Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[catharina]

JR - thank you sharing such a beautiful, meaningful bit of history on this vigil of Easter Sunday.

God bless you and yours.

 

[JReducation]

amen, thank you. I was away for many years, but getting back into the swing of things. Seems like some are really vicious, especially about “old school” issues. Jesus changed his preaching to match up with whoever he was preaching to. Seems like the church should be able to do the same.

Welcome back Richie and Happy Easter.

God speaks to men in whatever manner is easier for man to understand, for God is not out to entrap us, but to love us.

He will not speak to us knowing full well that we will not understand. He will reformulate his truth, without chaning it, so that we can understand it and live it. Living according to the truth is God’s goal. Understanding is only the beginning.

We go to school to become doctors, lawyes, accountants, etc. Learning is only the beginning. Being a doctor etc is the goal just as being a saint is the goal. Learning truth is elementary school education.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I’m watching the Holy Father’s Easter Vigil.

If anyone says anything about reverence I’m going to throw a tomato at them.

1. Aside from the Latin hymns and prayers, everything else was in Italian and Spanish. This time they didn’t use other languages. I have no idea why just Italian and Spanish, but the Vatican never does anything accidently. What the reason could be, I have no idea.
2. The Pope wore very simple modern vestments, without much adornment.
3. He used Eucharistic Prayer III, not the Roman Eucharistic Prayer from the Roman missal.
4. He faced the people
5. The ministers gave communion on the tongue and on the hand depending on how the person presented themselves. The Pope gave communion by intinction to those who received communion from him. The paten was not used by the Pope or the other ministers.
6. Used the prayers from the NO
7. He did not use a baptismal font to baptize, but a portable fountain on wheels. It was very beautiful.
8. There were chairs set up behind him on the rear part of the sanctuary for people to sit. They sat between the rear of the altar and where the tabernacle used to be. I say used to be, because I believe that it has been moved to a side chapel. I didn’t see it in the center of the back wall when I was there last.
9. There was the usual shaking of hands at the sign of peace with the clergy going out to the congregation to give them the sign of peace after they received it from the Pope.
10. No communion rails. Everyone lined up standing. There were communion stations at different points in the basilica. Not everyone received communion at the sanctuary.
11. The liturgy was very solemn and very reverent.
12. At the end the Pope processed down the main aisle to the applause and the cheers of the crowd, as people waved, stood on chairs and he took it all in waving and smiling at the crowd, as he always does.
13. He also forgot to comb his hair. It was a mess.

Looks more to me like a Pope who is trying to bring people to reconciliation and balance, not going too far in one direction or the other. I didn’t observe anything on the TV, that I have not seen live the times that I have attended papal masses celebrated by either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Granted, I’ve only been to one mass celebrated by Benedict, but several by John Paul.

I truly believe that the charity and the spirit of prayer set the tone for the celebration. Obviously the resurrection is what brings it all out and pulls it together.

As this thread says, the Church is not a democracy. The Vatican is going to do what it’s going to do. It expects us to respond with the humility and trust of the saints.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

I fear that you and many others may be on a slippery slope in your effort to defend traditional practices and teachings of the Church you may have raised these to a status of divinity. The practices and the teachings have become ends in themselves, rather than means to salvation.

And that, my friend, has absolutely no basis in reality.

Here again, you become hyper vigilant. We cannot live within a Church that we do not trust any more than we can live in a marriage where there is a lack of trust or a parent whom we do not trust.

Don’t confuse vigilance with “hypervigilance”. Vigilance is a good thing. A very good thing. History teaches this. Church history as a matter of fact.

Besides, it seems here you may be mistaking your personal opinions as “The Church”…but isn’t that what you are accusing traditional folks of doing?

I mean, a few posts earlier, you admitted that in prudential matters, we are free to disagree - yet then proceeded to lambast folks who dare to disagree with you on prudential matters. Merely disagreeing with you on prudential matters gets the accusation that we’re raising said prudential matters to “divinity”. I mean, step back and take a look at this discussion objectively. Really.

If you live hyper vigilant of everything that the Church does, preaches or teaches, I would believe that you have a problem of trust. A lack of trust is not a good foundation for a holy relationship.

So now being critical in any way of the modern approach to ecumenism - and an “approach” *is *something prudential - this is being “hypervigilant”? Why?

This isn’t being disrespectful, this isn’t denying the Church’s authority, this is merely making the observation that such an “approach” can, and has, led to confusion.

What you may consider ambiguous, those who write and preach them consider them to be good theology.

Sure. But perhaps some folks think ambeguity* is* good theology. There’s a quote I heard once that rings so true: “there is no ecumenism without ambeguity.” I think this says alot for the times in which we live.

But then again, ambeguity is not theology - it is a style of writing. Or is it…hmmmmm.

Again, you are passing judgment on the homily of a man who probably has much more and better education and training than you and I put together on these matters and who is probably a very holy man or he would not be the official preacher to the Pope.

I didn’t question the “holiness” of this man or his education. Good grief.

You call it watered down. I believe this statement is condescending coming from someone who has neither the authority not the status to challenge this man’s knowledge.

