All Comments (46)

biuret labyrinthibranchiate dielectric prebarbarous hairlet fibroma lakemanship criticizer
Cordiant Technologies
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/98/0417/biz3.html

biuret labyrinthibranchiate dielectric prebarbarous hairlet fibroma lakemanship criticizer
Genoveva Galarza ASCII Art
http://www.wisenterprisesinc.com

TRUTH OR TRADITION - WHICH MATTERS TO YOU?

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-----------------------

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16

ghng

To Concerned the christian now liberated: What does the question on your post of 7-17-2007 at 12:06 PM mean? If you want an answer and you let me know what the question means, I will answer it. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas,

Visit date/time and name of the your communicating "pretty wingie talking thingie"???

To Concerned the Christian now liberated and the rest of the world: God will let you know whether I am the New Testament Moses or not. I speak and write because I have been asked to. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Would you or anyone let this logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16
x=Thomas Paul Moses Baum

To Concerned the Christian now Liberated and the rest of the world: About the contemporary NT scholars, the pharisees and scribes were the contemorary bible scholars of Jesus's day were they not? About Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx ruling out that God does not know the future, I guess it makes it easier to be a theologian sometimes when you make God small enough to handle, well with theologians like this you may as well throw away the whole bible. I've met God the Trinity, I've met satan the deceiver, liar and thief, I am the NT Moses, God wins, satan loses, the captives shall be released, the dead shall rise. Isn't it somewhat interesting that you follow the teachings of the NT scholars that fall into your preconceived notions. God is really nice and all of you will be glad one day that He came up with a Plan, which so many people right now don't like at all but one day will. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To Concerned the Christian now Liberated and the rest of the world: About the contemporary NT scholars, the pharisees and scribes were the contemorary bible scholars of Jesus's day were they not? About Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx ruling out that God does not know the future, I guess it makes it easier to be a theologian sometimes when you make God small enough to handle, well with theologians like this you may as well throw away the whole bible. I've met God the Trinity, I've met satan the deceiver, liar and thief, I am the NT Moses, God wins, satan loses, the captives shall be released, the dead shall rise. Isn't it somewhat interesting that you follow the teachings of the NT scholars that fall into your preconceived notions. God is really nice and all of you will be glad one day that He came up with a Plan, which so many people right now don't like at all but one day will. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

B16 is trying to re-establish himself as the sole leader of the Roman (Latin) Church. The problem is that when one closely evaluates the scripture that he depends on for this "God-given" role, it falls heavily on the side of embellishments made by scribes trying to "sell" Catholicism to folk accustomed to being led around by the swords of kings, queens and emperors and their "Divine Rights". Enter democracy and education of the masses about 200 years ago and things are now rapidly changing.

More and more priests and men are opting for marriage. Priests who do remain have significant issues with sex. Nuns what few are left are demanding installation in the priesthood.

What do many of the contemporary NT scholars conclude about scriptural approval of said papacy ??

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Catholic theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.”

Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16

"Empty rambling of a priest in a language the listeners do not understand smacks of an outward religious show."

For all we disagree on, Pablo, I'm glad we are in agreement with this thought.

Hello Andrea,

I cannot impress God but hypocrites who are outwardly religious try to impress God with their own "goodness." I know that ALL of my righteousness is as a filthy rag to God. God does, however, respond to people who approach Him in humility and a broken heart over sin. For example Jesus gave the following illustration:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).

Empty rambling of a priest in a language the listeners do not understand smacks of an outward religious show.

Richmond.

I agree that my relationship to my parents is different than immediate family. As for a child not being able to repay for the sacrifices of the parent that is somewhat true. Perhaps I am fortunate but when I am in my high place of consciousness then my children’s mere existence is enough.

When giving love or kindness to a child my only request is that they send love or kindness to someone else. Obviously being human I wish to be one of those people. I imagine that God’s wish is similar, that we demonstrate what he gives to us love kindness, compassion.

I agree I love you friend is different. The more we understand the true relationship with friends, acquaintances and even enemies, the easier it becomes to love them.

God is definitely a unique relationship. What ever works for the individual is fine by me. I am glad you have found yours.

Best regards.

