Name of Church St. Dominic
Address 2390 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94115
Phone number (415) 567-7824
Website www.stdominics.org
Mass times Saturday vigil, 5:30 p.m.; Sunday 7:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m. (Spanish), 5:30 p.m., 9 p.m.. Weekdays, 6:30 a.m., 8 a.m., 5:30 p.m. Saturdays at 8 a.m., Mass with morning prayer.
Confessions Saturday, 5-5:30 p.m.; Sunday, 7-7:20 a.m., 9-9:20 a.m., 11-11:20 a.m., 5-5:20 p.m. and by appointment.
Names of priests St. Dominic’s is staffed by the Dominican Fathers of the Western Province. Its pastor for the last few years has been Father Michael Hurley, a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula. Father Steve Maekawa is prior and parochial vicar, Father Isaiah Mary Molano is also a parochial vicar. (Listen to their homilies on the parish website.)
School No.
Parish groups St. Dominic’s is known for its large young adult community, drawing single and married people in their 20s and 30s (see https://stdominics.org/ministries/youngadults). There are a variety of other groups, including a county jail outreach ministry, First Friday all-night adoration, a married couples’ group, a men’s club, Second Spring (for ages 55 and up), a Christian meditation group, an artists’ guild and much more.
Music Cantors and a variety of choirs, including a contemporary music choir, a family Mass choir and a Solemn Mass choir.
Parking Park in the church lot or on the street.
Cry room No.
Additional observations St. Dominic’s is a bustling parish in the City, and is among its most beautiful parishes. The Dominican friars first came to San Francisco in 1850; the first St. Dominic’s church was built in 1873. A larger church was built in the 1880s, but collapsed in the 1906 earthquake. The current church on that site was completed in 1928; nine flying buttresses were added in the 1990s to make the church seismically stable. It is a magnificent Gothic-style church, including a carved marble altar from Italy, carved oak side altars, shrines and confessionals, many impressive statues, paintings, stained glass windows; call the parish about taking a docent tour. St. Dominic’s also houses the Shrine of St. Jude and recently opened a columbarium, where the cremated remains of loved ones can be interred.
Love to visit this Church and attend Mass there when I travel to beautiful San Francisco!
Beautiful church indeed, but I think CCD must have missed the memo on the order that runs it: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/breaking-pope-appoints-fr.-timothy-radcliffe-consultor-for-pontifical-counc
Such i crying shame that this stunning church which was built for the TLM is now full blown Novus Ordo complete with women pretending to be priests inside the sanctuary and choir girls wearing Roman collars.
But note: it has a “high altar”.
The different reflected in this church, St Dominic’s, and say, the LA Cathedral, reflects a vast defection from the Catholic Church of tradition. And that is why Janek is right: the “New Liturgy” really doesn’t make much sense in it, unless very reverently celebrated. It is up to the celebrant, who can keep or bend the rules.
Thomas Cranmer and Martin Luther also mocked the “high altar(s)” of traditional Catholic Churches. Those who make fun of them share much more in common with those two heretics.
An altar is for a divine sacrifice: a table is for a human memorial meal.
Jesus Christ celebrated the Last Supper at a table, Steve. And Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome does not have a “high” altar at which Mass is celebrated. Does that make every Pope a heretic in league with Luther and Cranmer?
Well, caritas again wrong on both points: St Peter’s in Rome (I thought caritas was there to see it himself) definitely has a high altar, which he so appears to disdain, much like Cranmer and Luther.
As for caritas’ primitivist interpretation of the Mass (attempting to return it to a “Supper of the Lord” at the “table of the Lord”), that also is wrong, denying the Holy Spirit’s doctrinal development through out the ages of the Church. Primitivism attempting to falsely reform the liturgy was condemned at Trent (1570), by Pius VI condemning the Synod of Pistoia (1794), and by Pius XII (he called it archaelogism), 1947. I guess they didn’t cover that at the once-proud Gregorian.
Regarding replacing the divine altar of sacrifice with a” table of the Lord”, this was the principal focus of Cranmer and his lieutenant, Bishop John Hooper of Gloucester, the latter who specifically stated “the Lord’s Board” (=the table) was merely a place for feeding and communal sharing. Well done, Novus Ordo table-enthusiasts!
Steve, you are wrong again. I have been to St. Peter’s Basilica more times than i can count. Their is NO “high altar” in the place. The main altar, at which the Pope regularly celebrates Mass, has an altar which is in solid rectangular form, covered by a baldacchino which is in no way attached to the altar. To call that a “high altar” is akin to calling a bridge with a covering roof a “high bridge”. So, wrong again. Do you just make things up as you go along ?
