I'm so mad, I'm about to cry...

[Carina]

Yes, this is an opportunity for Catholic bashing, and I really don't care anymore.

During the homily at Mass today, the priest informed us of a liturgical change that has been handed down from the Vatican. It happens during the consecration of the wine. The priest used to say:

"...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

Now, the priest MUST say:

"...It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven."

In one article I googled stated:

Critics of the current translation ("for all") have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.

Um, huh? No, Richardheads, it was shed for all. Period. END OF STORY. The consideration in the consecration is "so that sins 'may' be forgiven." THAT'S where the personal responsibility comes in.

I'm just so freakin' mad right now. I'm very sad about what this means for ecumenical relations, what this means by Catholics who have sincere spiritual issues with Catholic doctrine after much thought and prayer, what it says about where my church is heading.

Vatican II is dead.

[iami]

Oh, Carina, I understand where you're coming from. But remember I'm old enough to have grown up with the original Latin mass. We had to learn direct translations, and tradition would indeed render the phrase "for many" as more accurate.

But please don't get all upset about the bonfire this change will undoubtedly light. Even back in the old days, we understood completely that Christ died for everyone even though NOT everyone accepted salvation.

The major problems with this change will occur because some priests who believe that Vatican II was the be all and end all in liturgy will try to convince people that Catholics are being forced to believe Christ's sacrifice was limited to a christian elite. Not so.

iami

[NineTails]

*makes a note to listen out for that when she next goes to Mass*

[ivyagogo]

A bit OT here. I am not Catholic, so maybe some of you can explain this to me. It is my understanding that the Catholic church believes that you can only go to heaven if you've been baptized and believe that Jesus is the son of God. So basically as a Jew, I am going to hell. Okay, fine. But what about the people who lived B.C.? What about those people? Are they dammed because they were born before Jesus?

I don't want to sound off against anybody's religion, I'm just curious.

[Carina]

iami said:

The major problems with this change will occur because some priests who believe that Vatican II was the be all and end all in liturgy will try to convince people that Catholics are being forced to believe Christ's sacrifice was limited to a christian elite. Not so.

Then, what exactly does the change mean? Why make take a step backward from Vatican II, which was intended to make the liturgy closer to the people as a community...the language changes, the "I" to "we" in the Nicene Creed, the priest facing the congregation rather than away from it, etc.

NineTails...As you know, the homily comes before the Eucharistic Liturgy, and the priest presiding said "all" with a vocal emphasis on it. I thought of it as a priestly "f___ you" to the change. So, it *may* depend on which priest is presiding.

My church changed for the better (at least *I* think so) when our former pastor, whom I loved, but he died two years ago, came to our church. Rumor has it that he was ousted from Archdiocesan administration because he stood up to Cardinal Bernadine during the church's sex scandal. He was a victim advocate, while the Church, it seemed, circled the wagons. Other rumors indicate that he was ousted because he continued general absolutions when Bernadine had expressly told all priests in the Archdiocese to end the practice.

At any rate, he stood up to the PTB, and he was demoted because of it. Their loss; my parish's gain.

Anyway, this particular priest who presided today was brought in under my former pastor's administration, and I can see why.

[Carina]

ivyjosi said:

A bit OT here. I am not Catholic, so maybe some of you can explain this to me. It is my understanding that the Catholic church believes that you can only go to heaven if you've been baptized and believe that Jesus is the son of God. So basically as a Jew, I am going to hell. Okay, fine. But what about the people who lived B.C.? What about those people? Are they dammed because they were born before Jesus?

I don't want to sound off against anybody's religion, I'm just curious.

I can't even begin to explain it. I would suggest that you take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available online for some assistance.

BTW, it's not just Catholicism that believes in baptism as a requirement and that Jesus is the Son of God. Baptism is not necessarily a part of ALL Christian denominations, but the belief in Jesus as a Son of God is the basic requirement of Christianity.

[iami]

carina said:

iami said:

The major problems with this change will occur because some priests who believe that Vatican II was the be all and end all in liturgy will try to convince people that Catholics are being forced to believe Christ's sacrifice was limited to a christian elite. Not so.

Then, what exactly does the change mean? Why make take a step backward from Vatican II, which was intended to make the liturgy closer to the people as a community...the language changes, the "I" to "we" in the Nicene Creed, the priest facing the congregation rather than away from it, etc.

NineTails...As you know, the homily comes before the Eucharistic Liturgy, and the priest presiding said "all" with a vocal emphasis on it. I thought of it as a priestly "f___ you" to the change. So, it *may* depend on which priest is presiding.

My church changed for the better (at least *I* think so) when our former pastor, whom I loved, but he died two years ago, came to our church. Rumor has it that he was ousted from Archdiocesan administration because he stood up to Cardinal Bernadine during the church's sex scandal. He was a victim advocate, while the Church, it seemed, circled the wagons. Other rumors indicate that he was ousted because he continued general absolutions when Bernadine had expressly told all priests in the Archdiocese to end the practice.

At any rate, he stood up to the PTB, and he was demoted because of it. Their loss; my parish's gain.

Anyway, this particular priest who presided today was brought in under my former pastor's administration, and I can see why.

I think the change was probably made to make the liturgical statements conform more closely to the original Latin and I think Benedict wants this because the Vatican II liturgy was desgned, in many instances, to reflect poltically correct thinking rather than traditional RC thinking.

For example, and I think we talked about this once before, but maybe only in pm:

Dominus vobiscum = The Lord be with you.
Et cum spiritu tuo = And with your spirit (NOT "and also with you").

I think we got to "and also with you" because "spirit" had to be explained, it appeared that the people were saying a different thing to the priest than vice versa, and the church was dumbing down it's liturgy.... the powers that be have never exactly held the intelligence of their laity in high regard.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I think Benedict is right on this one.... a literal translation provides much needed food for thought.

iami

[Carina]

Yes, I've seen some comments from Googling that hail the end of Vatican II, that scourge, that evil liberal influence in the Catholic Church.

Hail, hail tradition; Jesus' life and teachings be damned. Ignore the fact that Jesus was the original liberal, given his time.

ETA: My sarcasm isn't directed at you, Penny, btw. I'm just pissed.

[iami]

I know you ain't ticked at me, Carina, and I agree that the Church had drifted quite far from the teachings of Jesus prior to Vatican II. I just think there's a happy medium to be reached.

BTW, if you find another priest who's willing to do general absolutions, direct me to him, please. I refuse to engage in individual confession, contrite tho I may be for many things. First off, the people in back of me would be pissed as hell because I'd be in that little stuffy booth till 2 am in the morning, heh heh.

iami

[ultimatemind]

Anyone still want to question why I'm not Catholic anymore? Remember, it's still your prerogative to pray for the forgiveness of all, if that's what you feel in your heart. That's what faith is anyway, what you feel in your heart, not what someone halfway around the world who doesn't even know you wants you to feel.