How bad would a Novus Ordo Mass have to be to justify not attending?
#61
(05-13-2009, 10:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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?

Are you saying they're not priests?
Reply
#62
(05-13-2009, 03:16 PM)Melita Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 10:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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?

Are you saying they're not priests?

No, don't read into it that much. I only meant what I said; I asked a question:

Quote:"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?"

I wasn't trying to submit subliminal statements or opinions through my post; I'm simply presenting a legitimate concern and questioning the motives of this replacement.
Reply
#63
(05-13-2009, 10:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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?
Presbyter means "priest". It comes from the Latin. The English word "priest" comes from a Greek word derived from the Latin and anliganised.

The fact it is being used in modern documents is not a surprise, especially if it is a direct translation from Latin.
Reply
#64
(05-13-2009, 03:24 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 10:19 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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?
Presbyter means "priest". It comes from the Latin. The English word "priest" comes from a Greek word derived from the Latin and anliganised.

The fact it is being used in modern documents is not a surprise, especially if it is a direct translation from Latin.

No, I'm not surprised. Not much surprises me anymore.
Reply
#65
I think they started reusing the term to make it seem more "sophisticated" but you're right they are the exact same thing. To disagree would be like saying, "He's a bishop not an episcopate!"
Reply
#66
(05-13-2009, 03:27 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: No, I'm not surprised. Not much surprises me anymore.

I probably could...but I am not going to try because the sure fire methods would probably get me banned...

About the use of the word, it doesn't dimish the role of the priesthood. It is just another word for it. Protestants typically don't like it because they see everyone as a "priest".
Reply
#67
(05-13-2009, 03:28 PM)didishroom Wrote: I think they started reusing the term to make it seem more "sophisticated" but you're right they are the exact same thing. To disagree would be like saying, "He's a bishop not an episcopate!"

They might be using it because of the Neo Pagan movements (sort of like bowel movements, but less pleasant) use the term "priest" and "priestess" a lot. The Latin may bring the word as a concept back into focus.
Reply
#68
(05-13-2009, 03:28 PM)didishroom Wrote: I think they started reusing the term to make it seem more "sophisticated" but you're right they are the exact same thing. To disagree would be like saying, "He's a bishop not an episcopate!"

Yeah. I don't disagree with the synonymity of the words, simply with the concession towards Protestant acceptance, the injection of ambiguity, the rejection of tradition, and the concept of redefining that which has been understood by all Catholics for 2000 years. In other words, the belief in the necessity of modernization within the timeless Church.  
Reply
#69
(05-13-2009, 03:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yeah. I don't disagree with the synonymity of the words, simply with the concession towards Protestant acceptance, the injection of ambiguity, the rejection of tradition, and the concept of redefining that which has been understood by all Catholics for 2000 years. In other words, the belief in the necessity of modernization within the timeless Church.  

Well, both words are Catholic. Just because the Protestants take the Church's teachings and phrases and warp them doesn't mean the true meanings are changed in the Church.

Reply
#70
(05-13-2009, 03:39 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 03:35 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Yeah. I don't disagree with the synonymity of the words, simply with the concession towards Protestant acceptance, the injection of ambiguity, the rejection of tradition, and the concept of redefining that which has been understood by all Catholics for 2000 years. In other words, the belief in the necessity of modernization within the timeless Church.  

Well, both words are Catholic. Just because the Protestants take the Church's teachings and phrases and warp them doesn't mean the true meanings are changed in the Church.

I didn't say they weren't Catholic. But the change of the word makes a statement to the world - that the Church will change what it has always taught and spoken for the sake of impressions. The Church has Truth and so it shouldn't care how it is mimicked by others. It would be like eliminating the use of vestments because some Protestant group has started using them. So, in order to disassociate itself from the Protestant group, the Church replaces vestments with some other form of apparel. The Church should stay firm in its roots and not sway with the changes around it. While the word itself isn't Dogmatic, it is the same concept as eliminating the Consecration from the Mass in order to disassociate it from satanic immitations of the Sacrifice. These are not the same thing in weight, but Protestants don't understand this and it looks to them like the Church is more concerned with its impression than it is with teaching Truth. No?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)