What Pope Benedict really said about Eucharistic adoration
#11
(09-22-2011, 05:50 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: grow up. so you cant provide it. i see. wellsip
tough shit.
and what i stated about translating or even intrepting is not an exact science. so you posted an English translation. you do realize given an original and someone fluent in German it can easily be demonstrated that another translation could also be done that says something different from he same words
so u have faith in your peddled translation
so?

lol
see agan using modernists tactics is a riot
remember they howled at the moon denying jpii kissed the ekoran then when a pic was provide claimed
he was only smelling it
LOL
cant make this shit up
aye crusaderfortruth allot of neocons here these days. and ill fight every last damn one of them
sip
True colours over and over again.
Prayers
slurp belch
Reply
#12
(09-22-2011, 05:50 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: grow up. so you cant provide it. i see. wellsip
tough shit.
and what i stated about translating or even intrepting is not an exact science. so you posted an English translation. you do realize given an original and someone fluent in German it can easily be demonstrated that another translation could also be done that says something different from he same words
so u have faith in your peddled translation
so?

I trust academic publishers more than demented websites, yes. As it is, I've posted the German, and those who can read it will be able to verify for themselves that the T&T Clark translation is accurate, while the sedevacantist one is not.
Reply
#13
maybe so but what is the measure of accurate translation? who decides on that measure? see in the end no matter how u toss it there a translation is an approximation. only. never exact. that's why u have all those different bible translations. each suits a certain ideology. hence translators being born traitors.
look i haven't even read it this isn't my fight but I'm just using known modernist tactics here against councilor Catholics like you or preamble Catholics like Dave
because it humour same and is funny
sip
i dotn give a shit about this particular piece of writing the op is about
sip
Reply
#14
I do not know which is more offensive to my sensibilities.. DK's typing or his pseudo-Irish-alcoholic persona.
Reply
#15
Can you translate some of these statements for me please and tell me what he REALLY meant.  You're so clever.  I need your help.
---

Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68: “The new text describes the relationship between the Church and non-Catholic Christians without speaking of ‘membership.’ By shedding this terminological armor, the text acquired a much wider scope… The Catholic has to recognize that his own Church is not yet prepared to accept the phenomenon of multiplicity in unity; he must orient himself toward this reality… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches.  The Church has yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to… A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.” (Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 61, 68.)


---

In a confidential memorandum titled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles that became public in July 2004, Ratzinger said that Catholics could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for certain reasons:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”


---


“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 198: “Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically.  Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”


-----
Reply
#16
Wow. Not even an acknowledgement that you posted a dishonest translation in an attempt to smear the Holy Father's beliefs about the Eucharist. One might almost be tempted to think that you're disappointed that he didn't say what the sedevacantists were claiming he said.

If you want to start separate threads about those other quotations, I'll be happy to discuss them.
Reply
#17
I don't think they are dishonest translations.  You think that.

I think B16 has double think and a mush mind.  He does not think one clear thing, or one clear truth.  He has a sort of cloud of truths in his head and he adapts them to suit his goals.

He's a modernist.  He has a Hegelian mind.

You cannot believe in a truth if you don't believe in truth.
Reply
#18
And while you are doing the ones above you might want to explain these too

Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 247-248: “The nature of the questions that originated with Luther and pointed the course for the Council of Trent cannot be studied in detail here.  Suffice it to say that Luther saw in the link between sacerdos [priest] and sacrificium [sacrifice] a denial of grace and a return to the law… This position, which, with its passionate concern for the purity of Christian doctrine, points to the heart of Luther’s urge to reform… The Council of Trent did not attempt here a comprehensive treatment of the problem as a whole.  Therein lies the weakness of the text it promulgated, the effect of which was all the more disastrous since the Reform Decrees [of Trent], with their broad theological range, were not fully incorporated into the theology of the schools.  The uneasiness about the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood as proclaimed by Trent that was recognizable even before Vatican Council II and that grew into an avalanche as a result of the bold ecumenical stance taken by that Council [Vatican II] has its historical foundation in the limited range of the Tridentine statement.”

----


Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 389-390: "Was the Council a wrong road that we must now retrace if we are to save the Church?  The voices of those who say that it was are becoming louder and their followers more numerous…. We must be on guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly."
Reply
#19
Maybe they are "dishonest" translations too.

He'd better sue his publisher I reckon.
Reply
#20
I don't have much of an opinion either way, but it seems like every time he seems to "step in the right direction" he goes off and prays with protestants or invites bon jovi to perform the halftime show at mass.

I don't know what to make of that.  Except that it doesn't make any sense.  
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)