Z
zab
Guest
Yes, it is easy for you to say when we seem to have all of the answers at our fingertips and we can look up documents in seconds.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Do you think that this is toxic obedience?
The Lord says in the Gospel: he “that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be” a "disciple " 3 and “he that will save his life, shall lose it.” 4 That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the will of his superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.
From the Rule of St. Francis
It seems that if this kind of absolute obedience was good for one group of people it wouldn’t hurt anyone else either. It’s produced about 20 saints per century since 1209.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
DavidPalm
Guest
On this very topic, interesting that even in my own time in the Church as a convert (15+ years), I’ve been in two parishes in which major structures–in one the altar rail and in the other the high altar–were saved by the laity. In the parish in which we have our Latin Mass apostolate, there is beautiful woodwork, hand carved by German craftsman who came to this diocese and stayed several years at the beginning of the twentieth century, carving the pulpits, altar rails, and high altars in several parishes. At the onset of the revolution, the priest of the parish went along with the destruction of the incredible pulpit (orders…just following orders!) The exquisite altar rail too went into the garbage. When he started to go after the high altar, the laity put their collective foot down, went to the bishop with the common sense plea that their grandparents had sacrificed to have that made and that it should not be destroyed. He agreed and our priests celebrate the traditional Roman Rite at that altar today. But tell me, how is it that the laity had the common sense that the priest apparently lacked? The answer, in my opinion, is that he was a victim of toxic obedience, a mindless obedience that was not sufficient suffused with prudence.
Now, speaking of the continuation of an attitude of toxic obedience, will ConstantineTG and MarkThompson going to admit that Rome has very clearly spoken and removed any hint of disobedience from kneeling for Holy Communion in the U.S. or anywhere else at a Mass in the Roman Rite?
D
DavidPalm
Guest
In my opinion, commands contrary to the laws of the Church, contrary to immemorial custom, implementing sudden, non-organic disruptions of the liturgy which by their nature harm the commonweal, should be resisted and if necessary disobeyed. If the priest himself is being ordered to do something that effects only him, he has the option (but not the obligation) of obeying even an illicit command. If it effects his entire flock, then in my opinion he does not. In the last century the contrary behavior led to the scandalizing of hundreds of thousands of Catholics.
C
Canto
Guest
God’s authoirty on earth says we can kneel
God’s authority on earth says if we kneel we are not being disobedient
The head (the Pope) of God’s authority on earth (the Church) actually prefers us to kneel
In the Latin Church I’ve seen people kneel on weekdays and Saturday morning Mass.
Z
zab
Guest
Are you referring to the posture of standing when receiving Communion? Standing is an acceptable posture and has never been declared contrary to the laws of the Church.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Since you ask by name – otherwise, I feel like I’m pretty much over this topic – Rome has done no such thing. Kneeling is not an option on an equal basis with standing, which is the posture our bishops have selected for us. To the contrary, the Holy Father has recently confirmed that the observance of the approved norms of the Church, of which standing for Communion is one in the United States, “requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart.” Have you not conformed your heart to the norm of standing for Communion, David? Then you’re disregarding the Pope’s wishes.
C
Canto
Guest
As noted above the CDWDS says if we kneel we are not being disobedient or acting illicitly. They act on behalf of the Pope and put out the document R.S. which you quoted from. In it’s context the quote says…
"…In some places the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease.
[5.] The observance of the norms published by the authority of the Church requires conformity of thought and of word, of external action and of the application of the heart. A merely external observation of norms would obviously be contrary to the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, in which Christ himself wishes to gather his Church, so that together with himself she will be “one body and one spirit”.[12] For this reason, external action must be illuminated by faith and charity, which unite us with Christ and with one another and engender love for the poor and the abandoned. The liturgical words and rites, moreover, are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding of Christ, and they teach us to think as he himself does;[13] by conforming our minds to these words, we raise our hearts to the Lord. All that is said in this Instruction is directed toward such a conformity of our own understanding with that of Christ, as expressed in the words and the rites of the Liturgy.
