Sacrifice at the altar of God

Cite issue and number, please Ian.

I do not recall the pasaage, but perhaps your recollection of that particular aspect of the Wanderer in 1966 is clearer than mine.

In any case here are the lead two paragraphs of a long article now featured on their website, having gone blogsite only.

Is it Catholic? No. It is not.

=========================================================

Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand

By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK

Whatever else you say about the left in the United States, you have to admit that they can be clever. Disingenuous, dishonest, hypocritical, devious — but clever. Consider how they will make charges of racism, sexism and xenophobia without batting an eye against those who oppose their transnational, secular humanist agenda. They require no proof when they do this. If you oppose affirmative action programs, you are racist; if you support a vigorous American military presence in the world arena, you are an imperialist; if you oppose giving more power to the UN, you are a xenophobe. No explanations, no disclaimers permitted. They do this even though the left has scolded us for decades about the injustice of making charges without proof. It is, you will recall, what they mean by “McCarthyism.”

The latest example of the ploy is the attempt to discredit Paul Ryan, the Catholic Republican member of Congress from Wisconsin, because of his affinity for certain elements of Ayn Rand’s writing. The term “ certain elements” is what must be kept in mind. Ryan does not support Rand’s atheism. He does not support her dog- eat- dog version of free- market capitalism, what the Popes have called “economic individualism” in the social encyclicals. Ryan is attracted to Rand because of her ability in her novels to bring to life the stultifying effect of the liberal busybodies in government, inspired by jealousy and egalitarian impulses, who saddle businesses with regulations that hinder their ability to create wealth and jobs.
================================================================
. . .ad nauseum

By the way Pope Pius XI presented "Economic Individualism and Other Evils" May 15, 1931. Was that a social encyclical as James writes here? To which others does he refer, as he uses the plural?

just asking . . .

"Well, we'll just go back to the Latin."
-----------------------------------------
That would be the ultimate indication of "Benedictine" incompetence. An old man completely out of touch with what's going on in his own church while Father Lombardi and Cardinal Sodano are the powers behind the throne.

Going back to Latin would be comparable to sending bombs into a damn. It would unleash disobedience the world over on a scale not seen since the 16th century. Thus strengthening what is alread a rapidly growing underground Church. I don't think B16 is that obtuse.

"Jesus' story of the prodigal clearly and convincingly demonstrates that, no matter how grave our sin, God does not want us focusing on beating our chests but on God's gracious, unconditional love."

Ah yes another who ignores the need to repent and sin no more. Who ignores the message of the gospel that if you sin and repent you are welcome. But no repenting, and no sorrow for this group. Nope they would have you believe that you ignore Christ's commands, never repent and still expect a welcoming in heaven.

I often see on these pages talk about how the "gospel" preaches universal salvation. What a lie the devil has gotten you to swallow. Here in just Matthew let's see what Christ has to say about repentence and universal salvation.

Matthew 3:2 Repent for the kingdom of heaven has come near.

Matthew 5:20 For I tell you unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life and there are few who find it.

Matthew 10:15 Truly I tell you it will be more tolerable for theland of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.

Matthew 11:20 Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been because they did not repent.

Matthew 12:36-37 I tell you on the day of judgement you will have to give an account of every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Matthew 13:41-42 The Son of Man will send his angels and they will collect out of his kindgom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown in the hell of fire.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called but few are chosen

Matthew 25:45-46 Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

I don't think the missal will last much beyond Benedict's reign. I wouldn't sink too many parish dollars intbying copies of it because it will be largely ignored, thrown onto bonfires in some place (and should be), and when the old man is gone, it will be replaced. Hopefully, with a vast improvement.

Prayer in common street language is an insult to God...archaism and formality are necessary to adequately convey distinct solemnity.The KJV translators knew this,the ICEL translators know this,Why doesn't the Notionally Catholic Reporter?

As long as the faithful are distracted by the new translation, the issue of clerical abuse is quietly put on the backburner. Perhaps the people who have sinned greatly in the 'I confess' should be reversed with the all of the 'holy church'. Holy people and sinful church??? The Church we long for is indeed a holy one along with its people. Where is the accountability? Who made all the changes to the originally approved edition? After almost a year of the new translation in New Zealand I hear of at least one Bishop who will consult his people as to their reaction.

We are seeing a retreat from advances already made in ecumenism. We are seeing the proper role of local bishops and bishops conferences increasingly taken over by the authorities in Rome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin, The same wonderful bunglers and bureaucratic misfits who mishandled just about every issue since Benedict became pope had to draw the line with growing criticisms from within the Anglophone hierarchy, latinists, as well as experts in the English language. This missal is a political document not a liturgical one.

