Ideology and Patterns in Translation Error

Eutopia - A Lay Journal of Catholic Thought ^ | May/June 1999 | William J. Sullivan

[St.Chuck]

LOL. Well, you sure know how to pick 'em don't you? Can't you find a decent church? Or do you like going to that one just to see what they are up to?

[Land of the Irish]

Can't you find a decent church?

Yes, I've found a decent church. Unfortunately our SSPX priest's flight was cancelled that weekend.

[Guelph4ever]

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

As long as the Church has existed it has been made clear that the Pope and the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are guarded from error, given the wisdom needed to carry on Christ's work and that unity with them is essential for salvation. When the apostles held council at Jerusalem and broke from the 'traditional' Jewish laws, would you stand with the Pharisees accusing them of heresy? Why accept the Tridentine Mass? If God did not protect Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II from error, how do you know St Pius V was protected? Why is Latin the *only* acceptable language, why not go back to Aramaic or Hebrew?

As I said, I prefer the Latin and wish myself it would be restored, but the language is not the point. When St Thomas went to spread the gospel in India did he say mass in Latin you think? I doubt if all the apostles even knew Latin. Why did Jesus give them the "gift of tongues" if they were to only speak a single language? I think the Latin language was invaluable at giving the Church a sense of its own united identity, of being a seperate 'nation', truly the Kingdom of God on earth. But, I can't make language the most important thing, as much as I love the Latin Mass, I see too many people making it into their own "golden calf".

Marcel Lefebvre could never be a saint. When he was ordained he took a vow to be obedient to the Church, the bishops and the Holy Father, just as men and women vow to be faithful to each other in marriage, he vowed to be faithful to the Church and obedient to his superiors. Yet, he broke that vow just as an adulterer breaks the vow of marriage. No matter how many good points he had, there is no justification for breaking an oath to God. He could have remained in the Church and been the conservative answer to Cardinal Mahoney, he could have ensured that the Tridentine Mass was offered as much as possible in his diocese and built up a stronghold for the Tridentine rite *within* the Church, to be an example to others, he could have beat the liberals at their own game--but he didn't.

Where would we be if St Catherine of Sienna had taken his attitude toward the Church and simply broken away instead of doing all in her power to set things right? He could have been a St Pius V or a Martin Luther, and he chose to be a Luther. Moreover, he took the name of my beloved St Pius X, a man who stressed over and over the need for unfailing loyalty to the Papacy and authority of the Church.

There is a word for Christians who do not recognize the Pope as their supreme leader on earth or the authority and special protection of the Church: they're called "Protestants"

[St.Chuck]

Unfortunately our SSPX priest's flight was cancelled that weekend.

And no substitute? I guess the clergy shortage is everywhere.

Given that the SSPX teaches that the Novus Ordo mass is harmful to souls, you'll have to make a confession.

[St.Chuck]

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

That is the irony that I find most amusing. I am an ardent supporter of the Latin mass and am a member of an indult community where I live. I'm not a big fan of the N.O. mass, but when these bozos start spreading their indiscriminate calumnies about the pope and Catholics who these clowns think aren't quite as Catholic as they, or even Catholic at all, one has to assume the role of defender for the sake of Truth.

[Salvation]

To read later.

[Salvation]

Good observation and analogy.

[SergiusAthanasius]

Yes I think the Roman Catholic Church will canonize the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre! They canonized St. Athanasius and he was excommunicated by Pope Liberius who was an Arian heretic.

[SergiusAthanasius]

I utterly denounce John XXIII. I do not believe he is "Blessed." I do not believe he was free of error his failure to denounce the evils of Stalinism and his failure to denounce the some 100 million murders committed in the name of communism is a stench before the living God. His entire papacy was an error. Paul VI as well as John Paul II both stood by idly as the church was being destroyed from within. I owe no obedience to any of the afore mentioned. I thank John Paul I however for being a saintly and good man. He did not live long enough to be a participant in the modernist destruction of the Church I was baptized into. I must admit I go much farther than SSPX but that is my own personal view. I claim no infallibility none of the above mentioned Popes have ever spoken infallibly. John XXIII may the Lord hold him accountable for the evil destruction of the faith that he was responsible for!

[SergiusAthanasius]

Indiscriminate calumnies? Balderdash! Name one instance where John XXIII condemned the murders of Stalin?

[Guelph4ever]

So, would you say Blessed John XXIII was in error when he called out for the council to be ended? Bl. Pope John and Pope Pius XII are both innocent of the same "crime", and that which many others have been judged for: they condemn sin, in every form, and the Communists are not the only ones to worry about. Evil is evil no matter if it is committed by Stalin or the "Free World" (whose leaders were not always pure as the driven snow).

Pope Paul VI was guilty of inactivity against the modernists in my opinion, but this was a judgement decision. He wanted to teach, through supporting Eucharistic adoration, the family as the domestic Church and combating contraception, rather than simply throwing people out. He's not my favorite pope by far, but that does not change his position or the respect I owe his office.

With John Paul I, I'm rather surprised you did not mention his refusal to be crowned; ending that tradition disappointed me, but again, -does not change his position.

God will hold all Popes, along with the rest of humanity, responsible for everything they have done; which includes Lefebvre for being a Luther rather than a St Catherine, as well as those who think their judgement is superior to bishops in union with the Pope, who deny the infallibility of the Church to teach Truth, or that the Holy Spirit guards the papal elections and assembled councils--all will be judge, rest assured.

[SergiusAthanasius]

How could (St.) Marcel Lefebvre be a St. Catherine? There were three Popes at the time. There was only one at the time of the late Archbishop and he did admirably well as far as I am concerned. The Roman Church as it has existed in the past 30 years is a cesspool of error. SSPX is a remnant chosen by Grace.

[Guelph4ever]

The point is, St Catherine worked to correct the errors of the day, she did not go into schism. Lefebvre could have remained in the Church and beat the liberals at their own game--they don't all leave the Church, but try to change it to their liking--instead he went into schism and discredited the traditionalist viewpoint.