Rob

ROB ADAMS: I don’t think it is that we need to worship God, but at some level we need a relationship with God. In response to giving thanks and praise I equate that to telling your kids and your wife every day that you love them. It fosters the relationship.

RT: Thanks for your comments. I think we agree on the need for establishing "right relationship" with God but perhaps disagree on how worship might be an integral part of this.

I offer for your consideration that perhaps your relationship with your parents differs from relationship with your immediate family and friends.

For me, the need for "praise and worship" w.r.t God stems from the uniqueness of the me-to-God relationship compared with a more reciprocating love relationship with my famliy. Example: A child has an imbalanced love relationship with mom and dad and can't possibly repay them for the sacrifices they make...A child *might* respond to these sacrifices with an "I love you mom!" but can’t possibly repay their parents for pouring themselves out, especially in the early years of parenting. Saying “I love you, son” is a different relationship than saying “I love you, friend” … In the obscure greek it is expressed as the difference between "agape love" and "phile love".

You don't establish right relationship with G-D... the great I-AM… in the same way that you do would affirm the neighbor who loaned you his drill. Worship is, for me, an elevated treatment of the Other… a more “reverent” approach to relationship with God, who is the source of all life.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Peace,
RT

Richmond.

I am not sure I agree we were made to worship God. In terms of “God does not need it but we do” I don’t think it is that we need to worship God, but at some level we need a relationship with God.

In response to giving thanks and praise I equate that to telling your kids and your wife every day that you love them. It fosters the relationship. If that is good enough for our family then it certainly would be good enough for our relationship with God.

Viejita del oeste: "In defense of songs written in 1856: They are much easier to sing than the modern stuff. Church choirs need to decide whether they are there to perform, or to lead the assembled people in song. I'm getting a little tired of liturgical music that is indistinguishable from lounge acts and coffee house open mike nights."
I agree that lounge singing over pre-recorded music is cheesy. Authenticity is a major draw for the Gen-X and Gen-Y crew, so churches that hold a U2charist-type service may actually alienate their audience if the 'performance' comes off as a stunt rather than authentic expression. It's hard not to alienate somone when you change your worship format. ... On a separate but related subject I read somewhere that the pentecostals purged their services of liturgical elements to make them more accessible to new converts, but nowadays some are returning some of these elements (a la Ancient Evangelical Future movement) out of an understanding that it is good to be connected to the larger Church traditions and symbolic understandings.

Rob Adams: "I guess the problem I have always had with worship is it seems like a dysfunctional relationship. I also don’t see God needing us to worship him."

RT: I have heard it said that it is in our spiritual constitution that we were MADE to worship God. The book of Revelation shows some poignant scenes where everyone is gathered in heaven worshiping God eternally... You may not think God needs us to worship but we remind ourselves almost every week that "it is RIGHT to give thanks and praise"

IOW, God may not need it, but we do.

I agree with Rev. Thistlethwaite that it is tradition being upheld, not worship.

Anonymous said “Worship to God in any language or any form is ok. The fact is God is near to those who are near to Him. So no one can say my way is the right way.”

I couldn’t agree more.

I guess the problem I have always had with worship is it seems like a dysfunctional relationship. I also don’t see God needing us to worship him.

The only context worship seems to be a functional process is if you think of We are all One. God and us, all of us are all one. In this context we would be in essence be worshiping each other. This may sound like metaphysical double talk but to me it seems the right way to worship.

know way more than my children since I have been around longer. I do not demand they worship me. We share mutual love, respect and adoration. If they act in a way that indicates they do not adore me, or love me that does not diminish my love for them. As a human it would hurt my feelings, but it is temporary. True love does not demand love in return.

We all show our love in a different way. So in terms of worshiping God I do not think there is anything ‘necessary’ for worship.

If tradition helps you show your love to God then by all means do it.

Pablo,

Sorry for the first part. I didn't read your post right! I'm not to bright first thing in the morning.

Pablo,

Who said I wanted to impress God? Do you want to impress God? Do you think he's impressed with people trying to impress him?

My point about mega churches is that, some people go only for the community aspect of it. To play basketball in the auditorium, or to have their children babysat for an hour or two for free in the church's junglegym.

Viejita del Oeste & Andrea,

Again God is not impressed with a hypocritical outward show. He sees the heart of people. If they truly worship Him He knows whether they are in a mega church or alone in their car.

