P
PaulDupre
Guest
Excellent post, Katie. Well done!
In Christ Jesus,
Paul
- Status
In Christ Jesus,
Paul
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
The problem is that most of his statements are not facts but assumptions he came up with.
If I were to make assumptions like this about dcdurel, I could say things such as “Clearly he has an agenda against the Catholic church because he choses to accuse many bishops of being homosexual.” This is an unsupported fact that probably is very, very far from the truth. I don’t know dcdurel and I don’t know his beliefs or lifestyle or any of that. So to make an assumption about him is basically to spread lies. While I doubt dcdurel intended to, instead of spreading facts, he has taken fact to suspiscion to assumption to accusation to unsupported statements claimed as fact.
Dcdurel, not kowing all the US bishops, can only give us his opinions about what the bishops’ motivations and meanings are. He can no more state facts about them than I can about him. Keep that in mind when reading his opinions.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
This is just right - the meaning of the text should not merely be explained: it should be explained in a way which show how it can be applicable to the lives of people today. That is all this is saying, AFAICS
So why not tell us, in your own words, what you think is being said ? The document is a bit waffly, which is unhelpful - but where is the doctrinal error ? I can’t see any.
So people are not to be reconciled with God & one another ? But the Gospel is a Gospel of reconciliation - as Paul makes clear in 2 Corinthians 5; and see what Jesus says about being reconciled in Matthew 5
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
When people are received into the Church, they are asked whether they accept all that the Catholic Church holds & teaches - and they are asked to affirm this teaching.
According to some people’s reasoning, this means that those received into the Church are being asked to express, and are expressing, approval of homosexuality & of “a homosexual agenda”. The author of the Rite of Reception of Converts into full communion with the Catholic Church “was obviously familiar with the homosexual agenda”.Which is absurd. ##
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I think DCD’s got issues or something. The document in question is 29 pages long and his interpretations of the parts he’s raising cane about are not what the statements say at all.
If you think they’re all gay then you need to put some proof where your keyboard is, or knock off this kind of offensive posting. If you can’t prove what you say then you need not say it as all you have done is offer scandal. I nnot ethat nowhere do you (or RyanL, which confess surprises me!) offer anything from the CCC, Bible, or any other source that would show that this document is so terribly wrong.
Furthermore…why is this in the apologetics forum when it has diddlysquat to do with apologetics? This “junk” belongs down in the Water Cooler forum. (Or pulled by the Mods maybe?)
I fully agree with katieq, MariaGorettiGrl, ekim61, Gottle of Geer, and PaulDupre.
Pax vobiscum,
" And what’s wrong with this statement? Our faith informs our world view, and that my friend is Catholic to the hilt! We do indeed “interpret” the world through our faith (or lack thereof), or else why would the church stand against abortion, euthanasia, and unjust wars? We see the world through the eyes of our faith. If that’s junk, then I’d say someone needs some Holy Spirit cleaner for his Catholic glasses.
Acceptance an affirmation have always been part and parcel of the Catholic faith. Christ himself displayed it when he took his meals with “sinners” (something we ALL are!). You draw conclusions that are not at all in evidence DCD and I think you have colored your comments with a very biased brush. You draw some conclusions about the bishops and homosexual activity and the alleged behaviour in seminaries, but there is no documentation to back you up. Can you prove the percentages and allegations you make here about the clergy? I doubt it. You may have issues with the church and the Bishops, but I for one, have seen none of the trash that you talk in my parish or even in my diocese, and I don’t really appreciate you attempting to dirty the bishops and priests.
If you think they’re all gay then you need to put some proof where your keyboard is, or knock off this kind of offensive posting. If you can’t prove what you say then you need not say it as all you have done is offer scandal. I nnot ethat nowhere do you (or RyanL, which confess surprises me!) offer anything from the CCC, Bible, or any other source that would show that this document is so terribly wrong.
Furthermore…why is this in the apologetics forum when it has diddlysquat to do with apologetics? This “junk” belongs down in the Water Cooler forum. (Or pulled by the Mods maybe?)
I fully agree with katieq, MariaGorettiGrl, ekim61, Gottle of Geer, and PaulDupre.
