Latin Mass - Yes or not?

[3rdEye]

Defending Martin Luther is not easy, because in my opinion, his mind wasn't too bright. I won't defend him, but I'll answer you anyway.

Originally Posted by Milesian

This is not what Protestant Work Ethic refers to.
The PWE is a kind of mentality whereby work is seen as something intrinsically good in itself. Many Protestants feel (explicitly or implicitly)that by getting on in a career and becoming wealthy and materially comfortable is a sign of God's favour. It is very much caught up with the notion of Predestination, thus being successful and wealthy is seen as a sign God favours one as a member of The Elect (note the similarity of the concept to the Jewish "The Chosen")

The above is more or less correct. Luther said that virtue is a sign of chosenness. But he defied the idea of salvation by deeds that we can find for example in The Revelation of John. In fact, he discarded the Revelations in their entirety. Luther was of the opinion that scripture was intelligible for anyone who had proper language skills, and he appropriated his canon accordingly.

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are aware that what you are referencing here is a summary of a book by one single author, Max Weber, who was by no means a theologian, but an economist and a sociologer? If you take what is the protestant work ethic from him only, you are twisting things. His ideas were also of a very speculative nature. They are summarized this way in that article:

Weber wrote that capitalism evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that led to the development of capitalism. This idea is also known as "the Weber thesis".

Do you really believe in this version of history???

This is also the Catholic (and Iwould assume Eastern Orthodox) view as well.
The difference is that the Protestants believe in Faith alone (Sola Fide), which is something quite different.


For me, this is a very worrying doctrine. Taken to it's logical conclusion it creates all sorts of problems - that multitudes of people have been created just to die and suffer torment for eternity and all by God's will. This would suggest a non-benevolent God. Similarly, if a man was predestined for Heaven & believes in God then there is no reason for him not to indulge in a sinful life. If nothing can change a man's predestined afterlife then that necessarily includes sin as well. So sin becomes of no consequence because he believes that as long as he believes in God then he is of the Elect and already saved. He doesn't believe his works are of any consequence so there is no logical compulsion to act in a good or charitable manner.

I don't follow Luther.

Predestination and Sola Fide seem intrinsically linked together with each other.

They are linked in contradiction. Please see what I wrote in my previous post.

Although Calvin was quick to point to St Augustine as the source of his deoctrine, that is actually not the case. Calvin and other Predestinarians (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Predestinarianism) before him always invoked St Augustine's name in their defense, however.
St Augustine was engaged in refuting the Pelagian heresy, which is why his views were very strong in regards to the necessity for grace. But from a Catholic perspective, Calvin's doctrine are based on misinterpretations of the Doctor of Grace's views.

I don't think so. I've read some of Augustine as well, and I wasn't at all convinced that his views on predestination were any better. On the contrary, I was convinced that Calvin interpreted him correctly.

And even if it were true, the Saints are not infallible anyway. For example, St Cyprian's view on baptism was wrong as just one example. So claiming authority from a single saint, even if it were true, is no guarantee of being correct on the matter.

Now you seem to have changed your mind.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Gnist

Defending Martin Luther is not easy, because in my opinion, his mind wasn't too bright. I won't defend him, but I'll answer you anyway.

The above is more or less correct. Luther said that virtue is a sign of chosenness. But he defied the idea of salvation by deeds that we can find for example in The Revelation of John. In fact, he discarded the Revelations in their entirety. Luther was of the opinion that scripture was intelligible for anyone who had proper language skills, and he appropriated his canon accordingly.

Which takes us to another Reformationist Doctrine - Private Interpretation,
I won't go into why I consider that erroneous as the results speak for themselves.

You are aware that what you are referencing here is a summary of a book by one single author, Max Weber, who was by no means a theologian, but an economist and a sociologer? If you take what is the protestant work ethic from him only, you are twisting things. His ideas were also of a very speculative nature. They are summarized this way in that article:

Do you really believe in this version of history???

