How bad would a Novus Ordo Mass have to be to justify not attending?
#91
(05-13-2009, 09:42 PM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 10:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 08:59 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: The presbyter would not do it so he had asked me to a day or two before.  I said I did not want to and he got all pissy.

Interesting that you called him a "presbyter" (which I know was intentional) because, as you know, it is the post-VII word used to replace the word "priest" in the Rite of Ordination. Traditionally, a priest is one who performs a sacrifice; a presbyter is one who presides over a religious communion. Why would you change that unless you didn't want anyone to think that a sacrifice, in this case, the Spotless Sacrifice, was being offered?

What's funny here is that I had to sift through 2 pages of people going back and forth with you and it's me they actually have the issue with.  I can't tell you how funny I found that.  I'm actually laughing.

:laughing: Well I'm glad someone is getting some enjoyment out of this.

(05-13-2009, 09:42 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: You used your superman vision and got me!  Yes I was a bit disappointed in my grandma's funeral (English understatement there).  Also I am of the opinion, as you know, that there is a chance that any given NO is not validly performed for a list of reasons alread posted several times that I know at least you have seen. and read.  Further, as pinted out in those posts I am one of the folks that thinks there are few NOs that are real Masses at this point 40 years later.  I grant the possibility of validity.

Yes, I am aware of this.

(05-13-2009, 09:42 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: Also as a matter of history I make sure to use 'presbyter' wheneven talking with my dad, and this is dad history so it may have been due to that if no other reason.  However, you are right.

Am I? Many others don't seem to think that I am. If I am wrong, then I am wrong.
Reply
#92
(05-13-2009, 07:31 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Do they? I have not heard this from the Protestant majority, which should be considered. Protestants detest the word priest because it implies a special faculty that is believed by Catholics; the term denotes a recognition of that faculty. I've only heard it used by Protestants when speaking to Catholics because they know Catholics call their "leaders" 'priests' and will know what they mean. But they do this because they don't believe that there is a difference between "Minister" and priest.
Those who are against the Catholic priest use are so because everyone is a priest who believes as they do. They don't think priests as a concept don't exist, just that it is nothing special. They also use grape juice for "consecration" which they don't believe to have any change and they have women ministers as well.

Ok. Well me must know of entirely different Protestant groups. I'm not saying you're wrong, but most of the people I know are Protestants, and none of them have ever referred to priests in this way. To them, priest is a Catholic term and they don't use it unless they're trying to relate to a Catholic. You may be right though. I don't claim extensive knowledge about what Protestants call each other; but I've never met one to do this.

(05-13-2009, 07:31 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 05:41 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: "Priest" has been used by Catholics for centuries; if it has been perverted by Protestants then there is no reason to concede to a term that has always been used by Protestants as denoting a lack of faculty.

No, it has always been the English form of the Greek word which comes from the Latin "presbyter". Priest is presbyter having gone through Greek and Anglo-Saxon changes.

Priest was just a way to translate the Greek word from the original text and the Latin word from the Vulgate. Yes, those who deny the priesthood do change the word, but they don't use the same family of words, but an entirely different one like "elder" or "minister".

Ok. I'm surprised you don't see the same problem I do, though. Again, I must stress principle. The motive behind this wasn't to clarify the faculties of the priest because these faculties have been taught, understood, and associated with Catholicism everywhere in the English speaking nations throughout the centuries. The word "presbyter" is more acceptable to Protestants because there is not yet any association with Catholicism attached to the word - no Protestant group associates the word with these faculties because the Church has not promulgated this association in the English language, at least not to the degree it has with the word "priest".  If I was Protestant, I would most certainly get the imression that the Church was no longer wanting to associate itself with its Traditional teachings of the faculties implied by the word, "priest". But then again, as I say, I may be wrong in this.
Reply
#93
(05-14-2009, 01:05 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Ok. Well me must know of entirely different Protestant groups. I'm not saying you're wrong, but most of the people I know are Protestants, and none of them have ever referred to priests in this way. To them, priest is a Catholic term and they don't use it unless they're trying to relate to a Catholic. You may be right though. I don't claim extensive knowledge about what Protestants call each other; but I've never met one to do this.
Well, they don't use the word, because they don't believe the concept to be important. I'm not talking about anglicans and such, but actual protestants who have no structure besides local ones. They believe that all believers are the priests that are mentioned in the Bible, so the priesthood is just the collection of believers as they see. So the word is Catholic, but the concept they have.

Quote:Ok. I'm surprised you don't see the same problem I do, though. Again, I must stress principle. The motive behind this wasn't to clarify the faculties of the priest because these faculties have been taught, understood, and associated with Catholicism everywhere in the English speaking nations throughout the centuries. The word "presbyter" is more acceptable to Protestants because there is not yet any association with Catholicism attached to the word - no Protestant group associates the word with these faculties because the Church has not promulgated this association in the English language, at least not to the degree it has with the word "priest".  If I was Protestant, I would most certainly get the imression that the Church was no longer wanting to associate itself with its Traditional teachings of the faculties implied by the word, "priest". But then again, as I say, I may be wrong in this.

I initially did see a problem, when the meanings of the word presbyter and priest were given in contrast, but I researched it and thought about it before responding. Yes, protestants used the word first in English and it replaced "priest". However, protestants change all the time. English changes all the time. Protestants seem to have more effect on the English language because they change so much. If we were totally dissociated from the Church, "priest" would not be specifically Catholic. It would probably be pagan as they use the term a lot. Remember the leafwyrm? As much as I like the word, it doesn't mean anything to those who aren't fans of Middle English and Anglo-Saxon. If I want to communicate to all English speakers, I use "caterpillar". The Catholic Church has used other words. In my missal pre-1962, it uses "celebrant".