By the way, what about addressing the fact that Jesus Christ Himself celebrated the first Mass ever AT A TABLE? At least, that’s what Catholics profess to believe. [I assume you do, too.] Good enough for Jesus, good enough for me.
Get your mind off trivia and accept…
Caritas, if it were ‘trivia’ as you term it then there wouldn’t have been a ton of $$$ spent to rework parishes across the country and the world to have a free standing table in lieu of a high altar.
What you do is attribute folks making things up whenever you are hit with something you know very little about. Try to study terms and Catholic history so you are better equipped to dialogue in truth instead of attempting to stifle substantive discussion with a bunch of personal frustration.
Unfortunately, if the Priest are not ordained under a valid sacrament, the location of the altar is immaterial. It is the Sacrifice of the Mass, not a meal , not a sing along as the Novus Disorders practice. No validly ordained Priest, No true Mass, No valid Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Just heresy every week.
Janek, r u Catholic? The mass is the mass, not matter if is in Latin or any other language. Jesus did NOT use Latin when he pronounce ‘this is my body’ etc.
Read Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia (1962) of John XXIII: the rites of the Church, according to Vatican II eye-witness Klaus Gamber, and as the Council Fathers understood at the time, were to always remain in Latin: especially the Mass.
As well, Tony NY, you may want to read up on the heresy of primitivism—Martin Luther was a big fan. It was the concept that the early Apostolic Fathers’ Church is the normative concept measuring all faith practice. Luther believed the Catholic Church had obscured the original faith and practice of it. He as well hated Latin—the sacred language of the most ancient Western tradition.
Janek: St. Dominic’s is a beautiful Roman Catholic Church even though the Novus Ordo form of the Mass is celebrated at it. I’ve visited it many times and have never observed female Altar Servers or Choir Members trying to be priests. Lying and gossiping is a sin!
Janek is once again right. I wish he were wrong. This is “the” church, and its soaring architecture and extraordinary art, all breathes over and over the same one word, “Holy, holy, holy..”, the vision of Isaiah of God the Infinite (Is. 6:3). Your eyes are always lifted up by this church.
What inspired this church, and still inspires the many good Dominicans trapped in Novus-Ordo-World (NOT the Timothy Radcliffe-types, but (the late) Fr. Felix Cassidy OP or (the late) Fr. Stanley Parmisano—and many others in “deep-cover” one dares not “blow” so that they don’t suffer any attacks) is the faith that built this church and the liturgy that was the same liturgy of St. Ambrose (d. 397), St Gregory the Great (d. 604) St…
Sts Francis & yes, Dominic (d. 1226, 1221). A defective liturgy, though minimally valid if conducted by a priest intending what the church has always intended, is the difference here. One liturgy tends [not always: but it lapses often] to a liturgy of man and community, the other inherently elevates the mind to a divine sacrifice.
“Valid” or “invalid” is a disjunction. There is no such thing in logic as “minimally valid”.
Persons who are ignorant of canon law and church law don’t understand minimum requirements for validity, such as the “Eight Words” of Institution dating from Peter Lombard (d. 1160) (ex::
“Take this, all of you, and eat of it:… Take this, all of you, and drink from it (etc)”, P. Eugene IV (d. 1447) after the Council of Florence declared these words to be required, at minimum, for the Eucharist to be transubstantiated (Denz. 698), as well as requiring a validly ordained priest, proper species (bread and wine), etc.
So, the Novus Ordo on most days meets the requirements of minimal validity, when the priest executes the minimum requirements to transubstantiate the sacrament. Obviously others don’t think much about it, and…
..aren’t bothered by it, only by how it conjoins with their personal rules of “logic.”
Steve, words have meaning. There is quite a difference between the “minimum requirements for validity” and “minimally valid”. Once the minimum requirements are met, the Mass is valid—period—not “minimally” valid. Just as in “alive” or “dead”. You’re one or the other. No one is “a little bit” dead. Don’t worry about my knowledge of canon law. I have plenty of training in it. You might want to brush up on logic and correct English usage, though. Especially when discussing canon law. Precision of expression is ESSENTIAL in matters of law.
That is fearsome: caritas fiercely proclaims his erudition in canon law (“I have plenty of training in it.”) And plenty of humility, to share it with us, the “theological illiterates” as he has calle dus.
That is probably why to make his points he has to CAPITALIZE them. Now that is precision.
The “Novus Ordo” rite, though in my opinion often retaining just the barest minimum validity for the confection of the sacrament of the Eucharist (that is, if the priest conducting it intends what the Church has always intended), undoubtedly “defects” from the ancient Latin Church tradition of the true traditional Mass.
