Posted on 09/23/2015 2:54:03 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
As a visitor to the United States, Pope Francis faces a minor challenge: His English isn’t so great. Over the course of the trip, he’ll give 18 speeches, and only four of them will be in English; he’ll mostly use his native language, Spanish, to give homilies and addresses.
But at Wednesday’s mass in Washington, D.C., at which Francis will canonize Father Junipero Serra, he’ll add another linguistic twist. The main prayers of the service, along with the celebration of the Eucharist—the part of the service when people take communion—will be in Latin.
Latin! This is an exclamation-mark-worthy fact for a few reasons. “It’s very unusual,” said Father John O’Malley, the Georgetown University professor and author of What Happened at Vatican II. “It’s not unheard of, but it doesn’t make much sense, if you’re in an English parish, or a Spanish parish, to do it in Latin.”
[big snip]
...That’s why it’s so interesting that Francis has chosen to include Latin in his D.C. mass:... “He’s the first pope in 50 years not to have participated in the Council,” O’Malley said. “That’s good, because he’s not fighting the battles of the Council.”
The mass that will be celebrated in D.C. on Wednesday is not the pre-Vatican II mass. The service will include English, Spanish, and several other languages, according to a Vatican spokesperson, and the pope won’t be following the Tridentine liturgy....
More likely than not, the decision to use Latin in the mass is a matter of comfort: The pope isn’t very good at English and he’ll already be speaking a lot of Spanish, so the mass offers an opportunity to incorporate another language into this visit. But it’s a small reminder that no move the pope makes come without complicated history—and symbolism—attached.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
>>No. The Church of Rome is the Roman Church. There was no “becoming”. It was what it was.
I said it became the state church. It still is, for all intents and purposes, the official church of the dead empire.
But, you believe in it and that’s all that matters. Your anger and inability to interact in a Christian manner makes this discussion pointless. You’ll deny everything I say and demand that I accept your “facts” as truth. Froth at the mouth some more to get the last word in.
The Latin textbooks you just mentioned are the exact ones used by just about every homeschooling family I know, including my own.
My two sons serve at the altar for our parish’s TLM, and both know exactly what they are saying.
(My oldest went to Catholic high school, took 4 years of Latin, then tested out of freshman Latin for his first year of college. He was only required to take one semester and has now completed his study of that language. Next up: Italian, which he anticipates will be “a walk in the park” in comparison.
Regards,
“I said it became the state church.”
No, you didn’t. You didn’t say “state church” or “government church” or anything of the kind in that post.
“It still is, for all intents and purposes, the official church of the dead empire.”
And that proves what? Do you even think about what you post before you post it? Let’s just look at what you just said: “It still is, for all intents and purposes, the official church of the dead empire.” And? So what?
“But, you believe in it and that’s all that matters.”
Prove that. Seriously, to say that because I believe in the Church that means “that’s all that matters” means nothing as a logical point. You DON’T believe in it. Should I just say, “and that’s all that matters”? The difference is the facts are on my side.
“Your anger and inability to interact in a Christian manner makes this discussion pointless.”
How about your inability to actually make a coherent argument or to post any facts to back up anything? Oh, that’s right “you [DON’T] believe in [the Church] and that’s all that matters.”
“You’ll deny everything I say and demand that I accept your “facts” as truth.”
Well, I guess you have to say something like that to avoid the FACT that the pope did not possess the title of pontifex maximus in the 4th century.
“Froth at the mouth some more to get the last word in.”
Not only am I not frothing but I’m the only one between us posting any facts. Keep floundering.
>>No, you didn’t. You didn’t say “state church” or “government church” or anything of the kind in that post.
Reading is fundamental!
From my post (#118): “The Roman Church rose to the top after it became the state church of Rome in the 4th century and gained the power to crush anyone who dared to say that the seat of power in the church was Jesus and not the Pontifex Maximus in Rome.”
And you’re still wrong. The pope was not the “pontifex maximus” in the century you’re warbling about. No matter how you slice it, you’re still wrong.
>>The pope was not the “pontifex maximus” in the century you’re warbling about. No matter how you slice it, you’re still wrong.
The Emperor was the Pontifex Maximus. As the state church of Rome took over the Emperor’s religious duties as the “bishop of bishops”, Pope Leo I took the title (you are correct that I was wrong about the 4th century—I meant the 5th century).
“The Emperor was the Pontifex Maximus.”
Yes.