So the use of the word in the translations in which it is used (which I haven't seen to my knowledge, so it isn't that widespread) is an oddity for the Church but linguistically accurate, and a proper English term for priest.
Reply
#94
(05-14-2009, 10:57 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-14-2009, 01:05 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Ok. Well me must know of entirely different Protestant groups. I'm not saying you're wrong, but most of the people I know are Protestants, and none of them have ever referred to priests in this way. To them, priest is a Catholic term and they don't use it unless they're trying to relate to a Catholic. You may be right though. I don't claim extensive knowledge about what Protestants call each other; but I've never met one to do this.
Well, they don't use the word, because they don't believe the concept to be important. I'm not talking about anglicans and such, but actual protestants who have no structure besides local ones. They believe that all believers are the priests that are mentioned in the Bible, so the priesthood is just the collection of believers as they see. So the word is Catholic, but the concept they have.

Quote:Ok. I'm surprised you don't see the same problem I do, though. Again, I must stress principle. The motive behind this wasn't to clarify the faculties of the priest because these faculties have been taught, understood, and associated with Catholicism everywhere in the English speaking nations throughout the centuries. The word "presbyter" is more acceptable to Protestants because there is not yet any association with Catholicism attached to the word - no Protestant group associates the word with these faculties because the Church has not promulgated this association in the English language, at least not to the degree it has with the word "priest".  If I was Protestant, I would most certainly get the imression that the Church was no longer wanting to associate itself with its Traditional teachings of the faculties implied by the word, "priest". But then again, as I say, I may be wrong in this.

I initially did see a problem, when the meanings of the word presbyter and priest were given in contrast, but I researched it and thought about it before responding. Yes, protestants used the word first in English and it replaced "priest". However, protestants change all the time. English changes all the time. Protestants seem to have more effect on the English language because they change so much. If we were totally dissociated from the Church, "priest" would not be specifically Catholic. It would probably be pagan as they use the term a lot. Remember the leafwyrm? As much as I like the word, it doesn't mean anything to those who aren't fans of Middle English and Anglo-Saxon. If I want to communicate to all English speakers, I use "caterpillar". The Catholic Church has used other words. In my missal pre-1962, it uses "celebrant".

So the use of the word in the translations in which it is used (which I haven't seen to my knowledge, so it isn't that widespread) is an oddity for the Church but linguistically accurate, and a proper English term for priest.

Yes, it is an oddity as have been the teachings of the last 40 years. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean. So furthering this is just idle talk every word of which we'll have to account for one day, according to the Scriptures. I'll give it up, don't worry. Thank you for a reasonable, charitable, unemotional, down-to-earth discussion. May God bless you as always...
Reply
#95
(05-14-2009, 11:07 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yes, it is an oddity as have been the teachings of the last 40 years. But you know what I mean, and I know what you mean.
Yes. I used to be disturbed about the novelties and changes. It makes one quite cynical at times. I've since found that if I look towards the saints it helps overcome such doubts and lets me live without anxiety.

Quote:Thank you for a reasonable, charitable, unemotional, down-to-earth discussion. May God bless you as always...

You too.

I do agree though, I prefer "priest" over other terms in English.

Reply
#96
(05-14-2009, 11:21 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I do agree though, I prefer "priest" over other terms in English.

The latest beauty of the modernism is presider for priest.
Reply
#97
(05-14-2009, 11:49 AM)glgas Wrote:
(05-14-2009, 11:21 AM)Rosarium Wrote: I do agree though, I prefer "priest" over other terms in English.

The latest beauty of the Modernism is presider for priest.

Now I have very strong feelings against that word as a substitute for "priest" and wonder if the word "presbyter" was used in the same way as was the 1962 missal: to get people used to subtle changes in order to effect dangerous ones, but I promised to be silent about the matter, so silent I will be ... for the time being that is.  ;)
Reply
#98
(05-14-2009, 11:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Now I have very strong feelings against that word as a substitute for "priest" and wonder if the word "presbyter" was used in the same way as was the 1962 missal: to get people used to subtle changes in order to effect dangerous ones, but I promised to be silent about the matter, so silent I will be ... for the time being that is.  ;)

As long as the word is related to the Latin and Greek, I don't have a problem with it. Presbyter and priest are the same word linguistically. If anyone starts to use other words...I'll have to pull out my Rocket Launcher and Energy Sword and get some frags.
Reply
#99
(05-14-2009, 11:59 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-14-2009, 11:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Now I have very strong feelings against that word as a substitute for "priest" and wonder if the word "presbyter" was used in the same way as was the 1962 missal: to get people used to subtle changes in order to effect dangerous ones, but I promised to be silent about the matter, so silent I will be ... for the time being that is.  ;)

As long as the word is related to the Latin and Greek, I don't have a problem with it. Presbyter and priest are the same word linguistically. If anyone starts to use other words...I'll have to pull out my Rocket Launcher and Energy Sword and get some frags.

Ok Masterchief... I am thinking of the correct game, right? Isn't this what the whole nation has been playing for the last ... eon?
Reply
(05-14-2009, 11:59 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-14-2009, 11:53 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Now I have very strong feelings against that word as a substitute for "priest" and wonder if the word "presbyter" was used in the same way as was the 1962 missal: to get people used to subtle changes in order to effect dangerous ones, but I promised to be silent about the matter, so silent I will be ... for the time being that is.  ;)

As long as the word is related to the Latin and Greek, I don't have a problem with it. Presbyter and priest are the same word linguistically.

What about presider? What about cause and effect? If the change of the word (cause) results in a dangerous effect, wouldn't rationalization be wrong? If you get too involved in the specifics and technicalities, you can justify almost every evil. You have to step back and look at the effect that these technical interpretation can have on Christianity around the world.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)