant of linguistics. You are right to say language is fluid, but the popular conception of a near absolute fluidity, even in academia, is far too simplistic and words do maintain semanticity on far deeper levels than some idea of absolute fluidity leads some to believe.

As regards an inconsistency: I am consistently defending the legitimate grassroots sensus fidelium as more important than a top-down magisterial approach to the rubrics; I just define the grassroots sensus fidelium as existing only among the community of the faithful who live in continuity with the faith as has been continuously passed down to us. The Magisterium has an obligation to be faithful to this in the way it handles the liturgical texts, it does not have the right to arbitrarily change things. Even when it did alter the missal, it did so under the pretense of restoring more ancient forms; but that idea gets lost in translation, as it were.

my appeal to emotions is more of an appeal to the sensus fidelium and the idea that people in a culture who hold to the faith best understand how that culture expresses the faith best. it's not really an appeal to emotions; it's an appeal to the idea that the visceral response of people from within the faith and within the culture is most correct.

Never worry about me feeling like you're being too superior. I've been accused of that sometimes when I have no intent to do so; I totally understand you're just writing to edify me to the best of your knowledge as I am to you. Don't feel you need to mince words with me, I can handle it

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1246876' date='Apr 17 2007, 01:55 AM']My issue is with the inconsistant logic of accepting the authority of the Magisterium on the one hand, yet questioning (or even, as some do, resisting or being schismatic over) the decisions of that same Magisterium.[/quote]That is the self same issue I have a problem with. I see the problem with the inconsistent application of the authority of the Magisterium because the standard for heirarchial principles is inconsistent. You have Bishops building Churches without Tabernacles, refusing to adhere to the sexaual abuse guidelines, and clearly dissenting from the Principles of the Church, but Catholics will tell me I must obey the Bishop when they agree, but the same Catholics will point out the Bishop errors and still tout the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in matters of faith and morals.
If the Magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals, then how the heck did the Roman Rite get into such a pickle over the previous ICEL translation?
I do believe the Church has the Charism of Infallibility, but it's scope, function, and practical application is much narrower and limited then the Roman Catholic Clerics demand be accepted.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1246967' date='Apr 17 2007, 09:09 AM']That is the self same issue I have a problem with. I see the problem with the inconsistent application of the authority of the Magisterium because the standard for heirarchial principles is inconsistent. You have Bishops building Churches without Tabernacles, refusing to adhere to the sexaual abuse guidelines, and clearly dissenting from the Principles of the Church, but Catholics will tell me I must obey the Bishop when they agree, but the same Catholics will point out the Bishop errors and still tout the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium in matters of faith and morals.
If the Magisterium is infallible in matters of faith and morals, then how the heck did the Roman Rite get into such a pickle over the previous ICEL translation?
I do believe the Church has the Charism of Infallibility, but it's scope, function, and practical application is much narrower and limited then the Roman Catholic Clerics demand be accepted.[/quote]

I will admit that, because of this, and because of inconsistencies in the interpretation of faith and morals, I would have grave issues accepting the doctrine of the Magisterium. Even the greatest of men err, and it seems to me that there have been errors even in issues of faith and morals throughout the history of the Catholic Church. It's one of the reasons that when I reconsidered Christianity, I found I could not become Catholic: I would end up as a "salad bar" Catholic, and that did not seem to me to be the proper way to go about things.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1247014' date='Apr 17 2007, 11:48 AM']I will admit that, because of this, and because of inconsistencies in the interpretation of faith and morals, I would have grave issues accepting the doctrine of the Magisterium. Even the greatest of men err, and it seems to me that there have been errors even in issues of faith and morals throughout the history of the Catholic Church. It's one of the reasons that when I reconsidered Christianity, I found I could not become Catholic: I would end up as a "salad bar" Catholic, and that did not seem to me to be the proper way to go about things.[/quote]Precisely my current thoughts.
But suppose the infallibile authority a Church may wield is more narrowly defined in scope and application? Suppose, for the sake of discussion, a Church is infallible only in Fundamental Principles of Faith and Morals? I am not advocating Fundamentalism, but assurance of the Foundations, not details, in teaching and communicating an understanding of God?