The degree to which it may substantially be defective depends largely on the “celebrant” and his intentions to offer a Mass as the Church has always offered, according to the form and rite it intends. This is not my opinion alone, but the opinion of the master Sacred Theologian at the time of the Council and a true prophet of the defects of the new liturgy, Card. Alfredo Ottoviani (cf. “The Ottaviani…
..Intervention”).
The Cardinal’s name is spelled “OttAviani”, Steve.
And pettiness, thy name is caritas.
Well at least Steve, you finally make the distinction between the Latin Church and the other particular churches and their liturgies. Movement!
Steve, I don’t “fiercely” proclaim my knowledge of canon law. I merely note that I have it, and you don’t. Why are you especially intolerant of logic, especially when interpreting the law? Never heard the old maxim: “Logic is the life of the law”?
If you have it, caritas, why don’t you share your knowledge instead of speaking as if you have no theological training?
Steve, You admitted that the Mass according to the Novus Ordo—which was pronounced valid by the authoritative teaching office of the
Catholic Church– is at least “minimally” valid, to use use an illogical term of your own invention.
Whew, what a relief !! Deo gratias!! Now the rest of us can rest easy that we really have been attending Mass.
Well Tony the Mass is not the Mass, and hear we go again with the Latin thing, well Jesus did not speak the vulgar tongues either. And Bob I said it was a stunning church built for the TLM not the “man made” Novus Ordo train wreck. And as far as we know Jesus did speak Latin as it was the Lingua franca of the Roman territory called Judea. Jesus respected the Roman authorities so the chances are he was fluent in Latin.
Jesus was fluent in LATIN??? You just made that up. What are you smoking?
The same answer to Tony NY applies here:
We know Jesus conducted a fairly extensive exchange with the Roman centurion about healing his servant (Matt: 8:5-13): it is highly unlikely a Roman commander would be fluent in Aramaic: much more likely Jesus, whose erudition amazed the Scribes and Pharisees, was fluent in Latin.
Later, at Christ’s execution, a similar extensive, direct repartee occurs between Jesus and Pilate (“I am not a king: If I were a king.. “John 18:33-38). Again, the idea of a Roman procurator, who obviously highly disdained the Jews, learning the difficult Aramaic language is highly doubtful: again, Jesus engaged his executioner in Latin, and gave his final witness to Pilate.
For which there is no Scriptural basis.
..”No Scriptural basis”… except for the Scriptures which state Jesus spoke directly with two Latins, on at least two occasions, without any interpreters.
An inability to see is called blindness.
Since Christ is and was the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity I am pretty sure He is fluent in all languages
Thank you for that!
Certainly, in His divine nature. In His human nature—human knowledge—no evidence that Jesus understood Latin.
….just the evidence that there were no interpreters present during exchanges, caritas.
There is no Scriptural evidence that the young Jesus was educated anyplace outside His home except, perhaps, at a yeshiva at which He was instructed in the Mosaic Law. And in Aramaic, the lingua franca of His time. Devout Jews were badly persecuted by the Romans, for whom they had little love. To jump to the wholly unsupported conclusion that He learned Latin borders on the irrational. Who would have taught Him? Why would He become conversant in the language of the despised Roman occupiers? If His mission was first to convert the House of Israel, (and He said so Himself) how would speaking or writing Latin not alienate Him from them, contrary to His mission?
And if there is no evidence that He ever spoke or wrote in Latin, what evidence is there that He knew it?
THINK, man. Don’t rattle off unsupported theories just to buttress your SSPX prejudices.
Think, man, indeed. God knows EVERY LANGUAGE as Canisius so aptly noted at 3:41PM. Don’t rattle off inanities to feed the bee in your bonnet. The stinging manifestation has you behaving in an increasingly irrational manner whenever talk or fear of talk of the Society of St. Pius X is mentioned.
You actually doubt whether God knows Latin? Really?
The first Mass on Passover was in Hebrew or Aramaic. It is doubtful that Pontius Pilate spoke to the Lord Jesus Christ in those languages but in Latin, and Christ most likely answered in Latin. Many Jews of that time knew some Latin since they dealt with Roman soldiers coming into their territory, and most conquering soldiers loathed to speak the language of the conquered all the time. It is not “insane” to think that the Divine Son of God knew Latin. Think what was done at Pentecost.
Having said that there is a difference between the Mass of Pius the V and Paul the VI, the first is Latin, organ, Gregorian chant, kneeling, communion on the tongue, Mozart, Palestrina, Hayden, stunning vestments, silence, bells, incense, altar boys, communion rail, statues, crucifix, high altar, modest attire. This is what we call the Holy Mass Bob and Tony.