[6.] For abuses “contribute to the obscuring of the Catholic faith and doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament”…"
Out of intrest R.S. noting the GIRM also says “[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]”
J
JReducation
Guest
The reason that I cited that article from our rule is because St. Francis commands all the friars, ordained or not, to obey in all matters, as you can read in the passage. The following passage actually states that those who fail to obey his (Francis’) wishes on this matter, are to be referred to the Church for excommunication. He gives no slack for disobeying, even when something may be disruptive to the liturgy, there is no option but to obey or commit a grave sin, even if the command is illicit. Even when it affects the flock, he must obey. The only exception is when the mandate is to commit something that has been defined as a sin either by the Church or by Francis himself.
Everyone who enters the Franciscan family, first studies this rule and tries to live it for a period of seven to 10 years, before vowing to obey it until death. There is no excuse for those who disobey it. They knew what they were getting into and they knew that the demands were very tough. Despite this, the Franciscan family is the largest religious family in the Catholic Church with 1.7 million men and women. I don’t believe that these 1.7 million, today alone, not counting the last 800 years, would consider this to be toxic obedience, even though we are obeying someone who has been dead for 750 years. He remains our father and as he wrote in his Testament, we remain bound to obey him until the Second Coming.
You’re creating an option for a priest or religious that the founders of religious orders did not give us. There are no such options. Only secular men and women, have those options. This includes secular deacons, priests and bishops. Even the secular person, ordained or not, must exercise those options within the parameters that the law gives them. I’ll grant you that the parameters that the law gives to those who are not in vows, such as lay people and diocesan priests are broader than those given to those who are consecrated religious.
The tragedy of the 20th century was that many consecrated religious, be they priests, brothers or sisters, lived according to the parameters for the secular Catholic priest or secular Catholic layman. This decimated many religious families. We have to be very careful not to grant people permission to disobey, unless we know the parameters.
The encouragement must alwasy be to do the greatest good by doing what legitimate authority commands. Obviously, authority cannot command sin. But sin must be decided by the Church. Those who have a well-formed conscience will follow the Church’s guidance on what is and is not sinful. This does not mean that everything is good or for the best. It simply means that many things are not sinful; therefore, they must be obeyed, regardless of whether or not there is a better choice. Obedience is alwasy the greater good for the individual soul, even when it is not the most practical. This is the point that our Holy Father is driving home.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
I wouldn’t call it illicit, but removing the altar rails, whether it was justified or not, just stacked the deck in favor of the Vatican approving standing as the “norm” for receiving. I don’t think the Vatican was going to make churches install altar railings or even order kneelers to accommodate kneeling for communion. Personally I think it was miraculous that a few churches still managed to keep their communion rails.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not understand what you mean by illicit orders. The liturgy is mostly a disciplinary matter. The laws of the Church come down from the Holy Father, the Holy See and to the bishops, not exclusively from tradition. Not in matters of discipline.
Z
zab
Guest
I understand what you are saying and I do believe that there were those in the Church, in many of our parishes (because I heard people actually admit to this) that if they just go ahead and do things and if they get away with doing it long enough it will be accepted. But I am not so sure that is the case for the change in posture. The 1967 document Eucharisticum Mysterium#34 coming from the Sacred Congregation of Rites (now the CDWDS) stated that **“according to the custom of the Church, Communion may be received either kneeling or standing. **One way or the other is to be chosen…” There was no conniving to see if we do this long enough that the Church would have to accept this as the customary posture. They had that choice from the beginning.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Your opening statement makes a valid point but it does somehow irk me when someone simply dismisses the matters of the liturgy as disciplinary matters. Lex orandi, lex credendi is why. And orandi refers to the spoken prayer, rubrics, the passive prayer, and even reflection where warranted. Credendi means our faith.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not sure how the poster intended the use of the term “illicit”. Illicit can mean illegal. Obviously, if something is illegal, it cannot be commanded.
Illicit in some people’s vocabulary can mean something that is contrary to custom or tradition. Here is where we have to check those parameters of which I speak in a previous post. If the law is legal, even though it may be contrary to custom or tradition, then it must be obeyed.
I am reminded of what happened to us (my community) after Vatican II. In 1209 St. Francis prohibtted the use of Gregorian Chant in his order. However, he did not write it into The Rule. It was a verbal prohibition.