Pax vobiscum,
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
R
RyanL
Guest
Church Militant:
I appreciate what you are saying, and you are largely correct. If you re-read my posts, you’ll see that I’m not about bashing the bishops, but rather about doctrinal orthodoxy being preached. The bishops (as far as I can tell) make up a new definition of “faith”, which is not what the CCC defines it as (I quoted it, but didn’t cite number **1814 **“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself…”). While the “world view” thing is nice, we shouldn’t re-define orthodox terms (even if the result is a mildly Catholic result).
My fear is that we get bland “just be nice, 'cause nice is good” homilies that have nothing to do with Church teaching. Look at the Gallup poll statistics I cited! It’s appalling (or “ap-polling”, if you will). We need theology, we need exegesis, we need varied oratory styles! This document doesn’t discuss the need for them, only that the shouldn’t *ever *be focused on - this results in an *under-*compensation by the priests, whose end result will be the typical soft-spined American Catholic (like you and I were) who thinks “non-denominational” services probably fulfill our obligation, because “hey, we’re worshipping, aren’t we?”.
Oh, and as far as the whole “gay thing” goes…not my argument. I want no part of that discussion…
God Bless, and keep on rockin’ CM,
RyanL
CM,
I appreciate what you are saying, and you are largely correct. If you re-read my posts, you’ll see that I’m not about bashing the bishops, but rather about doctrinal orthodoxy being preached. The bishops (as far as I can tell) make up a new definition of “faith”, which is not what the CCC defines it as (I quoted it, but didn’t cite number **1814 **“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself…”). While the “world view” thing is nice, we shouldn’t re-define orthodox terms (even if the result is a mildly Catholic result).
My fear is that we get bland “just be nice, 'cause nice is good” homilies that have nothing to do with Church teaching. Look at the Gallup poll statistics I cited! It’s appalling (or “ap-polling”, if you will). We need theology, we need exegesis, we need varied oratory styles! This document doesn’t discuss the need for them, only that the shouldn’t *ever *be focused on - this results in an *under-*compensation by the priests, whose end result will be the typical soft-spined American Catholic (like you and I were) who thinks “non-denominational” services probably fulfill our obligation, because “hey, we’re worshipping, aren’t we?”.
Oh, and as far as the whole “gay thing” goes…not my argument. I want no part of that discussion…
God Bless, and keep on rockin’ CM,
RyanL
K
katieq
Guest
RyanL,
I appologize if I was incomplete in my original response. The response I made to dc’s use of “junk”, etc. was that such terms were used multiple times (in both posts, with added emphasis given via exclaimation points). In addition, I was assessing this usage based on the “tone” of the post, I did not infact read your original post (as I will explain later). I do tend to take issue with those arguments which are made without reverance of the person/persons involved; especially when said person/persons are not able to speak in their defense. I am a firm believer that the most useful form of argument in the majority of cases, is the dialectic (albiet written in this case).
As to my statement on theology, as you were stating the lack addressing theology, I was remarking on the usage of too great a focus on a complete theological discourse during the homily.
In regard to the Gallup poll, it is not necessarily accurate in it’s polling (as can be shown by past election predictions.
On that note, I would like to add that the homily should of course be nourishing to those who listen.
CCC 132 “Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theologgy. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”
(thou we must be careful to listen to try to understand what the message might be, rather than disregard when we do not here what we wish too).
However, I would like to note the following (cited from www.catholic.com):
A priest may omit the homily only on weekdays that are not holy days. On Sundays and holy days he must give a homily (Sacrosanctum Concilium; CIC 767);** it should relate the readings to one another and indicate how their message can be applied to the lives of his parishioners (Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntianidi; Inter Oecumenici).**
The section you are refering to as my definition of faith was merely a quote taken directly from Fulfilled. In regard to “making stuff up”, I will post, as soon as my husband gets home with the book, a quotation from John Paul the Great which is very similar to that stated in Fulfilled .
Perhaps we should look first for the cause of the “problems in the States” to the materialistic ideals that American culture has come to revolve around. Let us not be so hasty as to contribute our lack of reverance for the sacred to anything other than our own lust for the things of this world (a lust which has been in existance since the fall).
RyanL:
I should mention, that with regard to my post, only the first section (theology) was intended to address something initially in your post (and only then the relation was through the post by rwo regarding theology). I did not, in fact, read your post, as I was attempting to respond solely to the original thread. I am not entirelly sure if your “Roger that” was in regard to the fact that I was wrong or that dc was wrong and I was correct. Regardless, no offense is taken in anyway. I hope I have managed to clerify my original post.