The problem Janek is that none of that has anything to do with the Mass. It is simply ceremony and theater, except for the Consecration, the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, done in remembrance of Him. That is what the Catholic Mass is all about, in either form.
Bob One, we rarely agree but you are right: the Novus Ordo is minimally valid, barely meeting the requirements of “the Consecration, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.” The rest of the organically developed Latin Church liturgical tradition, “the Roman Rite as we knew it”, that Mass ” is no more” (quote of V2 peritus Fr.Joseph Gelineau, SJ)
I’d ask for a friendly amendment. “Wherever two or three are gathered, there I am in the midst of them.” Even when they gather, Christ is in their midst.
When we celebrate his Word, he is there, for Jesus is the Word.
We adore and celebrate and declare Christ present in the Eucharist, but that is only ONE way in which Jesus is present in our midst.
And then there is his own presence among the poor…
Yes, YFC, that is ONE way. But it is the ONLY sacramental way in which His body, blood, soul and divinity are really present in substance. Quite a difference.
I don’t disagree and nothing I said before contradicts that.
Yes, YFC, I agree, Christ fulfills His word to be “in the midst ..of 2 or 3 gather in his Name.” (Mt. 18:19-20). However, I know you acknowledge different types of “presence”. When Jesus tells the Samaritan woman he will establish ” a new worship in spirit and in truth” (Jn 4:24), he reveals the axis point of his Presence shortly after, in Jn 6:53, that unless one eat his “actual” flesh and drink his “actual” blood, they do not have the life of which He speaks.
Centuries of doctrinal development led us to the understanding of transubstantiated Presence. Aquinas and many others saw the dangerous “drift” of meaning from the actual sense of Jn 6:53, if the “8 Words” of institution became watered down with mistaken…
Then we have the Novus Ordo, drums, guitar, altar girls, dancing girls in leotards, giant puppets, mariachi, folk, rock, music, kiss of peace, hand holding, felt banners, communion in the hand, polyester vestments, lay lectors, standing for communion, tank tops, shorts, clapping, laughing, kids in altar area, priest just sitting on the side while women around the altar performing the priests holy duty. And you have the nerve to say the Mass is the Mass, I have given you both forms and they Sir are not the same.
I like puppets, Janek. Please don’t take away my puppets.
P. Benedict XVI did his best to resolve the break of “organic development” in the Roman Liturgy. But take seriously also what pro-New Mass peritus Fr. Joseph Gelineau, SJ, reputedly said at the time: ‘ “To tell you the truth, it [the Novus Ordo] is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman rite as we knew it no longer exists.”
If that is so, there has been a break in tradition. If the Novus Ordo Missae demanded (at least for some decades) the unlawful prohibition of the Tridentine Mass, then they are not the same Mass and there has been a break in continuity. It cant be both.
‘Jesus respected the Roman authorities so the chances are he was fluent in Latin.’
The roman authorities, INVATED, SUBJUGATED and CONQUERED Judea, they OPPRESSED the Jews who lived in their own land. That’s why the roman authorities were HATED by the Jews.
To said that ‘Jesus was fluent in Latin’ is NOT true.
Well, Tony NY, Jesus conducted a fairly extensive exchange with the Roman centurion about healing his servant (Matt: 8:5-13): it is highly unlikely a Roman commander would be fluent in Aramaic, but much more likely Jesus, whose erudition amazed the Scribes and Pharisees, was fluent in Latin.
Later, at Christ’s execution, a similar farily extensive direct repartee occurs between Jesus and Pilate (“I am not a king: If I were a king.. “John 18:33-38 Again, the idea of a Roman procurator who obviously disdained the Jews learning the difficult Aramaic language is highly doubtful: much more likely Jesus engaged his executioner in Latin, and gave his final witness to him to the truth.
Absolutely no Scriptural evidence for this flight of fancy. No Catholic Scripture scholar has ever entertained this hare-brained theory. Then again, Steve, since you are not burdened with any Scriptural expertise, you probably think that you are just the right guy to straighten them all out.
….and you, caritas, are unburdened with any logic. The bee is buzzing, however, and oh does it bug one.
Again, Oxymoronically-named caritas vaunts his knowledge without facing any facts, rather denying them.
..”No Scriptural basis”… except for the Scriptures which state Jesus spoke directly with two Latins, on at least two occasions, without any interpreters.
An inability to see is called blindness.
Steve, if I spoke to two Russians and they understood me without interpreters, would it necessarily mean that I understood Russian? Not at all. Another equally probable explanation is that the Russians understood English.