In 1965, Pope Paul VI allowed it, based on the fact that it was never written into The Rule. Therefore, it was not considered legislation. Now, Paul VI could do and say something like this. He was a Doctor of Canon Law. If any pope could read law, he was one of them.
Many Franciscans, including Padre Pio himself, were very confused by the novelty of Gregorian Chant among us. The older men considered its use illicit, not because it was illegal. Pope Paul had said that it was not illegal. But they considered it illicit, because it was a novelty. We had always used plain chant or other forms of sacred music.
That being said, everyone obeyed. This does not mean that every house incorporated Gregorian Chant into its worship. It’s still not the case today. It’s up to the local superior. But what is considered illicit, because it is contrary to our tradition and to the mind of our father, is allowed by the Church. In this sense, one obeys what is illicit. In this context, illicit simply means out of the ordinary, not illegal.
There are many things that may be out of the ordinary, but are not illegal. Just as the use of Gregorian Chant is illicit for us, but we accept it and do not say a word against those who choose to sing it, there are other things that are illicit for other people, but has to be accepted, because the Church accepts it. This does not mean that we have to do it. It simply means that we may not point the finger at those who do it.
Since Communion while standing is legal, even though it has not been the custom for most Romans for many centuries, it must be allowed without condemnation and criticism. To spend one’s time condemning and criticising what is allowed is almost a waste of the time and energy that God gives us to spend on those things that are never allowed or those things that must be done.
I’ve often wondered what would happen if the same number of people were as energetic and spent as much time writing about and talking about the issue of abortion. I have this fantasy that someday, everyone on CAF who posts on the matter of Holy Communion and the EF/OF will write a letter to an elected official each time they write a post on this subject. Can you imagine the impact!!!
One letter for each post on Communion or the form of the mass. I’m not saying not to discuss Communion or the form of the mass. I’m suggesting, one for one. One post and one letter.
I got the idea from Mother Teresa. She hated photos. Not being able to get out of them, she opted to make a deal with God. She would tolerate having her picture taken, but he had to liberate one soul from purgatory each time a picture was taken of her. She promised not to cringe.
I figure, if we’re going to do something like discuss how to receive Holy Communion until the Second Comming, then why not do something beautiful for God. Write one letter to a state legislator, of any country, asking them to ban abortion for each of your posts on the subject. That would be an awesome apostolate.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Good for you. I have been to many parishes that improvements are funded by the laity. Sometimes the entire church has been torn down and rebuilt twice as big and twice as beautiful, all from the pockets of the laity.
But this is not what I mean. I am talking about policy making in our Church. Truly the laity has its role in building up and supporting the Church, but policy comes from those in the authority and thankfully it comes from the top-down and not bottom-up.
I don’t have anything to add to what Mark said. There’s nothing from the Pope or CDWDS that contradicts what the Bishops have done and implements. You must understand that they work together, not against each other. The Pope will not just pull rank just because he can. I keep saying this over and over. The Pope is our source of unity, not division. He wouldn’t give the Bishop authority then take it away without due process or just reason.
L
Layman
Guest
CITH, standing, can certainly be criticised because of what it replaced for the majority of Roman Catholics and how it replaced it.
I’d argue it is part of an iconoclasm that has changed attitudes to abortion. Major swingeing ‘reforms’ to R.C. rites plus a major swing to ‘buddy Jesus’ and ‘we don’t know if anyone is in Hell’ equals a ‘faithful’ who don’t know their religion and aren’t too worried about it.
Thus, abortion legislation in previously Christian societies. Because Jesus will forgive you. Because ‘we don’t know if anyone is in Hell’.** Because we can now follow our conscience. Because the central rite of our religion has shifted focus from propitiating God to ‘celebrating’. So why worry? You’re as good as saved. **
Calling for ‘more catechesis’ when you’ve taken out educational elements like receiving the Body Of Christ on your knees, without touching it, is just short-sighted or disingenuous.
Learn by doing. It’s faster, simpler and more memorable.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I want to make sure I’m understanding this right; you’re comparing allowing attitude of COTH and not receiving on your knees to the attitude of abortion?
- Status