What does this man’s knowledge have to do with whether the homily was ambiguous or “watered down” in parts? Anyone who holds up his sermon to a sermon of yesteryear can see it. There is a clarity and directness in the “older” stuff that you just don’t find all too often today.

Fr. Corapi, God bless him, is one of those today who is clear, and is direct - and I’ll bet you a nickel he’d like to see more clarity and directness on the pulpet. Wouldn’t you?

Personally, I really liked the accounts I heard of the homily given at last year’s Lenton Retreat by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi (see cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49580 and lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07030101.html). Your thoughts?

As Fr. Corapi, SOLT (sp?) once said in a sermon on EWTN, “I have 12 years of theology under my belt and a PhD. I know what I’m talking about. …”

I believe he was describing his conflict with people who say VII changed this teaching, VII changed that that church teaching, etc…you know, that erroneous “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd that uses VII to justify every abberation under the sun. The good Fr. Corapi has experienced much of the same demonizing that tradtional folks get. Clarity and directness you see don’t always get you roses - sometimes tomatoes get thrown your way.

The message was making an allusion to ET Unum Sint (John Paul II, 1995)
According to Catholic faith, the Catholic Church has been endowed with the whole of revealed truth and all the means of salvation as a gift which cannot be lost. Nevertheless, among the elements and gifts which belong to the Catholic Church (e.g.; the written Word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity etc.) many can exist outside its visible limits. The Churches and ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation, for the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.116 In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or ecclesial Community, their celebrations are able to nourish the life of grace in their members who participate in them and provide access to the communion of salvation.

Um, ok.

And again, if you take those words to mean that beyond the visible bonds of HMC it is possible to be saved given certain circumstances, then you would be ok. But if you take those words to mean that one can be saved outside HMC - and leave it at that - then are drifting into dangerous ground here - mighty dangerous.

So how do you take 'em?

It is not the job of the Church to play God, but to accept what God has revealed to it.

Exactly. And to forget nothing of what He has* already* revealed through His Church.

(continued)

 

[DustinsDad]

When the Holy Father prays that the Jewish people who were the first to be chosen by God may discover the fullness of redemption, rather than use words of condemnation, all of us have the obligation to believe as Peter prays.

Well of course. And think about it - “fullness of redemption” *is *“redemption”. And redemption is salvation. There is no partial redemption in the end - for no one is partly saved in the end. Therefore, even praying for the Jews to come to the “fullness of redemption” is praying for their conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation (that’s something God has revealed to us already, something we can’t forget).

And the OF prayer is ambiguous - demonstratably. It can easily be taken in an unorthodox way.

For example, Abe Foxman. I’d guess he’s pretty educated. And he doesn’t criticize the OF prayer for the Jews - why? Precisely because he takes it to mean something unorthodox, something false, that is, to mean that the Church no longer teaches that Jews need to convert to Christ for salvation. Yet he does take offence to the new prayer for the Jews the pope just released for Good Friday. Why? It’s not ambiguous.

So in the effort to be less offensive, at least one Jew has been confused by the ambiguity to think that the Church teaches something that it doesn’t. That’s the problem. We don’t want to confuse folks who’s souls we should genuinely be concerned about.

And if we take anything away from Good Friday, we should understand and remember that Our Lord shed his blood for everyone - he paid the price for their redemption…and we should do everything possible for these folks to bring them to the Lord and into the Church He founded, the Church He establised on the cross, that Church that was born from the water and blood that poured forth from his pierced side. He shed his blood for us and for these people. We should be concerned for our own salvation and that of our brother…that means bringing them home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That means lots of prayer, lots of sacrifice, and when necessary - even words should be used. Even if it means a tomato rather than a rose.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

.

 

[DustinsDad]

…If anyone says anything about reverence I’m going to throw a tomato at them. …

Judging from the selective “lists” of observations you keep posting, I must say it seems you are trying to “bait” traditional minded folks - fishing for complaints so that you can accuse them of complaining.

I truly hope this is not the case.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

DD - You stated: “What does this man’s knowledge have to do with whether the homily was ambiguous or “watered down” in parts? Anyone who holds up his sermon to a sermon of yesteryear can see it. There is a clarity and directness in the “older” stuff that you just don’t find all too often today.”

If, as you’ve also said, the Pope of your life’s memory was Pope John Paul II, then when and where are you finding “sermon(s) of yesteryear?” In your attempt to create a memory of the ‘previously perfect’ Church, you’ve opened the door to countless sermons that should never have been written or spoken - although they were of yesteryear. Maybe you shouldn’t get so carried away with some apparent need to be correct about your opinions and preferences.

(" … sermons of yesteryear?")

Also, are you aware of the fact that you often use the term “my friend” as an introduction to rebuke and insult? That’s an odd usage. It doesn’t fit. It seems to me that the use of the term hypervigilant was a very good fit. In stating your ‘concerns’ regarding teachings on ecumenism and St. Francis de Sales, you presented one link that revealed one lecture given by one theologian in 1997. That sounds rather hypervigilant of you.

(ONE link, ONE lecture, 1997?)