John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

"Human beings cannot go back to the past, they can only go back to the future and take their faith with them. The way we connect to the ancestors in the faith is to cultivate a lively and contemporary faith ourselves, the way they did."

If that is the case, then why are a billion people waiting for the return of someone who died 200 years ago? Why are hundreds of millions of people living by the code of a prophet that died 800 years ago. How can either of these examples possible be relevant today?

One could argue that many of the principles that many religions claim remain, but the love of ones family, the yearning for a peaceful life, of being honest and maintaining integrity have nothing at all to do with the belief in god or people claiming to have a unique relationship with that god. These principles predate any type of institutionalised religion - unless of course one believes in Creationism. In which case any discussion based on reason and logic is pointless.

Anyway, Vie.

Believe it or not, I'm sorry to hear how betrayed you feel. Speaking of my Ma, I guess I'm just kind of used to it. Betrayal from that quarter, and all.

The Papal Bull was screwing up my life before I was even born. Such shame and terror. Their own kid... damned to Hell... unless desperate measures were taken.

Unless authorities that weren't happening to do right by a lot of folks in the Boston or any other archdiocese were obeyed without question, for a need to *believe* there was *hope* for these *damned* kids...

Who the Church, when finally caught out, decided to try and purge as *perpetrators,* rather than acknowledge as the *victims* who were told they had nowhere else to turn than the perps.

Just choosing to use the same homophobia the perps used to enforce silence among the victims while *everyone knew* what was going on... to cover up and instead oppress the innocent further...

That was where the deal was done, the choice was made, the fate sealed, as far as I'm concerned.

Won't cry to see that all fall.

But.

I don't think Vie, that a substitute authority will necessarily serve you any better. Word from many is, they really don't.

When leaving a bad situation, careful where you *jump to.* There's free space. And I think you might wanna take advantage of that. You got some faith. Any priest wants to take that away might have to go through someone like me.

Only, you don't need that, do you? :)

You know, Catholic prophecy of one kind or another is said to say this is the last Pope.

I don't usually say that, cause it feeds into really unhealthy apocalyptic things, but maybe he's just the guy who rides that puppy straight into the ground.

Don't break my Ma's heart while you go about it, is all.

Dig?

The highly-prefixed Rev. Dr. Ms. Brooks uses the political con-artist's trick of adding the suffix "ism" to whatever she wishes to denigrate. I would describe it as Brooksism.

When I was a kid we had the Godless Communist Conspiracy. Now there's Murderous Militant Islam. If there is no great throng of enemies swarming at our gates, we have to invent it.

The animosity is not only for Muslims. There are a few participants who regularly blame every world problem on the Jews -- and of course this question has served to declare open season on Catholics. It seems almost everyone needs a group to demonize, rather than examining what we can all do proceed in a more positive manner.

One wonders whether Sally Quinn rues the day that she set up this Washington Post blogging framework to "converse" about religion. The "conversation" too often turns into mud slinging.

Following the blogs from day to day, one has to admit that "On Faith" has brought together some thoughtful scholars and thinkers to post some salient, short essays from which all can benefit.

Yet can one imagine a motlier collection of lunacy, gibberish, wild sectarian nonsense and outright malevolence than what accumulates among posted messages under each essay?

Truly, one must return to Al Gore's latest book in which he appeals to reason. Judging by the bloggers in "On Faith", reason has little significance for them. Has reason departed and left behind in America little but hateful, vulgar, shouting and sectarian squabbling? How that must greatly embarrass the well-meant intentions behind Ms. Quinn's initiative.

There seems to infect the blogosphere a particularly vicious strain of primitive hatred for Muslims, all Muslims, and it is well that "On Faith" does the best it can to moderate and contest this kind of detestable, reptilian animosity, which is no different in kind from that with which Islamist terrorists and estremists tarnish their own faiths.

In defense of songs written in 1856: They are much easier to sing than the modern stuff. Church choirs need to decide whether they are there to perform, or to lead the assembled people in song. I'm getting a little tired of liturgical music that is indistinguishable from lounge acts and coffee house open mike nights.
In defense of the Tridentine Mass: It is not meant to be the only option. There will still be a majority of masses in the vernacular.