“As the state church of Rome took over the Emperor’s religious duties as the “bishop of bishops”,”
That never happened. The Roman Emperor’s position as pontifex was a pagan role. Even under Christian emperors the position’s basic character did not change. It merely went unfulfilled in terms of its duties. When the bishop of Rome was granted the title by the emperor it signaled the end of its pagan existence. No animal sacrifices were performed for instance. No haruspices were employed. Look it up if you don’t know what that means.
“Pope Leo I took the title...”
No. He didn’t “take” it. The title was handed to the pope by the emperor. It should be noted that Emperor Gratian essentially split the Roman Empire in half. The one person who then would have any authority of any kind is both halves was the pope who also had authority outside of the empire - wherever there were Christians among those Christians that is.
“(you are correct that I was wrong about the 4th century—I meant the 5th century”
And what you’re saying still doesn’t work. No matter what old pagan title the pope was given he was still the pope, the bishop of Rome, and the earthly leader of the Christian Church.
>>And what you’re saying still doesn’t work. No matter what old pagan title the pope was given he was still the pope, the bishop of Rome, and the earthly leader of the Christian Church.
Until the pope moved from Rome. And there were two, three, even four popes at one time. Just as there are two today.
“Until the pope moved from Rome.”
Nope. The pope is still the pope even if he leaves the area of Rome.
“And there were two, three, even four popes at one time.”
No there weren’t. There was a time when more than one man CLAIMED to be pope. Today, there have been at least 12 men who have claimed to be pope sometime in the last 20 years.
“Just as there are two today.”
No. There is only one pope. Benedict is a pope emeritus. He is no longer pope. The other 12 or so men claiming to be pope are anti-popes. Those are the correct terms and that is the correct understanding. Bigots will ignore what is correct because their bigotry trounces whatever intelligence they might otherwise possess.
>>No there weren’t. There was a time when more than one man CLAIMED to be pope.
After Peter, they ALL “claimed” to be the vicar of Christ. Peter built a church in Rome. That was what Jesus told him to do. It became am model for other churches. His job was done. His successor was just the bishop of Rome. Nothing more. Nothing less. The Roman Church is equal to the Orthodox Church in Moscow, or the Presbyterian Church in America, or a little Methodist Church in Sierra Leone. Same Father. Same Jesus. Same Holy Spirit.
“His successor was just the bishop of Rome. Nothing more. Nothing less.”
Except that the nothing more nothing less including being pope - and that’show everyone treated them as well.
“The Roman Church is equal to the Orthodox Church in Moscow, or the Presbyterian Church in America, or a little Methodist Church in Sierra Leone.”
Except that the Moscow Patriarch calls the Pope the “first among equals” which means he’s more than equal and the Presbyterians and Methodists don’t have a Church to begin with since they’re only Protestant sects.
“Same Father. Same Jesus. Same Holy Spirit.”
The same, yes, but there’s really only one Church as well.
>>Presbyterians and Methodists don’t have a Church to begin with since they’re only Protestant sects.
I had to laugh when I read your comments about “bigotry” in post #129.
>>Bigots will ignore what is correct because their bigotry trounces whatever intelligence they might otherwise possess.
I am saying that your Roman Church is every bit as much a part of the Body of Christ as any other church, yet it is your bigotry that is clearly on display.
“I had to laugh when I read your comments about “bigotry” in post #129.”
Of course you would - because my comment was accurate. My comment about Methodists and Presbyterians (and all Protestants) not having a Church is also true.
“I am saying that your Roman Church is every bit as much a part of the Body of Christ as any other church, yet it is your bigotry that is clearly on display.”
No bigotry, just common sense. Anyone who belongs to a man-made sect cannot have a Church. The Church was founded by Christ. All Protestant sects are just the creations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Uldrich Zwingli, et al.
>>My comment about Methodists and Presbyterians (and all Protestants) not having a Church is also true.
No, it is not true.
“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Your bigotry or ignorance limits God in your own mind. Fortunately, he is much larger and gives more grace than you try to allow him. That is the biggest problem with the form of Christianity practiced by the followers of the Roman Church. You try to put Christ in a box and limit access to him to a select few, while the rest of you stand outside the curtain throwing coins at your priests to buy favor. You celebrate the pagan rituals of Rome superimposed over the Law-based religion of the temple Jews. You ignore the work of Christ on our behalf.
Normally, I’m a live and let live guy when it comes to the Roman Church. After all, Jesus is big enough to get in your church too. But your posts that just drip with hate along with the words of your pope really make me rethink my impression of your corrupted “church”.
“No, it is not true.”
It’s absolutely true.
“Your bigotry or ignorance limits God in your own mind.”