I’m not denying the Scripture you refer to. I’ve provided another equally probable explanation: those listening to Jesus understood the language Jesus spoke. No recognized Catholic Scripture scholars accept the assertion that Jesus was conversant in Latin. You just made that up. Assuming you reason better analogically than logically.
Caritas, Steve is capable of thinking and logic. He demonstrates as much with admirable frequency to the benefit of many who, much like the deveolution of our school system, have been groomed to intellectual dependency.
Please, don’t support the cog mentality. We need Catholics who think clearly, not Catholics who will imbibe whatever folks tell them as gospel, even when it contradicts or is not consistent.
Great analysis as usual, Steve. Thanks.
And Tony de New York: Jesus wasn’t just any Jewish man. He was/is the Son of God who forgave those who crucified Him from the Cross. Your analysis treats Our Lord like just any Jewish guy of His times. And nothing could be further from the truth.
Regarding St Dominic’s and the TLM, compared with the New Mass, and New Church architecture:
“Grace perfecting nature,” the view point of Aquinas (cf Summa Theo. I:1,8, ad.2: cum enim gratia non tollat naturam, sed perficiat (sometimes more or less paraphrased as “grace builds on nature”), describes not just humans, but also the rites and practices of the Catholic Faith. If a belief practice becomes deficient or defective due to some intrusion of error, the dispensation of grace is also limited. For example, indulgences during the time of Leo X became connected with an exchange of money: the practice had to be corrected. Trent definitively prohibited the practice.
The act of creation of a whole new rite, the Novus Ordo, by a select, quite secret group (Consilium: to this day, we do not know all of whom were members, but 6 Protestant theologians admitted to making substantive input: hence the deletion of the traditional Penitential Rite, virtual deletion of the Offertory, and 3 “new” Eucharistic Prayers, cf. Dr. Robert DeMattei), whose intent was clearly to eliminate or at least reduce the traditional Catholic theology of an expiatory oblation and sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead— this was such a defective development.
Hence, St. Dominic’s represents the TLM, as Janek says, but the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (aka the Taj Mahony) represents quite deliberately the New…
..New Mass and the New Church.
Three new Eucharistic Prayers? So? What’s the point? The Magisterium [of the Catholic Church, to which I belong] has taught that they validly confect the Eucharist. I don’t know about the schismatics in the SSPX.
And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church employs 17 distinct Anaphoras (Eucharistic Prayers). The Catholic Church teaches that all of them are valid to confect the Eucharist.
And the Assyrian Church of the East uses the ancient Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which does not even contain the words of institution our Church uses at the Consecration. The Magisterium teaches that this Anaphora is valid to confect the Eucharist.
But who are they, the Magisterium, compared to the untutored wisdom of Steve?
…..schismatics are not part of the Catholic Church, caritas. The SSPX, though holding no official mission at present, is part of the Catholic Church. That said, the SSPX enjoys a very pointed affirmation of their ability to absolve sins within the confessional in this Year of Mercy. So perhaps there is an official mission.
That bee in your bonnet is becoming a dangerous obsession, caritas. Perhaps you should see to it, if only to live up to your assumed moniker.
SSPX is not part of the Catholic Church. If it were, why would SSPX priests need the special indult to give valid absolution?
If the Society were not part of the Church, the Pope would have no authority to give them permission or to take it away. Try reading those scholars you go on about ;^)
Prima facie admission that the issues raised caritas cannot answer. The Latin Church does not follow other traditions, nor justify its tradition by what other traditions do. Perfect obscurantism.
Well-done, and an admission that 3 fabricated Eucharistic prayers are not part of the Roman Rite tradition.
Where’s the admission you allege I made? “Not part of the Roman Rite tradition”? Of course not. I never said so. My point (which you obviously missed) was the Church’s Magisterium has officially taught there are many Eucharistic Prayers (including those used by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches) which validly confect the Eucharist. You hold that only the one used in the TLM is valid—altho you grant the other “fabricated” 3 may be “minimally valid”, to use your own phrase. In this you directly attack the teaching of the Magisterium. So do you deny this teaching? Or do accuse me of distorting it?
Putting aside the typical gratuitous insults that often characterize caritas’ comments, his many deceiving statements are a diversion from the issue of fabricated liturgical elements that defect from the Latin Church rite.
However, one especially deceptive caritas comment is re. The “Anaphora of Addai and Mari” of the Assyrians, caritas claiming they “do not even contain the words of institution”. In fact, the Pont. Council Chr. Unity statement of 7/20/2001 contradicts this, stating “the words of institution ARE present” but dispersed through the prayer (“euchological” arrangement) (#3, par.4) So, it does conform with Latin Church minimal requirements for validity.
