D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Both…
- Status
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Being humble before God is preferring the will of the shepherd whom God has placed over you to one’s own thoughts, one’s own will or one’s own preferences.
That is a fundamental and basic principle in asceticism.
That is a fundamental and basic principle in asceticism.
K
KMG
Guest
Vatican clarification of 2003 on this very issue:
“…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”
Nota bene, “NOR ACCUSED OF DISOBEDIENCE.”
“…while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”
Nota bene, “NOR ACCUSED OF DISOBEDIENCE.”
Last edited:
K
KMG
Guest
How did I insult you? I posted a Vatican statement on this issue. Nothing more. I didn’t say a single thing about you.
B
Brendan
Guest
If that was so, GIRM 160 would have been written as " The Norm is Standing. An individual member of the faithful may receive Communion while kneeling"Brendan:
No. It is you who are wrong.
The norm is standing.
The would have the definition of the Norm exclusive of an condition.
What is ACTUALLY said is an preceding clause modified by conditional statement.
The independent clause [The Norm is standing] becomes NEGATED ( in other words, untrue) if the conditions of the dependant clause [Unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling] are true.
That is how the word UNLESS works in the English language. In Boolean terms, it is a “NOT IF”
The bishops choice of the word ‘unless’ is significant, in that the preceding clause is NEGATED if the conditional clause is true.
We see that in legal contracts in exactly the same way.
“All payments are assessed a 5% processing fee, unless paid in cash”
If the payment is in case, the preceding clause is invalid. No lawyer would make a claim that the payment clause, “Payments are assessed a 5% fee” as definitive, (defines the charging of the fee) since there is a conditional clause that modifies it.
It could not correctly be reduced to just “Payments are assessed a 5% processing fee” That would be logically and legally in error.
As stated above, the bishops certainly COULD have defined a simple norm of standing, but instead chose to incorporate the norm INCLUDING a conditional clause.
As stated, the Norm INCLUDES the conditional clause. It is basic English.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
You’d really have to know what the writers of the GIRM meant, and fortunately they are still around with us to ask.
I worked for many years for the government, and know that sometimes these things don’t come out as clearly as they should- and the government I worked for did everything in English. This is an international document, translated and retranslated into different tongues.
B
Brendan
Guest
I agree, the interesting thing is that the GIRM gains it’s authority from Rome, so the CDWDS is the ‘legislator’ of this document under Canon 16. So it is there ‘thoughts’ on the matter that govern this, even though it is a US specific adaptation.Brendan:
You’d really have to know what the writers of the GIRM meant, and fortunately they are still around with us to ask.
I worked for many years for the government, and know that sometimes these things don’t come out as clearly as they should- and the government I worked for did everything in English. This is an international document, translated and retranslated into different tongues.
On the specific instance of GIRM 160 we are discussing, it is not as international as you might think. It was verbiage that was initially voted on by the US bishops, approved by Rome specifically for the US, the modified by the US Bishops under direction from Rome. This was done in order to comply with Rome’s understanding.
So it is VERY US specific.
Canada has it’s own adaptation that has also been discussed in this thread.
In regards to your overall point, all we can do is look at the text that Rome approved.
E
exnihilo
Guest
It depends on what you mean by better off. At that time Black illegitimacy was about 30% (what White illegitimacy is today). Today it is over 70%. If all that matters is civil rights then Blacks are better off. But children having an in tact family is very important too. In fact this could be more important for souls. It is possible that some things are better and other things worse. It is even possible that lesser things are better and greater things worse.
J
JimG
Guest
An important point. Family stability matters. Intact family structure makes a difference to individuals and to society. In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a report about this and suggested national action to improve conditions which would lead to more stable family structures. He received a lot of grief for this report.
In my own parish, the 1950’s were pretty placid. Church attendance was high, as was Catholic school attendance and the practice of the Faith and general knowledge of doctrine.
Of course, the 1960’s and 70’s were more fun. There was Woodstock, rock 'roll, the rise of the drug culture, and free love, not to mention the 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic Convention.
In my own parish, the 1950’s were pretty placid. Church attendance was high, as was Catholic school attendance and the practice of the Faith and general knowledge of doctrine.
Of course, the 1960’s and 70’s were more fun. There was Woodstock, rock 'roll, the rise of the drug culture, and free love, not to mention the 1968 demonstrations at the Democratic Convention.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
Wasnt the Church one of the major leaders of the Civil RIghts Movement?
S
Senneville
Guest
This has been my experience also.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
That’s a question for someone who is a specialist in the Church history of the United States…not me. I do know that Cardinal Law, as a young priest, was quite active in the civil rights movement in the United States.
What I have heard from African American priests who elevated to bishop was a remarkable mix of stories about the Civil Rights era and the decades before – some positive and some not.
I know that ministry to the African American community was the great work of one of your canonised saints…Mother Drexel.
I remember the dossier of another Religious, herself African American, is before the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Her name, as I remember, is Mother Henriette Delille. I may not remember the spelling correctly, however. The French as used in that part of America is…quite idiosyncratic.
If it is a topic of interest to you, those would be avenues to pursue.
Since you are in America, if you find a priest old enough, you could ask him. Don’t wait too long or you may find that you are too late.
A
Augustinian
Guest
America is a huge country, different people had different viewpoints, different communities had differing amounts of racial segregation and larger or smaller black populations. In some places the changes were monumental, other places it was something to read about in the newspaper.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Unfortunately you have modern segregation stories that get ignored. That is because they are non Whites advocating for segregation and racist policies. In my area we have a Black parish where members want a Black priest and office staff.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
It’s a pointless exercise to compare the “state of the sinners” at different time periods.
The 50’s in the US enjoyed large rolls of practicing Catholics and large numbers of vocations. Personal piety was visible. But it was also a sheltered time and place, out of step with the rest of the world, and more difficult time for women and racial minorities.
The 60’s and 70’s are hardly better. The culture became more tolerant superficially, but we also begat the most barbaric culture to ever exist in the history of mankind.
(that is, if you want to judge by the number of dead…)
That’s us. The fruit of the 60’s and 70’s. 70 million unborn are dead in our open and superficially tolerant culture.
It’s not a very productive exercise to compare the virtue of one age to another.
The 50’s in the US enjoyed large rolls of practicing Catholics and large numbers of vocations. Personal piety was visible. But it was also a sheltered time and place, out of step with the rest of the world, and more difficult time for women and racial minorities.
The 60’s and 70’s are hardly better. The culture became more tolerant superficially, but we also begat the most barbaric culture to ever exist in the history of mankind.
(that is, if you want to judge by the number of dead…)
That’s us. The fruit of the 60’s and 70’s. 70 million unborn are dead in our open and superficially tolerant culture.
It’s not a very productive exercise to compare the virtue of one age to another.
Last edited:
M
Matt241
Guest
Do your objections to overcoming these logistical problems present themselves in large congregations 250+, or just in Masses where there are only a handful of people?
- Status