A
altarboi20
Guest
Im sorry but the Vatican City is listed under a monarchy. That is what I was taught in school and you can Google it.
- Status
Z
zab
Guest
That may be in terms of as the head of a political state of Vatican City, but not in terms as the head of the Catholic Church.Im sorry but the Vatican City is listed under a monarchy. That is what I was taught in school and you can Google it.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
I repeat: Check out what Jesus said to his disciples about acting like a monarch, or striving for place and position.
I am not questioning your view about the Church, since I agree with it. I am asking you to consider whether that is the proper form of leadership, based on what Jesus said in the Gospels (not based on what we are told by those who are “in charge” and who also, conveniently, make all the rules).
I also concur with FAB and*** Zab ***; the Vatican as a political entity is different from the Catholic Church. The former is temporal and the latter isn’t (or shouldn’t be).
As I have said on other threads in the past, I don’t expect to change your mind, but hope to get others who are not wearing blinders to read this thread and use their God given intelligence and the prompting of the Holy Spirit to figure it out for themselves.
A
altarboi20
Guest
Well its nice to have that settled haha.
J
JGMendes4049
Guest
He is not a king. He is a monarch, officially “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City.” The Vatican City (distinct from the Holy See) is an ecclesiastical, sacerdotal–monarchical, absolute, and elective monarchy. He is the only absolute ruler in Europe. He holds absolute executive, legislative, and judicial authority, although these faculties are not always invoked.
The Holy See is distinct from the Vatican City. The Holy See is the Diocese (not archdiocese) of Rome. Despite it not being an archiepiscopal see, the bishop (the Holy Father) is a metropolitan.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
The first thought that comes to mind, FAB, is that it’s worse than we thought!
I wonder if anyone ever wonders why the Pope is the only “absolute ruler” still remaining in Europe? Plus holding absolute authority over all three “branches” of a typical government. I wonder if the Vatican has a “Medieval Times” franchise too?
I note that we have moved away from the original topic, for which I share the blame. But I have learned something I wasn’t aware of about the Church. Thanks.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
In reality, the bishop is the one who is remembering and applying the Second Vatican Council. Those who have made their own personal changes to the Mass are the ones who have forgotten Vatican II–if they ever knew it to begin with.
Vatican II never said that the Mass was to become a free-for-all with people adding ritual however they please. What the Council did say was this:
- Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
- In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
- Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.
- That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress Careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Thank you for this, my friend!
Just wanted to add that whatever my personal opinion, the Bishop MUST be obeyed as CHRIST himself. God will not appreciate hands holding if it is done in disobedience, no matter how we may feel about it, personally.
Peace.
J
JM3
Guest
People think that how they feel is more important than obedience to the Bishop or that they are being ‘traditional’. If you want to be traditional, try this one.A question that I really want an aswer too is how come we see so much support for doing what the Bishop wants in this case, but when asked about kneeling for communion, where the USCCB proscribes that “standing” is the norm for reception in the US, we have all these people who say the Bishops is wrong?!
PETER OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 247) - CANON XV. Wednesday is to be fasted, because then the Jews conspired to betray Jesus; Friday, because he then suffered for us. We keep the Lord’s Day as a day of joy, because then our Lord rose. Our tradition is not to kneel on that day.
The Bishops rules may, or may not, be his ‘opinion’, but those in his diocese are required to obey them.The GIRM, as my Canon Lawyer boss likes to remind me, is a GENERAL, Instuction of the Roman Missal, not a way to micro-manage priests & laity.
It is well within this ordinaries power to do just this, but ultimately this is HIS OPINION ONLY!!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I participate in Mass in charismatic parishes throughout the 70s-90s as well as charismatic conferences and never saw it there although raising hands was common, there and at other times when the people prayed.
there is a difference between raising hands, the orans posture which may have some basis in the early Church as a posture for the laity, and holding hands, which has never been part of the Liturgy. As far as I can tell, if the latter did not arise at scout camp, it came from AA.
since OP has not provided a link to the bishop’s statement not sure what he is forbidding.
[edited]
J
johnnykins
Guest
Gotta be Rochester!A question that I really want an aswer too is how come we see so much support for doing what the Bishop wants in this case, but when asked about kneeling for communion, where the USCCB proscribes that “standing” is the norm for reception in the US, we have all these people who say the Bishops is wrong?!
The GIRM, as my Canon Lawyer boss likes to remind me, is a GENERAL, Instuction of the Roman Missal, not a way to micro-manage priests & laity.
It is well within this ordinaries power to do just this, but ultimately this is HIS OPINION ONLY!!
Assuming that “proscribes” is a typo for “prescribes” you do have the appropriate Dicastry allowing kneeling for communion. End of that issue.
As to your Canon lawyer, “general” has many meanings. Further, the texts and rubrics of Mass, with specifically allowed variations, are mandatory on the priests, the laity and ordinaries. It’s easy, say the black; do the red. A priest that doesn’t - and a Bishop who doesn’t insist on it - in the ordinary situation is seriously out of line and maybe more. The Bishop is the guardian of the Mass in his diocese - not its master - and has certain authority more than his mere opinion. He has the authority within limits of deciding certain issues. Others, he does not.