Now why would caritas make such an untrue statement,…
As to my comment on the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, Steve is absolutely correct. My language was imprecise; which is especially unfortunate I call others for this. Mea culpa.
The document Steve cites indeed says that this Anaphora, taken as a whole, is consecratory because the words of institution are present (explicitly or implicitly). It also says they never appear in a “coherent” (in the sense of all appearing together in one place) narrative as in the TLM and NO Eucharistic Prayers. That’s what I tried to say.
Good catch, Steve.
caritas I want to thank you, sincerely for pointing out the lovely eucharistic prayers of the Ethiopian church. I’ve spent the better part of tonight looking it up and reveling in the beauty of those prayers. The Latin Rite is often known as the Austere Rite. It is simple. Contemplative. Fewer words and simpler in composition and repetition. Vatican II was right in calling for its simplification…but not the simplification of the Eastern Liturgies. From this discrepancy, we ought to learn a good lesson: Austerity is better for some, but not for everyone. https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/biography/englishethiopianliturgy.pdf
To live in caritas’-Novus-Ordo-World is to live in an alternative reality: one must deny (as caritas does) that St Peter’s Basilica has a “high altar”: but the official website calls it a “high altar”:
https://stpetersbasilica.info/Altars/PapalAltar/PapalAltar.htm
Well, what do they know: they are wrong and caritas-NO-world is right.
One must deny that Christ had extraordinary (we used to say “infused” or supernatural) knowledge, as Son of God and must have known and spoken Latin, certainly to Pilate (Jn 18:28-40)—he could only have natural knowledge, according to caritas-Novus-Ordo-World, trained in a yeshiva. Yet Jesus “saw” Nathaniel under the fig tree (Jn. 1:48) and revealed to the Samaritan woman her hidden life (Jn 4:18).
And finally we must lapse into the primitivist heresy that the Mass should be conducted at a table—we assume caritas does not recline on couches to be fully “accurate”—-all to justify the errors and defects that have invaded the liturgy in the last 5 decades (by the way: Sacro Conc. never refers to using a “table” for the Mass: Cranmer and Luther often do so).
Well, done table-enthusiasts in caritas-Novus-Ordo-World.
An altar is for divine sacrifice: a table, Cranmer’s “the Lord’s Board”, is for a human memorial meal.
Choose wisely, gentle reader (other than Mr. Primitivist, alternative-reality-caritas, of course: we already know your choice).
To repeat for the n-th time, no recognized Catholic Scripture scholar embraces Steve Phoenix’s hare-brained theory that Jesus, the man, spoke Latin. Of course, as God, Jesus was omniscient. All faithful Catholics accept that. And they accept that the two natures—though present in One Person—did not merge into one another. Why is he beating the drum on this flight of fancy of his own creation. Why, because next to the Scripturally untutored Steve, all the Scripture scholars are plain wrong.
Steve, you are correct that Jesus exhibited supernatural powers. As in each one of His miracles, as well as the examples you cite. But all these are explicitly verified in Scripture. Not so with the absolutely novel theory that Jesus spoke Latin, “sprung full-blown from the brows” of Janek and you. Nowhere does Scripture contain an account of Jesus being conversant with Latin, despite your strained interpretations. Have the good sense to know when you are way out of your depth. I accept the opinions of Catholic Scripture scholars. Especially when the Church has not questioned their conclusions. Maybe you should do the same.
Caritas, “Have the good sense to know when you are way out of your depth,” and understand that modern scripture scholars are human beings who often exhibit flawed human nature as we all do.
Your assertion that, “Jesus exhibited supernatural powers,” makes Our Lord seem more like a possible, super hero under investigation. Jesus is God, friend. He is the Word.
Your strained attempts to appear knowledgeable or anything more than full-blown in your own willful bias is entertaining. Nothing more.
OK Steve. The link you give does describe the Altar of the Confession (main altar) in Saint Peter’s as “the papal or high altar”. Conceded. Now look at the picture of it in the same link. Then look at the “high” altar pictured in St. Dominic’s Church–the type you and Janek favor. Are they even vaguely similar? Let the readers decide. If the Papal altar IS the type of altar you would restore in all churches, count me in 100%!
The arguments of Novus-Ordo-World quickly devolve into personal attacks, belittling, and the like..and avoids the issue discussed:
It only best evidences NO-World’s truly irrational thinking, as well as its phobia of the obviously reasonable possibility that Christ was able to speak Latin, as well as a hysterical reaction to what an actual reading of the text of the “historoical character” of the Scriptures best suggests.