Nope. He has no limitations, but He does not choose to undermine His own glory.
“Fortunately, he is much larger and gives more grace than you try to allow him.”
You seem to be desperately making things up out of thin air. I guess you have to since you have no actual argument.
“That is the biggest problem with the form of Christianity practiced by the followers of the Roman Church. You try to put Christ in a box and limit access to him to a select few, while the rest of you stand outside the curtain throwing coins at your priests to buy favor.”
Nope. This is the biggest problem with sect members like you - they imagine all sorts of things about orthodox Christianity that aren’t true. We don’t put Jesus in a box. We just know your sect is man-made established not by Christ but by some German, or Scot, or Englishman or American sometime last week, or last century or a few centuries ago. And that’s it.
“You celebrate the pagan rituals of Rome superimposed over the Law-based religion of the temple Jews. You ignore the work of Christ on our behalf.”
Nope. We have no pagan rituals. All our rituals are Christian. Do you wear a wedding ring? That’s pagan - according to your logic. Did your wife wear white? Pagan - according to your logic. Yet another example of how little sect members know.
“Normally, I’m a live and let live guy when it comes to the Roman Church. After all, Jesus is big enough to get in your church too. But your posts that just drip with hate along with the words of your pope really make me rethink my impression of your corrupted “church”.”
The only bigotry and hate is all yours.
>>The only bigotry and hate is all yours.
You sound like some homosexual activist claiming that if someone doesn’t embrace your beliefs and only your beliefs then they must be a “hater” or a something-phobe. Why don’t you just call me a a papalophobe or some similar hysterical term. LOL.
“You sound like some homosexual activist claiming that if someone doesn’t embrace your beliefs and only your beliefs then they must be a “hater” or a something-phobe. Why don’t you just call me a a papalophobe or some similar hysterical term. LOL.”
You sound like a desperate person trying so hard to shift away from your factual errors that show your ideas make no sense. When that fails you shift to calling someone a homosexual. If only you could make an actual argument. If only you actually knew some facts. But it’s so much easier for you to post nonsense and then accuse people of being gay when you fail, right?
>>You sound like a desperate person trying so hard to shift away from your factual errors that show your ideas make no sense. When that fails you shift to calling someone a homosexual. If only you could make an actual argument. If only you actually knew some facts. But it’s so much easier for you to post nonsense and then accuse people of being gay when you fail, right?
Oh no. I said “like” because you are exhibiting behaviors common to liberal activism and for the same reasons—emotional attachment to the indefensible.
I would argue facts, but you have proven—like the liberal activist—that nothing is a “fact” unless you accept it as fact. So, you keep on using your tired old arguments in favor of the Roman Church and I will continue to be a Christian from the body of Christ that does not need priests and Jesus’ Mom to speak to Jesus for me. I don’t need your approval to have God’s Grace.
“Oh no. I said “like” because you are exhibiting behaviors common to liberal activism and for the same reasons—emotional attachment to the indefensible.”
When I posted my last post I said to myself, “Next, he’ll say I’m a liberal.” And there you are. The bigot’s behavior is always so predictable. First, a bigot - unable to make any actual argument about the issues discussed - makes a false accusation but he’s sure to couch it ever so slightly with a word such as “like”. Then, when caught out for that, he makes another baseless accusation and couches that as well with words like “exhibiting behaviors”.
“I would argue facts, but you have proven—like the liberal activist—that nothing is a “fact” unless you accept it as fact.”
You couldn’t even get the century right! You “would argue facts” - if you could get the century right...if you actually could make an argument...if you actually knew any facts to begin with.
“So, you keep on using your tired old arguments in favor of the Roman Church and I will continue to be a Christian from the body of Christ that does not need priests and Jesus’ Mom to speak to Jesus for me.”
Again, we see that you can’t even make an argument.
“I don’t need your approval to have God’s Grace.”
No, you don’t, but there’s no reason to believe you have either if you’re falsely accusing people of being homosexuals and liberals now is there?
>>No, you don’t, but there’s no reason to believe you have either if you’re falsely accusing people of being homosexuals and liberals now is there?
You debate like an activist. You start the name calling and then try to pin it on me.
Being wrong by one century that was 15 centuries ago does not invalidate everything I said. The rest was right and I corrected the century. But there is still the problem where all facts must be approved by YOU to be entered into evidence. You just aren’t that important in this world. Perhaps you think you are, but you’re really not. You should go talk to your priest about your arrogance and pride. See if he’ll talk to Mary for you to ask Jesus to help you.
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.