L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Grazie, fratello
- Status
P
Pulvis
Guest
I read Fr, Cantalamessa’s Homily. I to have a personal question or two about his desire to
" We know what the impediments are that can restrain the messenger: dividing walls, starting with those that separate the various Christian churches from one another, the excess of bureaucracy, the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris."
and
“As happens with certain old buildings. Over the centuries, to adapt to the needs of the moment, they become filled with partitions, staircases, rooms and closets. The time comes when we realize that all these adjustments no longer meet the current needs, but rather are an obstacle, so we must have the courage to knock them down and return the building to the simplicity and linearity of its origins.”
I cannot square this with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
It is as if somehow, all of the beauty, Tradition and Sacramental nature of the 2000 + years of The Church is now seen as an impediment to some “Unity”. I have to ask, if we remove any more of the structure that makes the Catholic Church Catholic, what do we then become? And to what end? Are we to reduce The Church to a catacomb mentality in order to achieve some “Unity” desire that will then be empty of all that Is The Church? Has this ideology not been addressed by numerous Holy Fathers as a false doctrine? To my mind it smacks of Iconoclasm and the errors of Pistoria. Along with the ideology of the modernists that was dealt with by Pope St. Pius X among others. Am i missing something?
" We know what the impediments are that can restrain the messenger: dividing walls, starting with those that separate the various Christian churches from one another, the excess of bureaucracy, the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris."
and
“As happens with certain old buildings. Over the centuries, to adapt to the needs of the moment, they become filled with partitions, staircases, rooms and closets. The time comes when we realize that all these adjustments no longer meet the current needs, but rather are an obstacle, so we must have the courage to knock them down and return the building to the simplicity and linearity of its origins.”
I cannot square this with Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
It is as if somehow, all of the beauty, Tradition and Sacramental nature of the 2000 + years of The Church is now seen as an impediment to some “Unity”. I have to ask, if we remove any more of the structure that makes the Catholic Church Catholic, what do we then become? And to what end? Are we to reduce The Church to a catacomb mentality in order to achieve some “Unity” desire that will then be empty of all that Is The Church? Has this ideology not been addressed by numerous Holy Fathers as a false doctrine? To my mind it smacks of Iconoclasm and the errors of Pistoria. Along with the ideology of the modernists that was dealt with by Pope St. Pius X among others. Am i missing something?
G
godisgood77
Guest
Is the Church as it was at the beginning, 2000 years ago, any less Catholic than it is now?
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Why do you assume he means the “beauty, tradition, and sacamental nature” when he specifically says:
Those are two completely different lists. It saounds to me like Fr. C is talking about curial types things - “Bureaucracy, laws, disputes” and not liturgical things. Even the phrase “residue of past ceremonials” can very easily describe non-liturgical stuff.
As I said earlier, coming just after the momentous actions by the Eastern prelates to come to Pope Francis’ installation Mass, it seemed natural to me that he was talking about the many “political” issues that divide us from the Eastern churches. Some of which are very literally policial and should have nothing to do with the Church.
If you do not start from the assumption that Pope Francis is just waiting to spring a “liberal overthrow”, his words and actions are not threatening at all, and are, in fact, completely in line with Church tradition going back thousands of years!
O
otjm
Guest
What is the difference between a wine glass that is half empty, and one that is half full?
It is easy to say “nothing”; but that would miss the point.
We have people (and I hear it from those who consider themselves very faithful Catholics, who are extremely rapid to talk about the “heretics” of the Protestant churches) who believe (and appear to be scandalized) by the Church saying that there may be more that unites us (Catholics and Protestants) than divides us.
To say that there are things that unite us is not to say there are no divisions; it is not to water down our dogma and doctrine. What it is, is a choice between continuing to poke at old wounds and pour salt in them, or admitting the truths we share, and starting to build on that. And building on truth (and Truth - Christ) is not about denying doctrine, or warping it, or changing it. It is seeking to heal those wounds.
It also helps to keep in mind (to put it in slang terms) that Fr. Cantalamessa and the Pope have probably forgotten more about the Church than we know; that is to say, they are far, far more trained in theology than the vast majority on these forae, and this homily, while it may bring a message to all of us, is not directed to us. It is directed to the Pope and those gathered there.