God bless and keep you,
k
PS. I apologize for the length of this.
PPS I would like to add that in my experience, the homilies my priest has given have been in no way wishywashy, but challenging, informative, and inspiring.
I appologize if I was incomplete in my original response. The response I made to dc’s use of “junk”, etc. was that such terms were used multiple times (in both posts, with added emphasis given via exclaimation points). In addition, I was assessing this usage based on the “tone” of the post, I did not infact read your original post (as I will explain later). I do tend to take issue with those arguments which are made without reverance of the person/persons involved; especially when said person/persons are not able to speak in their defense. I am a firm believer that the most useful form of argument in the majority of cases, is the dialectic (albiet written in this case).
As to my statement on theology, as you were stating the lack addressing theology, I was remarking on the usage of too great a focus on a complete theological discourse during the homily.
In regard to the Gallup poll, it is not necessarily accurate in it’s polling (as can be shown by past election predictions.
On that note, I would like to add that the homily should of course be nourishing to those who listen.
CCC 132 “Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theologgy. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”
(thou we must be careful to listen to try to understand what the message might be, rather than disregard when we do not here what we wish too).
However, I would like to note the following (cited from www.catholic.com):
A priest may omit the homily only on weekdays that are not holy days. On Sundays and holy days he must give a homily (Sacrosanctum Concilium; CIC 767);** it should relate the readings to one another and indicate how their message can be applied to the lives of his parishioners (Paul VI, Evangelii Nuntianidi; Inter Oecumenici).**
The section you are refering to as my definition of faith was merely a quote taken directly from Fulfilled. In regard to “making stuff up”, I will post, as soon as my husband gets home with the book, a quotation from John Paul the Great which is very similar to that stated in Fulfilled .
Perhaps we should look first for the cause of the “problems in the States” to the materialistic ideals that American culture has come to revolve around. Let us not be so hasty as to contribute our lack of reverance for the sacred to anything other than our own lust for the things of this world (a lust which has been in existance since the fall).
In response to this statement, my meaning here was that it was intended for the instruction of Catholic priests, schooled in seminaries in such issues for years, who (we pray in all instances) have found there vocation in pursuing a marriage to the Church and a consecration to God. I was addressing it’s audience, not it’s origins. It would seem self evident that by the very nature of this vocation that they are continuously extolled to preach doctrine and dogma, as it is the work of their position. And I do not believe that we can say that it has failed, as no two priests are the same; and if we feel that a certian priest has failed, we can not naturally assume that this writing was the entire reason (or even a causal factor).
I should mention, that with regard to my post, only the first section (theology) was intended to address something initially in your post (and only then the relation was through the post by rwo regarding theology). I did not, in fact, read your post, as I was attempting to respond solely to the original thread. I am not entirelly sure if your “Roger that” was in regard to the fact that I was wrong or that dc was wrong and I was correct. Regardless, no offense is taken in anyway. I hope I have managed to clerify my original post.
God bless and keep you,
k
PS. I apologize for the length of this
.PPS I would like to add that in my experience, the homilies my priest has given have been in no way wishywashy, but challenging, informative, and inspiring.
D
dcdurel
Guest
I never said that priests were to give a complete theological discussion on each Gospel reading. I simply said that the definition of faith in “Fullfilled in Your Hearing” is total nonsense and a piece of junk, amoung other parts that are pure junk.
I am sure they did have a lot more training. That is why it is so sad to see them professing junk.
We must face facts. Not only are the bishops the teachers of the faith and infallible when they are in union with the Pope, but it is also true that almost all the heresies of Christianity started with Catholic theologians and scripture scholars and it was only through the complicity of bishops who were not in union with the Pope that these heresies were able to spread. We can’t be ostriches and stick our heads in the sand. There are bishops in this country who don’t care what the Church teaches, and who are opposed to what the Church teaches. If those who wrote this article did not understand Vatican II, the GIRM, Canon law, etc. then they should not have written anything until they asked the Pope the meaning of Church documents that related to the homily.
Doesn’t matter what the rest of the text has, the first line is stupidity. That is not any definition of faith as the Church teaches.
The rest was not exactly correct either. Jesus says the ruler of this world is the devil. But there are good people in the world. Thus there is both good and evil. And not everyone will accept Jesus and His Church and follow His teachings. That is a fact.
