Posted on 05/19/2004 7:01:30 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
Sure, the Catholic Family News and the Angelus printed it! It must be true! Damn the torpedoes! (/sarcasm)
No, the Vatican authoritatively stated that the Mass constantly in use among Christians (including Catholics) in Iraq, Persia and India since shortly after the beginnings of Christianity there around AD 100 is a valid Mass despite not using directly the words of Christ because the entire intent and wording of the Canon is consecratory. This is the same Mass that was celebrated by many Saints of the Catholic Church from these lands, and which was attended by the Roman Emperor Heraclius around AD 625 after his victory over the Persians and the reunion of the Catholic Church of the East with the Catholic Church of Rome following the ending of the long persecution of the Catholic Church of the East by the Zorastrian Persians who had forced an unwanted schism.
But of course, you, and your dear SSPX, know better than the Vatican and the Pope and an entire section of the Catholic Church which once (before Mongol and Muslim destruction) was larger than the Catholic Church in all of Europe, and stretched from Perisa and Arabia to Indonesia and Siberia, encompassing 80 million members around AD 1200, and so can authoritatively admonish us to not follow this decision of Rome, because of course, Rome is in error, while the SSPX is always right.
You folks are doing very well at developing a Protestant mindset. Another 20-30 years and you'll be a full blown Protestant sect.
I see a Greek Orthodox Prelate and some Catholic Bishops. I think I can live with the Greek Orthodox praying in our Church. We've done so for centuries in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchure.
There is nothing wrong with what Cardinal Kasper said about Apsotolic Succession. Perhaps you don't understand the doctrine yourself? That seems the more likely case.
Its never a good idea to argue against a man based on one man's criticism of another man's take on the first man's supposed opinions (for which we are given no actual evidence one way or another - its simple double hearsay).
Why not go right to Cardinal Kasper's book and quote it in context so we can all see?
Ahh, but you've never read it, have you?
St. Anthony's Chapel in Pittsburgh, home of about 5000 relics, has a number of wood altars. I guess it wouldn't be traditionalist enough for you, which is fine for me, since it keeps the likes of you out.
Marble altars are an Italian phenomenon, since that is where marble is found. You won't find them in most Gothic Cathedrals or in the old parishes of northern Europe. Perhaps you are confusing marble with stone in general, which is the most common material. However, wood is hardly untraditional, and in fact makes some very beautiful hand carved altars.
I looked at Revelation 9:11 and it has nothing to do with an altar table. Anyway, traditional Catholicism properly refers to this Scriptural book as the Apocalypse. 'Revelation' is a Protestant term that was absorbed by the 'modernized' version of the Catholic Church.
"Apocalypsis" is a Latin word which means "Revelation". "Apocalypse" is a transliteration (and hence meaningless of its own) which in modern English has lost its original given meaning of "Revelation". How much more of this nonesense are you going to subject us too?
Good luck getting ultima ratio to admit to any of this. He is a dishonest charlatan who lies about Princes of the Church in order to justify his heresies and schism. He has, of course, never read or opened or held the book in question. All he "needs to know" about it is spoon fed him from his beloved SSPX.
Ultima, we know you've never read the book. Once you have read it, if you want to continue arguing about it, post the entire section this quote is from in context.
Your half-truths and misrepresentations and tiresome and onerous.
Half-truths? Name one. I was asked if I've read it. In fact, I have--years ago, while studying Christology as a seminarian. I no longer have the text. That's neither a half-truth nor a misrepresentation. I've also read The God of Jesus Christ, which I have on hand. Again, what do you imagine I have misrepresented? What half-truths have I told? I await your answer--but I'm not holding my breath.
It's not surprising you might confuse traditionalists with schismatics. You once confused the Trojans with the Greeks--and gave me a hot-air argument over it. Now you're wrong once again.
I stick with my first statement. There is NO traditionalist bishop outside of Campos and SSPX. No bishop who celebrates the Novus Ordo can be considered a traditional Catholic. That would include the Bishop of Rome.
Actually, Brian Harrison is a good source, very reliable. So is the Angelus. It's all done on the fly, after all. I don't have Kasper's text, but the citations I've used are reliable. If you think they are not, then prove it.
Of course the SSPX knows better than the Vatican--how foolish of you to think otherwise. Why should this be obvious to anybody with an open mind? Because the SSPX follows the traditions and doctrines that the Catholic Church had practiced and taught for two thousand years--not the new folderol. It is leading the way back to sanity.
Who's the charlatan around here--me or you? You've just managed to call me a dishonest charlatan, a liar, a heretic and a schismatic--all in a single breath. You also claim I haven't read a book I said I've read, and that all that I need to know about it was spoon-fed from the SSPX.
So, let's see--where to begin? First, it's obvious you haven't read my posts on Kasper because Brian Harrison, while traditionalist, is a mainstream theologian with good solid credentials, much respected in the Catholic community. He is not SSPX, the last I heard. So it appears that YOU, not I, are the one who misrepresents.
Second, you claim to know that I have not read a book that I have indeed read. Tell me, how do you claim to "know" this intimate detail of my intellecual life? Have you inside information about the seminary I attended and what books I spent my time reading? In fact, you don't and can't--but you couldn't resist the urge to call me a liar.
Third, you claim I am heretical. Proof, please. At the least such slanders should be backed up by arguments that make sense. What doctrines of the Catholic Church have I ever denied? I won't even bother defending myself against the charge of schism--it's too boring and I've done it about a zillion times. The bottom line is that you use this forum to hurl insults, not to shed light.
"Why not go right to Cardinal Kasper's book and quote it in context so we can all see?"