Every parish priest should save his parish's money by not even bothering to buy this new missal/sacramentary for use in his parish. Just stick with the current one. A clear message needs to be sent to the Chief Storm Trooper that he and his stooges are not going to turn the liturgy into a battleground designed to make cardinal Pell look good and others too with a political agenda (many of whom speak little or no English by the way) and who had a key role in making the final changes to this disaster.

Read some of the collects, prefaces, communion, and post communion prayers (particularly for Lent and Advent) for yourself and you'll see how 40 years have been wasted producing this lemon of a faulty product. What is even more infuriating is how the USCCBishops simply rolled over and didn't say "Booh" while it was going on and have been pressured to go on the road to sell it. Not a single voice of criticism has been expressed publicly.

A more pathetic and worthless body of pontifical clowns would be hard to uncover from just a cursory review of Church history.

The urgency arises from the manifest and deliberate inaccuracy of the existing translation.If you don't want to stick with the original Latin,you need a better translation that actually gets across what the original is saying,

Who says "old version" is "perfectly acceptable"? It's not, and for two reasons:

1) It's a bad reflection of the Latin original; and
2) It's in stupifyingly banal English.

I honestly don't understand how so many here can defend it! And please note, my concerns have nothing to do with rolling back Vatican 2, covering up clerical abuse, or any other ulterior motive I see mentioned in these comments. The new translation has its share of clunky prose, but it seems to me a major step forward in fidelity to the original texts.

Austin seeing how credo was translated as "I believe", or pro multis as 'for all", seems like that translation machine has been running full tilt for 40+ years.

de acuerdo, querido hermano y estimado cura.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.

Your arrogant refusal to be properly humble speaks for itself.

The USCCB haven't the backbone of an amoeba. They should present Rome with a fait accompli: they've proceeded to ordain permanent (married and unmarried) deacons to the priesthood to help provide for the shortage of priests and meet the pressing spiritual needs of their flock. Their flocks must now depend increasingly upon a declining supply of priests long past the age of retirement.

The ordinations will take place sooner rather than later in Switzerland, Austria, Holland, and Germany long before it starts in the U.S.,the UK,or Ireland. Another avalanche descending upon Benedict's court of incompetents.

The Vatican will make accommodations for the Anglicans and the Lefebvrites in liturgy but nothing for progressive Catholics from Vatican II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Levfebrvrites are spinning into outer space now. Just a matter of time before they've taken the route of the Polish National Catholics and the Church of Utrecht and others like them. Benedict's successor won't give them the time of day, nor should he.

As for the Anglican ordinariate, they already have in this country the "Book of Divine Worship" which is the best English liturgy we have. Many who are tired of the games surrounding the 1970 Mass of Paul VI will move on to the Anglican ordinariate parishes as they spread.

So hold on, who's being reactionary here?

Joseph, you keep talking about money money money. It's interesting that the big issues for liberals are power, power, money, sex, power and power. But back to the issue at hand. Withholding money would be the best thing for my parish because then we can fire the NCR reading liberal "pastoral associates" and DREs!

The Bishops in general have failed so badly in terms of Catechism, evangelizing, nurturing vocations, protecting children, etc....Yet, you want to give them more power. They may need to be put on probation.

Hilde on Jul. 09, 2011.

You say searing critique, I say whiny rehash.
It's done, what does she hope to accomplish?
-----------------------------------------------------
Rita is reminding us all of the insult that is being visited upon all English speaking peoples. If a foreign nation tried to impose its version of English upon English-speaking peoples---there would be fighting in the streets. It would be considered an act of aggression by a foreign power.

But we have a pope {who is a foreign power} trying to turn the Church back to the times of HIS comfort level---his seminary days, by insisting upon a shabby English translation from Latin for English-speaking peoples. And too many folks are going to sit in the church, shake their heads when they don't understand what's happening, and then come home and complain---but do nothing.

People should get on the phone, and tie up all the lines to their Diocesan chancery COMPLAINING about the Roman Missal. Don't expect the priests to do anything----they can be disciplined severely for doing this. But the Bishops can't do anything to the rank-in-file laity.

"Failed to protect the Tridentine Mass"???

Ludicrous.

The Novus Ordo replaced the old rite.

I took first year Latin in high school and 4 semesters (2 years) in college. If I had simply pulled out the dictionary and connected the words without rearranging them and breaking up the sentences as needed to make a comprehensible translation that an English speaking person would readily understand, I would have gotten a C- at best in my high school class. After all, what is the point of a translation if an English speaker can not readily comprehend it when it is read to them without a text to follow along?