Which is another way of saying that it may be intended for someone with a deeper theological background than we collectively have.
Part of the problem with communications nowadays is that too much gets to people who 20 or 30 years ago would have never heard it; and now they presume it is meant for them.
O
otjm
Guest
Probably quite a bit. You are assuming they are speaking about the same things, for starters.
M
Marie5890
Guest
God bless Franciscian spiritualality. It illuminates discipleship with Our Lord so clearly and makes Christ visible to all who seek Him…
I can see why most Saints tend to be Franciscian (if I recall Bro. JR 's post from the past correctly …LOL)
I can see why most Saints tend to be Franciscian (if I recall Bro. JR 's post from the past correctly …LOL)
S
sirach2v4
Guest
S
Sirach2
Guest
Sirach2v4,
You neglected to separate your own comments from those of the OP, which makes it look as if the entire post is his.
These appear to be your words:
I like John Paul II’s and Benedict’s homilies, but I like this idea of having other preachers at the papal Masses. Certainly this homily was very good. It took an experienced and dedicated priest to express the gospel so clearly.
It brings up a new pet peeve of mine. I’ve been reading volumes of comments from the early church fathers in a series called the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Intervarsity Press). There were so many writings from the early fathers of the Church. But, what has happened? You’d think that priests and bishops should be publishing homilies all the time, in print and online. But, I don’t see that. Where are the bold homilists of our day? What happens to the thousands of homilies that are delivered across the U.S. (for example) every week?
You neglected to separate your own comments from those of the OP, which makes it look as if the entire post is his.
These appear to be your words:
I like John Paul II’s and Benedict’s homilies, but I like this idea of having other preachers at the papal Masses. Certainly this homily was very good. It took an experienced and dedicated priest to express the gospel so clearly.
It brings up a new pet peeve of mine. I’ve been reading volumes of comments from the early church fathers in a series called the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Intervarsity Press). There were so many writings from the early fathers of the Church. But, what has happened? You’d think that priests and bishops should be publishing homilies all the time, in print and online. But, I don’t see that. Where are the bold homilists of our day? What happens to the thousands of homilies that are delivered across the U.S. (for example) every week?
J
JReducation
Guest
Bold is mine
Good gravy, yes you are missing something. This is Franciscan theology, which is 800 years old. This thought comes from the writings of St. Bonaventure on Theology of History. He’s pointing the pope and through the pope the Church to look at God’s presence in history and how history serves the plan of God. Those things (usually mindsets and systems) that no longer work or were never part of the original mindset of God only clutter the path to God.
He’s also making reference to the Itinerarium. Some souls are content with, “we’ve always done it this way.” However, what we’ve always done may no longer be useful. In order to proceed into the mind of God and know God’s thoughts, one has to return to that which is useful and set aside that which is not. The compartments and walls that we build in the life of faith are more often than not more of a distraction than an aid on this journey.
He’s telling the pope that he (the pope) has to declutter his world and his life. He’s pointing out what Francis said about going back to the roots and starting again. “Let us begins. Up to now we have done nothing.”
If one is not familiar with Franciscan approach to theology, which is very different from that of Aquinas, one may or may not capture the message. Aquinas is dogmatic. “2 + 3 = 5.” Franciscan is pragmatic. “Get rid of the clutter and you’ll find Truth.”
L
Landelinus
Guest
I don’t think you’re missing anything. The spirit of Fr Cantalamessa’s homily could be interpreted as advocating a type of antiquarianism condemned in Mediator Dei. It could also plausibly be interpreted as advocating a less radical sort of “getting back to essentials” that would be in the spirit of Mediator Dei’s encouragement to foster the participation of the faithful in the liturgy and hence the life of the Church. I won’t second guess Fr. Cantalamessa’s meaning, but it seems to me that in the past 50 years we’ve already stripped away so much of the externals of tradition that we’re left with precious little clutter to remove. That’s where I’m left scratching my head. Outside of some of the bureaucratic inefficiencies of the Vatican, what’s there left to get rid of?
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I have read that before Francis there were very few Crucifixes in churches. That almost every church used a Cross and not a Crucifix.
Is this true?
Is this true?
- Status