How bad would a Novus Ordo Mass have to be to justify not attending?
#71
(05-13-2009, 03:53 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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's language is Latin and the word used has always been presbyter in Church documents (in Latin, it is the same word in a Greek form when used in the Greek).

Quote: 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 the Mass 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?
Well, I don't see a problem with the translations into English if the retain the original Latin terms.
Reply
#72
(05-13-2009, 04:04 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 03:53 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: 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's language is Latin and the word used has always been presbyter in Church documents (in Latin, it is the same word in a Greek form when used in the Greek).

Quote: 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 the Mass 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?
Well, I don't see a problem with the translations into English if the retain the original Latin terms.

But why must the Church concede to the world? Those seeking Truth will find it despite the impression. If one seeks Truth based on appearances, they will not be with the Church long and will most likely never find it. It is the principle, as it is with most of the post-VII deforms. Things go a lot deeper than “it is still technically the same thing.” Though the words are synonymous, these principles of the Church aren't. Modernization isn't synonymous with tradition. This is only my opinion, though, and I don’t expect concurrence.
Reply
#73
(05-13-2009, 04:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: But why must the Church concede to the world?
It doesn't.

Quote:Those seeking Truth will find it despite the impression. If one seeks Truth based on appearances, they will not be with the Church long and will most likely never find it. It is the principle, as it is with most of the post-VII deforms. Things go a lot deeper than “it is still technically the same thing.” Though the words are synonymous, these principles of the Church aren't. Modernization isn't synonymous with tradition. This is only my opinion, though, and I don’t expect concurrence.
But that word has always been used, even to this day. It has never been disused.
Reply
#74
Sorry to hark back to this... where does the Church define "presbyter" and "priest" the way you described INPFESS?
Reply
#75
(05-13-2009, 04:12 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 04:09 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: But why must the Church concede to the world?
It doesn't.

We're not on the same page.

(05-13-2009, 04:12 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
Quote:Those seeking Truth will find it despite the impression. If one seeks Truth based on appearances, they will not be with the Church long and will most likely never find it. It is the principle, as it is with most of the post-VII deforms. Things go a lot deeper than “it is still technically the same thing.” Though the words are synonymous, these principles of the Church aren't. Modernization isn't synonymous with tradition. This is only my opinion, though, and I don’t expect concurrence.
But that word has always been used, even to this day. It has never been disused.

By the Catholic Church in all of its traditional translations and teachings? I'm wrong then.

Reply
#76
(05-13-2009, 04:16 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: By the Catholic Church in all of its traditional translations and teachings? I'm wrong then.

The Vulgate uses the term in the NT. Here is an example:
1 Timothy 5:19 Wrote:adversus presbyterum accusationem noli recipere nisi sub duobus et tribus testibus

Also (from the notes on Baronius Press):

Quote:In 1546, the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate Bible as authentic, and declared that “No one (may) dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it” (4th Session, April 8, 1546).

Reply
#77
But that doesn't define the presbyter's function...
Reply
#78
(05-13-2009, 04:33 PM)Melita Wrote: But that doesn't define the presbyter's function...

It does elsewhere. I just chose a random use of the word in the Bible.
Reply
#79
(05-13-2009, 04:43 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 04:33 PM)Melita Wrote: But that doesn't define the presbyter's function...

It does elsewhere. I just chose a random use of the word in the Bible.

I meant Latin-to-English translation - it's always been "priest", hasn't it?
Reply
#80
(05-13-2009, 04:45 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 04:43 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(05-13-2009, 04:33 PM)Melita Wrote: But that doesn't define the presbyter's function...

It does elsewhere. I just chose a random use of the word in the Bible.

I meant Latin-to-English translation - it's always been "priest", hasn't it?

So the difference is stylistic? But you mentioned a proper distinction!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)