The 1998 ICEL version went a long way toward providing a reasonable compromise between the 1973 version and a "literal" translation as we have now been given with its run on sentences with objects of verbs buried several lines away in the text. Here are some examples:
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/1998missal.htm

Here is the story of how our English speaking bishops rolled over like trained dogs when John Paul The Lesser put the kabosh on the 1998 translation the ICEL had sent to him, required them to select new translators from an approved list, and then gave us the new abomination of a translation, which they again rolled over like trained puppies and accepted without a single reservation (unlike the German Conference). All the while JP the Lesser hammered the final nails into Subsidiarity's coffin, once and for all.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/

His successor, Benedict The Worst, is doing the same as we speak with regards to the Ethical & Religious Directives for Catholic hospitals and health care providers. A one size fits all set of directives that will apply equally to the US and Botswana, irregardless of the level of technology and medical care available in a given country.

As for myself, someone who learned Latin 35 years ago and comes across the language occasionally in my medical practice, I will be doing my best to restrain my laughter during the readings I hear and those I recite as a Lector.

"Fealty to Latin..."
Yup. That's what the Eucharist is all about!! NOT!!!

Fealty to a language not mine? I am neither Latin or Roman. I can respect and understand it, but I don't need to use it in order to know God in my deepest sense. No one tongue is superior to another...and American English is quite communicative!

And where did the "old" translation come from? Duh, from the Vatican? So they were wrong 40 years ago, but are right now?

Fr. John OSBr on Jul. 10, 2011.

You stated:

"The ideas put forth in this article are simply 'stuff and nonsense'. Fealty to Latin should be a hallmark of the 'Latin Church' not an obtuse idea every now and then given lip service.

It seems to me that the people who are opposed to the new translation are opposed to it simply because it is highly superior to the insipid translation being used now, one done so poorly that if it were presented in first year Latin in High School the translators would have failed the course."
----------------------------------------------------------

First of all----we are members of the CATHOLIC Church----the universal church. It was not the Roman empire that brought about our existence. It was Jesus Christ, gathered with his disciples (men and women) at the Last Supper. It was at the Passover Meal celebrated in the Aramaic (vernacular, everyday language of the Jewish people of Palestine) that Jesus asked us that every time we are gathered together in his name that we "do this in memory" of him.

And everywhere the Christian communities were gathered---they celebrated "the Meal" in their everyday language---Aramaic, Syrian, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malankara, and Latin. The Meal---the Eucharist was celebrated in the everyday vernacular of the people.

BTW---in the Byzantine rites in the English-speaking countries today---the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in ENGLISH---not in the Belorussian, Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Melkite, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian dialects.

But we are not of the Roman Empire any more. It is a DEAD empire and a dead language! And actually English is the language of universal commerce today. Jesus did not celebrate the first Mass in Latin----so why should we have a "fealty" to Latin? And why a fealty to a staid and sterile language that cannot express what and how people in TODAY'S world wish to use to worship God? God is ALIVE and so are we---why worship in a translation from a DEAD language. Or does the Pope subscribe to the "God is Dead" philosophy of

The "Meal" should be in the vernacular language of the the people where it is celebrated.

The translation from Latin to English (that will be THRUST upon the English speaking people of the world) was done by individuals for whom English was not the first language. So what we are being presented with is a translation from Latin to English that is so shoddy that it deserves, not an "F"---but a "Z", for ZERO.

Are you familiar with Damasus I?

You know, the pope from 366 - 384 AD?

The bishop of Rome who made Latin the new liturgical language because most ordinary Catholics in his diocese no longer knew koine (read: "common") Greek, the original liturgical language in Rome?

Are you familiar with Vatican II (1962 - 1965)?

You know, the church council that allowed bishops to use the vernacular, the "mother tongue" in the eucharistic liturgy?

In both of these examples, "Fr. John OSBr", the church made a so-called vernacular concession so that the People of God could worship Jesus in their native languages --- following the example of Jesus who worshipped the Father in his native tongue!

Richard M on Jul. 10, 2011.

You stated:

"Dear Mr. Fox,

"To the failing of protecting our children from clergy abuse many will now be adding another: the failure to protect clear and simple -- and meaningful -- English in our mass liturgies from an assault by ideologically led bishops."

The translation of the old missal may be "clear and simple," but it is certainly not accurate."
------------------------------------------------------
So, Richard, Jesus, who celebrated the very first Mass, confided that to you?

Jesus told you that he did not take a cup of wine in front of him---but he took a chalice of wine instead.

And Jesus told you that he is 'Consubstantial' with the Father---even though the Father is pure spirit and has no substance. Right!!!!!