To Bgone: Jesus did not say go and rule the world, proclaiming "Good News" which is what the word gospel means is a completely different ballgame so to speak. You don't seem to care very much about the Old Testament Moses, well I guess you won't care much about the New Testament Moses either, that is who I happen to be. The devil is very upset since his time as prince of this world is short and God is so much nicer than anyone could possibly think if they believe He is anything like so many so-called christians present Him to be. My previous post at 12:05 PM says a little more. Thank you very much, take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Latin crosses international boundaries just like wild geese. If the pope is to rule the world, and that's the goal set by Jesus for him, (going forth teach all nations) then he will need an international language that is not the language of any nation.

Burn all heretics at the stake. Miss Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite qualifies, is a heretic. You better get on board, be agreeable or his holiness will send Cardinal Law to see you,, just as soon as ecumenical is all done.

Cardinals set in the great judgment seat of Amlighty God, the creature that live in a ball of fire, right here on earth. Cathedrals are ordinary churches with "catedras" chairs, the judgment seat occupied by Cardinals,, and that ain't the St Louis Cardinals although there may well be a St Louis Cardinal,, a Ram for sure. Stand by for the ram, you heretic, defying the authority of the pope.

You're all going to hell anyhow. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul just like Moses. Let's hear that story about God making a deal with Moses and whacking the firstborn son of Pharaoh so Moses could become the biggest shot in the history of the world. Only the Devil cares.

As a recently unchurched twenty-something...I still don't get it. ;)

Andrea: I agree with you in regards to the mega-churches. I just don't understand how that's worship. It kinda goes to show you how disinterested a lot of people are in really attending church. The only way they'll go is if there's a laser show during the sermon.

RT: This again comes back to the issue of what is the purpose of holding worship. If it’s just to preach the gospel to potential converts then the "megachurches” do an EXCELLENT job of reaching out to the popular culture and speaking its language. Unchurched twenty-somethings don't understand meaningless stand-up-sit-down rituals, dudes in smocks, and songs written in 1856, but they do understand Starbucks, basketball, movies, and rock-n-roll. I have never seen a laser show though.

If you’re intent is to speak the language of potential converts, it’s not sufficient that the service is in English. If there’s nobody available after church to explain the Introits, Benedictions, Gloria Patrias, and Kyries to newcomers, then you might as well have it all in Latin. After all, it’s already Greek to most people!

The great Italian maestro Arturo Toscanini once remarked that, "tradition is the memory of the last bad performance."

True for music, possibly more true for religion.

Vie,

I agree with you in regards to the mega-churches. I just don't understand how that's worship. It kinda goes to show you how disinterested a lot of people are in really attending church. The only way they'll go is if there's a laser show during the sermon.

I don't see how a Latin Mass is any more "show" than the multimedia extravaganzas indulged in by the evangelical mega-churches. If anything, it is less.

Jesus is concerned about the heart. Liturgy can be an outward religious show.

Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

He is not impressed with empty religion. We need to love God. Much of the church today is a show.

Worship to God in any language or any form is ok. The fact is God is near to those who are near to Him. So no one can say my way is the right way.

I believe you expressed yourself very well in this post, because faith should be something alive and vibrant and meaningful in your life. When I was in my late teens I walked away from the church so to speak and I firmly believe God wanted me to because it was starting to become a religion to me and I needed to go thru what I've been through and do the things that I have done including the things that I am extremely sorry for. If God wanted us to be a bunch of mindless drones, or puppets on a string or parrots parroting back what has been crammed down our throats than that is how He would have made us but He did't, He made us with free will and feelings and emotions and minds and if anyone has noticed with a fallen nature which seems to manifest itself differently in each and every one of us. I thank God that His Plan is for all of His children, which is all of humanity, to be with Him, the Trinity of Pure Love, in His Kingdom. To Viejita Del Oeste: I am not familiar with the June 29th thing, but you just might be more catholic in the true sense of the word, and it does mean universal and it is God's Will that all be saved contrary to what some people that call themselves christians seem to think and the really sad thing is that some of them don't even want God to win Total Victory just as long as they go to the "good place", doesn't sound very christian to me. There can be a big difference between religion and faith. I, personally, am glad that Vatican 2 brought the mass back to the tradition of the early church where the mass was celebrated in the language of the people there, also Jesus, God Incarnate, spoke to the people in a language that they understood and He also faced the people, He did not turn His back to the people, He became one of us like it says, God so loved the world (humanity) that He became one of us and not only that but asked permission to do so and Mary said yes, thank you Mary. I happen to be the New Testament Moses, sometimes a sacrament like that of confirmation might take a few decades to kick in so to speak but God works in His Way and in His time, like our (humanity's) brother said to us "Be Ready" well it is that time, whatever you do for love, you do for God since God is Pure Love. Take Care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

