The Sydney Daily Telegraph has been running this for the past couple of days and I see it's being discussed at The Punch:
and at Cath Pews:
Arabella made the following comment at the latter:
I can't imagine any law coming into being which would impinge upon a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion.
A paragraph from a USA court case around abortion sums up the current state of affairs well I believe. Basically the way of life in countries such as the USA and Australia now depends upon the availability of abortion.
The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.
See paragraph ‘e’ at link.
I saw this in today's Herald. Here's the U.R.L.:
Might be useful.
"Testimony to the Primacy of the Pope by a 17th c. [Ruthenian] Orthodox Prelate"
Interesting article on AQ. Here's an exerpt:
The appropriate solution would be the following: Let all recognize the primacy. The Apostolic See ought to content itself with this without changing or abandoning any of its principles and basic rights. It is real union and not mere change that we must seek. Now, the constitution and nature of union is to unite two realities and to safeguard each natural integrity. That which existed previously should exist today; that which did not exist previously ought to be suppressed. That which has always existed is the Sovereign Pontiff regarded as the first and supreme pastor in the Church of Christ, as the Vicar of Christ, the Chief. May that be conserved today! But we have never read that a Latin has ever exercised a direct jurisdiction over the Greek rite. The Greeks have always acknowledged the primacy, but they themselves have always been under the jurisdiction of a patriarch of their own rite.
... We confess openly, in virtue of the principles and basic foundations of the Church of God that our own (Byzantine) rite distinguishes us from the Roman, but that we have communion in one and the same faith. We are not able to deny that the Blessed Apostle Peter has been, as we profess in the hymns of our Church, the Prince of the Apostles and that his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, hold in perpetuity the supreme authority in the Church of God.
Consequently, without distancing ourselves from our father, the patriarch [of Constantinople], from whom we Ruthenians have received initiation into holy baptism, and without delaying the union of the Church (in which is given true salvation), everyone of us - clerics and laity - (in order to escape the dangers of dissensions) has accepted the following solution in the name of Our Lord: to live in unity under one head and one only pastor, the Vicar of Christ, as the Symbol of Faith [the Creed] prescribes for us; to profess one only Catholic and apostolic Church and in her, one only sovereign successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff; and to remain faithful to the rites of our holy Greek religion conserved in their integrity from the beginning and until the most clement God (by His power from on high) will render liberty to the Greek people (from the Turks) and to our pastor, the Patriarch (of Constantinople) who will conduct us to that salutary concord which we implore with a holy ardor, especially in the Divine Liturgy.
The Greeks have always acknowledged the primacy, but they themselves have always been under the jurisdiction of a patriarch of their own rite.
Joshua on the Old and News Rites of Mass
"Offertories Old and New":
"A Few Restorations to the Mass":
"Three Most Untraditional Prayers":
"Offerimus tibi Domine":
I've left the following comment at the first of those posts:
Cardinal Pole said...
"Then someone had the bright idea of adapting the Jewish table blessings of bread and wine, much as, just perhaps (who can say?), Our Lord did at the Last Supper."
It ought to be noted that the N.O.M. 'preparation of the gifts' comes from the Talmud, which is the written collection (written down hundreds of years after the time of Christ) of the very 'traditions of men' which Our Lord condemned. There is no proof that the table blessings therein are those of the Jews before and during the time of Christ, and, on the contrary, according to Encyclopedia Judaica they probably date to no earlier than the second century A.D.
"It is important that sacrificium nostrum... placeat tibi, Domine Deus be read in the strongest sense, as praying that the sacrifice offered – which is Christ – please the Lord, placate Him, appease Him, be a propitiation availing for us men and for our salvation."
The surrounding text does not impose that reading. Someone who knows the theology of the T.L.M. will read that into it, but someone who does not would be perfectly reasonable to read that as 'pleasing' in the way a mere sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is pleasing, not 'pleasing' in the sense in which a true, propitiatory sacrifice is pleasing.
"Undeniably, however, this is doctrine is deëmphasised ..."
'expunged' would be a better word.
"The Supreme Pontiff formerly known as Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned, while yet in that rank, that Lumen Gentium has passages that sound almost semi-Pelagian in their overconfident view of "modern man"."
I think you mean Gaudium et spes, Joshua.
(I hope I don't come off sounding too harsh here, Joshua; I appreciate these posts you've done on the Old vs. New Masses and am about to link to them at my blog.)
Wednesday, 26 May, 2010
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.