That reasoned reading of the text is, that Christ likely spoke directly to two Latin officials, certainly to Pilate (Jn 18:28-40) (since it is virtually impossible to conceive that a disdainful Roman procurator would stoop to koine-Greek, let alone to mastering the difficult Aramaic language) — and likely also did so in conversing with the centurion (Mt: 8:5-13). Dei Verbum of V2, which says that the Scriptures are of “historical character (n. 19)” suggests we should read what the text, whether in Greek or accurately-translated, actually says:
It says, in both instances, Jesus spoke directly, without an intermediary, to them both; and since neither of the Romans reasonably could be expected to speak Aramaic, the only…
: It says, in both instances, Jesus spoke directly, without an intermediary, to them both; and since neither of the Romans reasonably could be expected to speak Aramaic, the only reasonable alternative is that Christ, who’s erudition amazed the Scribes and Pharisees, spoke Latin.
Now that is too much reasoning and “logic” for some.
Unable to deal with that reasoning , the hysterical NO-World retreats to “what Scripture scholars say”—always the weakest argument, to appeal to authority, to wrap oneself in the mantle of the supposed “magisterium”— so, we should be led astray by those, like the late Fr. Raymond Brown, who built debunking theories entirely on speculation and conjecture (Brown eventually disclaimed a certain basis for the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke, and even treating the Magi as an elaborate fable).
So much for the “historical character” of the Gospels.
….I particularly like the ‘logic’ behind associating someone who is a veritable Henry VIII with a person who lives a celibate lifestyle. If that doesn’t lack all logic and common sense, I don’t know what does.
One thing is certain, caritas seems intent on stripping Christ and the Church of the Divine, of grace, of anything save what the “authorized” scholars will choose to write to explain whatever it is folks on the ground want to hear.
To think that “Vincente” is a student or worse a professor at Brown University is telling. The “education” system in this country is little better than a Hitler Youth Program.
I *do* see the motivation behind (K)aritas, Vincente’s diatribe. He seems to be incessantly driven by the need to desacrelize the sacred. His obsession with making Christ out to be just some Jewish guy who needed to go to school and those who exercise physical restraint as somehow odd or off is just another platform to push for married priests. As if engaging in self sacrifice and fasting somehow equates to being angry….or putting on airs.
Sad, but I get it.
What caritas-Novus-Ordo-World has successfully done, however, is distract from the point raised by Janek here:
That is, that St Dominic’s, with its much execrated “high-altars” (execrated by ostensible Catholics, mind you), is a product of the TLM, and could never result from the Novus Ordo liturgy: because a “table”, Cranmer’s “Lord’s board”, is only for a human commemorative meal. An altar is for divine sacrifice.
A traditional Roman Mass results in St Dominic’s: a Novus-Ordo tradition gives birth to this:
https://www.realclearreligion.org/images/wysiwyg_images/ugly_churches/slide15.jpg
Well, that may be too much clarity for some here.
(We even had to go through a digression along the way to prove that there is a “high-altar” in St Peter’s—a fact denied by some: that is how amazing the level of hysterical denial has become.)
TLM-phobia, Latin-phobia, SSPX-phobia. What if Jesus spoke Latin: Novus-Ordo-World cant even permit the occasion of the reasonable possibility. After all, it would justify the Latin Rite tradition..too much.
Fr. Gary Thomas points out how the devil hates Latin: Fr. Gabriel Amorth has also mentioned it in his books.
But mainly, You have always lost an argument when you retreat to belittling personal attacks (even horrible detraction, as someone—not caritas, mind you—did above to Anne Malley: now what motivates that: Christ or Belial? The answer is obvious) Or you have lost the argument when you resort to “what Scripture scholars say”, since many of them don’t even believe in the miracles of Christ (Kasper, Schillebeeckx, Thomas West, etc—all advisers to the “magisterium” mind you) , let alone reating the actual-text as an historical account.
Steve— Wow! So many angry and beside-the-point posts. I’ll give a shorter response.
(1) Even if the Devil hates Latin, that is irrelevant to the question whether Jesus spoke it. I have never read this suggestion before you and Janek raised it. Could you cite some authoritative support, other than re-quoting snips of Scripture which are, at best, ambiguous on the question.
(2) As to the “high altar” fetish. Christ entrusted the Sacraments and their celebration to the Catholic Church. The Church has no difficulties with the current form of altar. In fact, if you look at the picture of the main altar in St. Peter’s on the link you yourself supplied, it much more resembles a NO altar (except for the COMPLETELY FREE-STANDING…
AND DETACHED baldacchino than the St. Dominic’s altar you favor.
(3) Finally, why do fixate so much on this type of trivia instead of spending the time learning more about the core of the Catholic Faith?