E Fave
I'm thinking of attending mass there, but the local Episcopalians are a little too active in liberal politics for me to be comfortable joining up.

Viejita - please take a look at the Episcopal church. In my opinion, they kept all the good stuff about catholicism (ritual, vestments, the mass - even in latin, when sung; all the good music) and got rid of the silly stuff (transubstantiation, celibacy, etc, etc.)

Of course, recently, there are problematic Episcopal churches too, but they are easily identified.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the one and only true church is, of course, very familiar to me. This is not the first time Benedict has emphasized that Apostolic Succession -- i.e. the office of the pope and bishops -- is what makes the Catholic Church the "real" one. The June 29th statement puts such an emphasis on this exclusivist aspect of Catholic doctrine that I feel I can no longer pretend that it doesn't matter. For years I have felt that I was strong enough to participate in the rituals and customs that enrich my life without allowing the hierarchy to hijack my devotion in their own pursuit of power. The church is the body of Christ, right? It's the people, not the pope.
This latest statement makes me feel that I've been fooling myself.

Christians have always live within the tension of cultures. The Early Christians dithered between their conservative Hebrew Tradition and their progressive Greek Freethought. How much you tilt towards reinforcement versus innovation is a matter of discernment.
Thistlethwaite gives the classic argument of the reformers (and the UCC)… each generation must take personal ownership of the gospel and express it relevantly in the language of the people.

I think this debate comes down to the purpose of the Christian worship liturgy… is it a verbal instructional class to teach the basics of Jesus to the unchurched or is it the enactment of God-centering experience intended to reinforce the unity of a global fellowship of Christian believers. If the former, then she is right – Latin makes the gospel linguistically inaccessible to newcomers. If the latter, I believe that the incorporation of Latin makes it possible for the church to be truly “catholic” in the dictionary sense… a Catholic service in Latin will be strikingly similar and meaningful no matter where you are in the world… Baghdad, Beijing, Bamako, or Baltimore.

I have Orthodox Jewish friends who remark to me that a meaningful part of the Sabbath is knowing not only that Jews "around the world” are all resting on the Sabbath, but that in resting on the Sabbath, they are doing what Jews have done for thousands of years in various cultures and places, every seventh day. To dip your foot in Tradition is to participate in a legacy that transcends your particular time or culture and connects you to the Universal. In the same way, I believe that the Latin mass is intended to have this same effect -- of uniting the Catholics in their worship experience.

I personally think they should have chosen Ancient Greek or Aramaic as their uniting worship language, but I guess my cell phone wasn’t on when the Pope called me to ask my opinion.

I grew up as a post-Vatican II Catholic in the late 1960's and 70's. Therefore, I had no experience with the Latin Mass until last summer. I went with my husband and MIL to a Latin Mass in DC out of curiosity. I took Latin in High School, and have sung a lot with choirs, so I kinda knew what was going on. But it was BORING!!! Okay... you might say, "but, Athena, you're a PAGAN!" Well, yeah. But I was a Catholic in my formative years, and it kinda sticks with you.

Anyway, the point is that 1) the Catholic Church is losing members for a variety of reasons. 2) Those that remain are tending to be more conservative. 3) If you're losing members, re-introducing something that was stopped over 40 years ago is NOT gonna bring people back into the pews. Seems to me that B16 cares less about getting people into pews than overturning all of Vatican II. What's next - selling indulgences?

Vie,

I read your post regarding this on another thread as well. I am sincerely curious about this. What is it about this move by the Pope would make you reconsider your religion?

On June 29th it became clear that I and those like me are not really Catholic. I guess I'll check out the local Congregational and Presbyterian churches.