But all this is irrelevant to the fact that this whole article not only misses the main points of what the homily should be, but it teaches the opposite.
“Acceptance and affirmation” is not found anywhere in Church teaching, scripture, apostolic Tradition, Church documents, etc.
It is found primarily in connection with the gay agenda when used with Catholic and adults. .
The Chrisitian response to the “the world”, is not acceptance and affirmation". We do not affirm those who are doing evil. We don’t affirm unrepentant rapists, thieves, liars, child molesters, etc.
The Christian response is love. We love rapists, thieves, liars, child molesters, etc., and pray for them, we certainly don’t affirm them for to do so would be to affirm their evil actions.
Of course we see the world through the eyes of faith.
But that is not a definition of faith as the article claims, and it does nothing to clear up the definition of faith.
D
dcdurel
Guest
It misses the mark entirely on this point. Not once does it explain the Church documents on the content of the homily, that "preaching centered upon the bible texts, must then in its own way make it possible to familiarize the faithful with the whole of the mysteries of the faith and the norms of Christian living."
In other words the Church teaches that "the primary duty of priests is the proclamation of the Gospel of God to all"
This work fails miserably in how to do this,
No where does it give a correct explanation of this statement, but in fact it does the opposite. It says says, “The purpose of the homily is to enable the gathered congregation celebrate the liturgy with faith”
The Church teaches, “.The purpose of the homily is to explain to the faithful the word of God proclaimed in the readings, and to apply its message to the present.” from
INAESTIMABILE DONUM—Instruction Concerning Worship Of The Eucharistic Mystery Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship
A little different, isn’t it.
The Church also states:
GENERAL CATECHETICAL DIRECTORY 1971 Indeed, in individual parishes the preaching of the word of God is committed chiefly to the priests, who are obliged to open the riches of Sacred Scripture to the faithful, and to explain the mysteries of the faith and the norms of Christian living in homilies throughout the course of the liturgical year.
Mysteries of the faith refers to the teachings in the catechism coming from divine revelation, norms of Christian living refers to teaching the commandments.
Can. 386 §1 The diocesan Bishop is bound to teach and illustrate to the faithful the truths of faith which are to be believed and applied to behaviour. He is himself to preach frequently. He is also to ensure that the provisions of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially on the** homily** and catechetical instruction, are faithfully observed, so that the whole of christian teaching* is transmitted to all.
*****(the entire Catholic faith)
Can. 768 §1 Those who announce the word of God to Christ’s faithful are first and foremost to set out those things which **it is necessary to believe and to practice for the glory of God and the salvation of all. **
No where does this document mention that at the homily the first thing to do is set out those things which are necesssary to believe and practice for our salvation.
General Directory for Catechesis states:
48constantly nourishes the gift of communion (121) amongst the faithful by means of continuous education in the faith (homilies and other forms of catechesis),
ongoing education in the faith, in which the place of the homily must be underlined, is characterized by being the necessary nourishment of which every baptized adult has need in order to live.
This document misses that obscures this point entirely.
God bless,
l
C
Church_Militant
Guest
“Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself…”). While the “world view” thing is nice, we shouldn’t re-define orthodox terms (even if the result is a mildly Catholic result).
My fear is that we get bland “just be nice, 'cause nice is good” homilies that have nothing to do with Church teaching. Look at the Gallup poll statistics I cited! It’s appalling (or “ap-polling”, if you will). We need theology, we need exegesis, we need varied oratory styles! This document doesn’t discuss the need for them, only that the shouldn’t *ever *be focused on - this results in an *under-*compensation by the priests, whose end result will be the typical soft-spined American Catholic (like you and I were) who thinks “non-denominational” services probably fulfill our obligation, because “hey, we’re worshipping, aren’t we?”.
Oh, and as far as the whole “gay thing” goes…not my argument. I want no part of that discussion…
God Bless, and keep on rockin’ CM,
RyanL
Well said Ryan!
I agree that we could use more priests like Fr. Corapi and Fr. Larry Richards, but I just don’t see the “warm fuzzy” gospel coming out of this document. Every priest has a different way of speaking, which is just human. My own faithful Irish pastor does a beautiful job of taking the Gospel and relating it to our lives each week.
I agree with you about the gay thing…
God bless you too buddy and let’s both keep on keepin’ on.
Pax tecum,
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Thanks to all who have participated here.
This thread is now closed.
This thread is now closed.
- Status