(K)aritas,Vincente, Anonymous: You may want to lay off the Viagara commercials that are convincing you that ‘manliness’ correlates to sex drive or playing bully. For all of your ramblings about Henry VIII, he wasn’t known to be celibate – most assuredly not by free will in an effort to correspond to God’s will.
That said, my marriage was validated in the NO. And although the relaxed emphasis on the critical nature of sex might be appealing to you in the NO, others are seeking the truth. Even if it’s demanding. And it can be. But it’s worth it. Perhaps if you shed your emphasis on the human you could recognize the Divine….until then, rant on.
Ann Malley, “(K)aritas, Vincente, Anonymous” indeed… and a few more who just happen to drop in when MOST threatened by the very good works that are accomplished by California Catholic Daily. When an individual cannot succeed in squelching obvious truths, they lose control and often resort to the sonia bailes, Vincente Roberto, transparent method of expression. Steve Phoenix is spot on when he wrote, “now what motivates that: Christ or Belial? The answer is obvious)” Thank you, CCD and thank you, Ann Malley for being a “special case”! The devil doesn’t need to mock mediocrity.
The saddest part, Catherine, is that these outraged mouthpieces are so incredibly threatened because they have been lied to and encouraged, by those in ‘authority’, that what they promote is somehow good.
The stories to be told of Catholic priests/nuns misleading those who were otherwise faithful, devout, and trying their best to serve God. I can well understand why Jesus spoke of millstones. To crush that grace that leads one to even attempt to carry the cross is some pretty nasty stuff.
Caritas, besides projecting “anger” on to Steve P., you sound like a vindictive schoolboy, all because you were bested in this debate. And why are you posting as “Vicente Roberto” at Brown U on facebook? Same phrases, words, everything, and very nasty. That’s you, isn’t it.
When you give advice be sure to take it yourself first.
Caritas wrote: “Finally, why do fixate so much on this type of trivia instead of spending the time learning more about the core of the Catholic Faith? = Apparently, Caritas, you have never learned “the core of the faith.” You are able to call it trivia because your mind and heart has not even begun to comprehend the simple commandment below. Your vitriol shows that you must not feel very loved by God.
John 15:12 -Douay-Rheims
This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.
“I hope you get as many laughs as I have” = No one is laughing VR/ Caritas. Angelo G. has exposed the cruel vindictiveness that can come from a very bruised ego.
I read the comments from the guy from Brown. What’s all the hullabaloo about?
Granted, the language was exceedingly gross and impolite. But other than style can anyone he names question the accuracy of what he posts? If so, do so. Oh, boy! They can sure dish it out. But their feelings get tender when criticized, challenged, called upon to defend or explain. Isn’t is strange that the infallible ones cannot defend their departure from Catholic doctrine (especially the schismatic Ann Malley, whose sect alleges that the NO Mass is invalid; that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II; and that no Pope since then rightfully commands the allegiance of Catholics)? With what authority do they speak? They never tell us. The…
Actually, yes, (K)aritas, Vincente, Anonymous, one can question the accuracy of what you post because it is, in fact, demonstrably false and peppered with bias-opinion. Case in point: The SSPX does not state that the NO is invalid. Do your reading. You are confusing Sedevecantists with those who, despite your seeming desire, are an acknowledged part of the Church.
You might want to begin reading posts so that you can actually contemplate what is written and then do scholarly research into the subject matter at hand instead of giving yourself a pass. You do yourself no favors….. and continue to look like someone who can’t handle being taught what you so desperately need to learn – you obviously don’t know what you’re talking…
Instead they question Magisterial teachings but give no bases. They defend hare-brained theories never advanced by the Magisterium nor the approved experts which help inform it. When they do these things, why should a faithful Catholic accept what they say.
The shoes surely fit, though they may pinch a lot. The self-appointed prophets, seers and revelators should grow up and wear the shoes they have chosen. So grow up and listen to the criticism. You’ve earned it.
Enough. You sure fit the old saying that you can lead a horse to water (even if its only its nether regions), but you can’t make him drink—or THINK, for that matter.
caritas,
Your post is non-responsive, especially when it comes to practicing the “core of the faith” not to mention what you inconsistently preach. Justice Scalia was certainly a man of courage, *honesty* and honor. He never hid in a make- believe corner and pretended to be someone else in order to make a point. How transparent and sad that you are first impressed by *externals*. You felt the desperate need to use “Brown University” as a shallow anchor to build up what your lack of “caritas” always tears down. True “caritas” shines from within.
Another sad bashing of another beautiful church. How ungrateful we must see to the Lord.