Simple reason: I was asked to provide a source on the spot. I do not have the text in my library at home, though I have his later work, so I did a google search for the Brian Harrison rebuttal of some key points on Kasper's theology. I did not have three weeks to answer the post in question--I had about ten minutes. You can check the time intervals between posts. Besides, Harrison is a well-respected theologian who cited the Kasper text in question. He pretty much summed up the problem and my own perspective on it.
heretic ! (as rev chuckles to himself)
....and the "crusader" does ? - we can change our screen names to match the subject line I guess - but that will exclude me from Brittany Spears threads for sake of decency though ;-P
y'all have a blessed day
The SSPX is every bit as much a bunch of Schismatics as Bishop Dolan and Fr. Cekada.
No, I think it is up to you to show that a second hand hearsay is in context.
Ha, ha! Thanks for this wide-eyed admission.
I suppose among those hallowed traditions are the "Rite of Econe" style of saying Mass, the consecration of Bishops without mandate or jurisdiction, and sanctimonious phariseeism?
Very new-age Catholc of ya, Hermy.
"Marble altars are an Italian phenomenon, since that is where marble is found."
Hermy, Hermy, Hermy, Hermy, Hermy. "Marble is found in many countries, including Belgium, France, Greece, India, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. South American nations also have large marble deposits. In the United States, Georgia produces the most marble. Other chief marble-producing states include Alabama, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont." (the World Book Encyclopedia)
"You won't find them in most Gothic Cathedrals or in the old parishes of northern Europe. Perhaps you are confusing marble with stone in general, which is the most common material. However, wood is hardly untraditional, and in fact makes some very beautiful hand carved altars."
Here's your homework assignment for the day, Hermy, from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
"The first legislation against such (wood) altars dates from the year 517, when the Council of Epaon, in Gaul, forbade the consecration of any but stone Altars (Mansi, Coll. Conc., VIII, 562). But this prohibition concerned only a small part of the Christian world, and for several centuries afterwards altars of wood were used, until the growing preference for altars of more durable material finally supplanted them. The two table altars preserved in the churches of St. John Lateran and St. Pudentiana are the only ancient altars of wood that have been preserved. According to a local tradition, St. Peter offered the Holy Sacrifice on each, but the evidence for this is not convincing. The earliest stone altars were the tombs of the martyrs interred in the Roman Catacombs. The practice of celebrating Mass on the tombs of martyrs can be traced with a large degree of probability to the first quarter of the second century. The Fractio Panis fresco of the Capella Greca, which belongs to this period is located in the apse directly above a small cavity which Wilpert supposes (Fractio Panis, 18) to have contained the relics of a martyr, and it is highly probable that the stone covering this tomb served as an altar. But the celebration of the Eucharist on the tombs of martyrs in the Catacombs was, even in the first age, the exception rather than the rule. (See ARCOSOLIUM) The regular Sunday services were held in the private houses which were the churches of the period. Nevertheless. the idea of the stone altar, the use of which afterwards became universal in the West, is evidently derived from the custom of celebrating the anniversaries and other feasts in honour of those who died for the Faith. Probably, the custom itself was suggested by the message in the Apocalypse (vi, 9) "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God." With the age of peace, and especially under the pontificate of Pope Damasus (366-384), basilicas and chapels were erected in Rome and elsewhere in honour of the most famous martyrs, and the altars, when at all possible, were located directly above their tombs. The "Liber Pontificalis" attributes to Pope Felix I (269-274) a decree to the effect that Mass should be celebrated on the tombs of the martyrs (constituit supra memorias martyrum missas celebrare, "Lib. Pont.", ed. Duchesne, I, 158). However this may be, it is clear from the testimony of this authority that the custom alluded to was regarded at the beginning of the sixth century as very ancient (op. cit., loc. cit., note 2). For the fourth century we have abundant testimony, literary and monumental. The altars of the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, erected by Constantine, were directly above the Apostles' tombs. Speaking of St. Hippolytus, the poet Prudentius refers to the altar above his tomb as follows:
Talibus Hippolyei corpus mandatur opertis Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo.
Finally, the translation of the bodies of the martyrs Sts. Gervasius and Protasius by St. Ambrose to the Ambrosian basilica in Milan is an evidence that the practice of offering the Holy Sacrifice on the tombs of martyrs was long established. The great veneration in which the martyrs were held from the fourth century had considerable influence in effecting two changes of importance with regard to altars. The stone slab enclosing the martyr's grave suggested the stone altar, and the presence of the martyr's relics beneath the altar was responsible for the tomblike under-structure known as the confessio. The use of stone altars in the East in the fourth century is attested by St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, 581) and St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in I Cor., xx); and in the West, from the sixth century, the sentiment in favour of their exclusive use is indicated by the Decree of the Council of Epaon alluded to above. Yet even in the West wooden altars existed as late as the reign of Charlemagne, as we infer from a capitulary of this emperor forbidding the celebration of Mass except on stone tables consecrated by the bishop [in mensis lapideis ab episcopis consecratis (P. L., XCVII, 124)]. From the ninth century, however, few traces of the use of wooden altars are found in the domain of Latin Christianity, but the Greek Church, up to the present time, permits the employment of wood, stone, or metal.
"Apocalypsis" is a Latin word which means "Revelation". "Apocalypse" is a transliteration (and hence meaningless of its own) which in modern English has lost its original given meaning of "Revelation". How much more of this nonesense are you going to subject us too?
No, no, Hermy. Apokalypsi, (pronounced 'apokaloopsis') is a GREEK term. Talk about subjecting folks to nonsense. You haven't had a single one of your "facts" right yet. Bring on the professional new-age "apologists", Hermy, you're a bore. YAWN!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.