The problem is the rubrics say what to do - not what not to do. That is to be expected. How could you address everything? Therefore, the rule is to assume a prayerful/respectful pose that is appropriate. The issue of the orans position is certainly prayerful, but, by it being specifically directed in the rubrics for the priest, when the laity assume it during Mass is becomes problematic as conflating their roles. As to handholding, that’s another issue.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Forget about Google. Look at the Bible.Im sorry but the Vatican City is listed under a monarchy. That is what I was taught in school and you can Google it.
Christ is a king. The Holy Father is the King’s first minister, or “Prime Minister”. The person who sits on the Chair of Peter exercises the authority of the King as his prime minister, but the person on the Chair of Peter is not the monarch.
Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom. All throughout the Old Testament, men are given the king’s ring, clothed with the kings royal purple robe, made to ride in the king’s chariot and on the king’s donkey, and given lordship over the house of the king. This shows that these men are bestowed great authority by the king, but they are not the king himself. The king has given them authority to minister over the land and people, but they serve the king and do the will of the king. The king has the right to remove them as soon as they stop doing the will of the king.
You shall be in charge of my household, and all my people will obey your command. Only in respect to the throne will I outrank you.” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Look, I put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He then had him ride in his second chariot, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. I am Pharaoh,” he told Joseph, “but without your approval no one shall lift hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” Pharaoh also bestowed the name of Zaphenath-paneah* on Joseph, and he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of Heliopolis. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt. Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. (Genesis 41:40-46)*
This is a forshadowing of the papacy. Joseph was “In the service of the king.” That is what the Holy Father is, a minister, not a king.
Forget about Google. Look at what God shows us in the Bible.
-Tim-
B
Brendan
Guest
Mary,It has become standard in East Africa! Thought it was only here! But I love it- though we don’t hold hands here, just put our palms out in the open, like a beggar position (for lack of a better example)- we extend our palms in front of us, palms open and cupped. But such a harmless development, which is reverential, surely does not amount to abuse?
I’ve a significant about of time in Tanzania, in the Kahama area. I’ve been to all of the parishes in that diocese and I’ve never seen what you have described.
What I have seen is the Baba Yetu is said with hands together in the prayer position.
B
Brendan
Guest
I believe the issue there were that some bishops (and priests) were acting in violation of Rome’s various rulings stating that the faithful were free to kneel if they so chose.A question that I really want an aswer too is how come we see so much support for doing what the Bishop wants in this case, but when asked about kneeling for communion, where the USCCB proscribes that “standing” is the norm for reception in the US, we have all these people who say the Bishops is wrong?!
Bishops who were restricting the freedom that Rome gave to the faithful were acting against Rome, and therefore the faithful have a right to lodge complaints.
I am unaware of any specific ruling from Rome that this bishop is acting against.
If you are aware of one, please let us know.
If not, comparing this with the kneeling issue is apples and oranges.
B
Brendan
Guest
In other words, the Vatican City is a monarchy then.
I don’t believe that altarboi claimed that the Pope was a king, or even the monarch himself.
Rather the claim was made that the Vatican State is a monarchy. Which you have just proved.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I wanted to address just that question.A question that I really want an aswer too is how come we see so much support for doing what the Bishop wants in this case, but when asked about kneeling for communion, where the USCCB proscribes that “standing” is the norm for reception in the US, we have all these people who say the Bishops is wrong?!
…
It’s a fair question, and one that deserves an answer.
The answer is found in the Vatican II document Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC) which I quoted in an earlier post.
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
The bishop does not have authority to change anything in the Mass however he pleases. His role is to interpret the liturgical norms approved by the Holy See. There are times when those norms specifically say that the matter is to be determined by the bishop–sometimes but not always.
To take an extreme example, the local bishop has no authority to approve a new Eucharistic Prayer. The comments we often see here to the effect that whatever the bishop decides with regard to the Mass must be obeyed simply aren’t true.
On the other extreme, the posture of the congregation during Communion (not “while receiving” but while in the pews) is specifically left for the local bishop to determine–so if he says sitting or standing or kneeling, that must be obeyed. It is his decision to make.
To answer your question more directly, the reason why people support the bishop in this case, but those same people do not support the bishop when it comes to kneeling while receiving Communion is because Rome has not given the bishop the authority to forbid reception of Communion kneeling. In fact, Rome specifically said that such a prohibition could not be made. So bishops who did not allow kneeling were acting against Rome. That’s the difference.
When a bishop interprets the rubrics of the Mass, yes we must obey the bishop.
Z
zab
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
I really don’t know how you can keep track of what “the same people” support on one thing vs the other. I honestly cannot recall anyone on these threads ever having supported a bishop or priest for refusing to give Communion to a person who kneels.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It’s the other way around. Another poster was asking how the same people could support a bishop who explains that adding ritual to the Our Father is not legitimate, while at the same time not support a bishop who forbids kneeling while receiving.
If you go back and look at the post to which I replied, that will clear things up.
Here’s the question to which I was replying
Does it make more sense now?
- Status