I'm not sure how you can draw that conclusion from this very tame list of propositions:


The new translation is probably a dud, but it's not necessarily an affront to the Church.

Speaking for myself, I don't want "language that is sensitive to the call for language that communicates clearly and includes all in the assembly". I want a translation of what has always been said. And since when was "brethren" not an all-inclusive term?

My understanding is that in the early days of the church there were three confessable sins, apostasy, murder and adultery. I'm fine with that but I do think the western church went overboard splitting hairs on sins. General absolution? Sometimes it could be a good fit especially when there are priest shortages and getting to individual confession becomes difficult. Also distances when great could be a barrier to individual confession.

Let's see how this all shakes out. I am not ready to condemn the bishops just yet.

It was "Orate fratres et sorores ..." in at least 23 dioceses in various European countries at the time of the Council of Trent.

What a stupid and un-called-for discussion title. There is no basis in the article linked for a claim like that.

They could just go back to the Latin missal.

The whole religion is about mystery! It’s supposed to all be impenetrable to a first time mass attendee. The rites are explained as they become initiated into the religion.

I, for one, have lately noticed how impenetrable "And with your spirit" would be to a first-time Mass attendee.

That change would have to come from the Missal itself, rather than from the translation.

Since "brethren and sistren" appeared in the Sarum Missal.

How would this occur the Sarum Missal is in Latin... I have access to the last printed editions on microfilm so could check if you give a reference. It also should be remembered that one of the reasons for the Western uprising, was the imposition of an English service that was incomprehensible to the local people because they did not speak English. They spoke what we would call Cornish and happily followed the Latin of the Mass for centuries.

Chris, editing your comment to remove the four arguments I referenced is in bad faith. If you wish to retract your statements, at least own up to it.

Further, general absolution must be followed by confession as soon as possible.

as to the number of dioceses with a variant text of the Orate, fratres, that would be a distinct minority of dioceses.

While there is a legitimate place for general absolution, it is much smaller than the Australians imagine. More to the point, making general absolution more available will make integral, auricular confession less common,

In the age of the auto-mobile, there is little that is too difficult. We aren't traversing mountains, mid winter, by foot to go to confession. MANY people drive an hour (one way) to mass, for instance, in relative ease and comfort. More to the point: if there is a priest who can give general absolution, there is also a priest who can hear confession. We've seen in the past that general absolution gets HEAVILY abused, wherever it is permitted to 'flourish'. It is the easy out. And much like the strictures for papal infallibility, there are genuine and very constraining strictures for general absolutions (think: plane is about to crash and everyone is virtually assured death, for instance). I'll grant that in very mountainous regions in South America, there are areas where priests can frequent only rarely (this was part of the argument for broadening the diaconate and for married priests during the [sc]Amazonian Synod) but I think a much better approach than just waiving your priestly wand and forgiving everything writ large, would be to spend four hours prior to an evening Mass hearing confessions, and only THEN have mass once souls have been properly cleansed and prepared.

Liam,

Are you aware of a large body of the faithful who know they must make a good confession as soon as possible afterwards? Does the Australian bleat sound as if it wants to encourage individual, integral auricular confession or replace it?

Liam, Chris’s point is mostly my own, but I find this sort of nitpicking annoying. The< people proposing an expansion of general absolution, or who use it illicitly, never suggest that one must confess as soon as possible afterwards.

I have experienced form 3 once, in the 70s. It transformed my life, for the better. I have never seen it on offer anywhere nearby since, and doubt I would avail myself of the opportunity, unless like that one it was the culmination of four hour long penitential reflections/sermons, and was not even announced until the end of the third service. I suspect the English bishops have more or less eliminated it.

When you get right down to it, if "Peter" has all the authority to forgive sins that scripture has given him, he wouldn't need anyone else's approval to change the way it is now done. So it seems that we are tilting at windmills that have minds of their own as to which direction they will rotate. As I noted above, it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I mean, I stand by it. They never do anything to make it stick, and I'll believe it when I see it.