I should clarify that I'm not saying I subscribe to this. I was merely linking to a reference in case you were not familiar with the term. As you obviously are, it's by the by.

I don't follow Luther.

I never suggested you did

I don't think so. I've read some of Augustine as well, and I wasn't at all convinced that his views on predestination were any better. On the contrary, I was convinced that Calvin interpreted him correctly.

I respect if that is your opinion. It was Calvin's too so you are in some illustrious company

Now you seem to have changed your mind.

How so?
I always try to keep an open mind where possible.
In fact, I have only stated fact. The Catholic Church doesn't consider it's own members to be infallible - even if they happen to be Saints or Doctors of the Church
The Church recognises that whilst they may have championed the Faith or combated heresy in one of it's countless forms, that doesn't necessarily mean everything they wrote was correct. As such, I gave an example of another saint who is also a Doctor of the Church and yet was deemed as being in error about a certain subject on which he very much opposed his own Pope.
Thus it would be pointless to adhere to Cyprian's opinion of baptism and try to justify it by saying that this was the opinion also held by a great saint of the Church.

That is not to say that I agree that Calvin being a correct interpretor of St Augustine. that is your opinion alone. I actually don't consider myself well versed enough on either to make any sort of qualified statement. I'm merely pointing out the fact that even if it was the same opinion as St Augustine, that doesn't confer some sort of infallibility on it to make it correct.
It is an appeal to an authority which doesn't exist.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Errigal

Does Opus Dei encourage its members to do business with one another or get involved in that sort of "networking"?

If you mean officially, as in their statutes, I don't think so.

But they do work in a lobbyistic way.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Paul:

"[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.'" (1 Tim 2:4)

This is beautiful.

[Marcus Marulus]

In a way both of you are right about Saint Augustine.

While refuting Pelagianism (ie. that there is no original sin), he fell into another extreme. Maybe his Manicheanism, which he had professed prior to embracing Christinaity, might have played some role herein. He is conisdered as one of the greatest Doctores Ecclesiae nevertheless and there is nothing controversial in that. However, that does not mean that everything he ever wrote is true. He was never considered as an infallible authority.

In his views on predestination there is a germ of what later became the heretical current of predestinarianism. The official view of the Church states that it is an erroneous interpretation of Augustine, by the method of quotations taken out of context.

He was much (mis)used not only by Calvinists, but also by some Catholic schools of thought, namey by Jansenists. Jansenism was some kind of Calvinism in Catholic disguise. It was condemned offcially by the Church.

[magister]

This is my first post to Stirpes. I am an American and was raised with the mass of Paul VI. I've only been to two Tridentine masses and I liked it alot. Based on conversations with my dad, who was raised before the change, I've always thought the Tridentine form should have been kept. However, I don't think the status quo is necessarily bad. The theology of the mass of Paul VI is exactly the same as the theology behind the Tridentine form. I prefer to use the term mass of Paul VI instead of "novus ordo" because novus ordo is not an official term for the mass.

[Salford]

Yes to Latin Mass!

One thing I really dislike is use of laity as lectors. Though I'm not very knowledgable about this, wasn't that role previously reserved for priesthood candidates? I especially gnash my teeth when women are used as lectors. I usually think to myself (quite uncharitably I might add) that it's only a matter of time before a member of the laity is performing the Consecration.

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Salford

Yes to Latin Mass!

One thing I really dislike is use of laity as lectors. Though I'm not very knowledgable about this, wasn't that role previously reserved for priesthood candidates? I especially gnash my teeth when women are used as lectors. I usually think to myself (quite uncharitably I might add) that it's only a matter of time before the laity is performing the Consecration.

I have only been to a roman catholic mass once, and I was in fact disappointed that a monk delivered the sermon while the priest was sitting idly around with a disinterested look on his face, as if intellectual teaching was some kind of lower exercise.