Do you accept the fact that many Catholics are unspeakably grateful to be within the Church, eternally thankful to have received such an unmerited grace in their lives - and that they have no sense of a need to police the Church, correct the Church, rebuke the Church, fault the Church?

Happy Easter to you and to yours.
We are in the same Church on the Feast of the Resurrection.
Blessed be God forever.

Teresa of Avila:
“Let nothing disturb thee, let nothing affright thee.
All things pass away; God Alone is changeless.”

 

[catharina]

Judging from the selective “lists” of observations you keep posting, I must say it seems you are trying to “bait” traditional minded folks - fishing for complaints so that you can accuse them of complaining.

I truly hope this is not the case.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

No surprise but my observation is the opposite. IMO, until JR began posting there seemed to be a concensus of very angry and personally insulting posters on this forum who seemed to need to claim the term “traditionalist” as if they had invented it. Those of us who have always been traditional in our beliefs, practices and faith were made most unwelcome by others who stated such things as ‘this (or that) recent Pope was a heretic, a public sinner … name your poison’ and that old favorite 'there is no Pope." While the venom of that cohort has died down quite a bit, it might be thanks to those such as JR who are willing to say that being in the Faith and of the Faith can and must translate into being FAITHFUL.

I can welcome JR’s list of observations and you are just as free to post your own. Why instead attempt to micromanage his thinking, his experiences and his observations?

 

[DustinsDad]

…If, as you’ve also said, the Pope of your life’s memory was Pope John Paul II, then when and where are you finding “sermon(s) of yesteryear?”

Read. Many sermons of the great saints were put on paper.

For that matter, one can also read older encyclicals that serve the same purpose.

…Also, are you aware of the fact that you often use the term “my friend” as an introduction to rebuke and insult? That’s an odd usage. It doesn’t fit. It seems to me that the use of the term hypervigilant was a very good fit.

I think you are being hypervigilant against traditional folks’ concerns. But feel free to cast your tomatoes my friend, I can take it .

…In stating your ‘concerns’ regarding teachings on ecumenism and St. Francis de Sales, you presented one link that revealed one lecture given by one theologian in 1997. That sounds rather hypervigilant of you.

Actually one link is reasonable. 50 links would have been “hyper”.

Besides, I think that link was fitting in demonstrating the selective misuse of St. Francis de Sales as some sort of enemy against traditional folks. Silly.

…Do you accept the fact that many Catholics are unspeakably grateful to be within the Church, eternally thankful to have received such an unmerited grace in their lives - and that they have no sense of a need to police the Church, correct the Church, rebuke the Church, fault the Church?

Then why are you “policing” this thread?

…Happy Easter to you and to yours.
We are in the same Church on the Feast of the Resurrection.
Blessed be God forever.

Amen.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

Read. Many sermons of the great saints were put on paper.

For that matter, one can also read older encyclicals that serve the same purpose.

I think you are being hypervigilant against traditional folks’ concerns. But feel free to cast your tomatoes my friend, I can take it .

Actually one link is reasonable. 50 links would have been “hyper”.

Besides, I think that link was fitting in demonstrating the selective misuse of St. Francis de Sales as some sort of enemy against traditional folks. Silly.

Then why are you “policing” this thread?

Amen.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Again, your ever-present hypervigilance. Your posts are useful? Mine are “policing this thread?” You’ve revealed yourself - again.

ONE link FROM 1997 to support your “concerns?” It’s entirely irrelevant. What’s silly is your imagining that anyone is casting St. Francis de Sales as an “enemy to traditional folks.”

Do you really believe you are free to accuse me of “policing this thread” based on the fact that I disagree with you? I promise, you are simply not that important to my practice of the Faith. Or do you imagine that others find you to be all-important? That kind of attitude can easily accompany hypervigilance. Is that the issue?

 

[DustinsDad]

Again, your ever-present hypervigilance. Your posts are useful? Mine are “policing this thread?” You’ve revealed yourself - again…

Are you responding to me, or are you responding to some charicature of a traditonal person you have in your mind?

Ah well, I shall take the tomatoes you have thrown my way and add them to a salad perhaps. Or maybe make a nice marinara sauce.

Peace in Christ to you again - and of course Happy Easter.

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

Are you responding to me, or are you responding to some charicature of a traditonal person you have in your mind?

Ah well, I shall take the tomatoes you have thrown my way and add them to a salad perhaps. Or maybe make a nice marinara sauce.

Peace in Christ to you again - and of course Happy Easter.

DustinsDad

Are you responding to me? I thought my remarks to you were very clear. Nevertheless, here they are - again.

"Again, your ever-present hypervigilance. Your posts are useful? Mine are “policing this thread?” You’ve revealed yourself - again.

ONE link FROM 1997 to support your “concerns?” It’s entirely irrelevant. What’s silly is your imagining that anyone is casting St. Francis de Sales as an “enemy to traditional folks.”

Do you really believe you are free to accuse me of “policing this thread” based on the fact that I disagree with you? I promise, you are simply not that important to my practice of the Faith. Or do you imagine that others find you to be all-important? That kind of attitude can easily accompany hypervigilance. Is that the issue?"

Please do concentrate on the fact that YOU have decided I’m “policing this thread.” So you “post” but I “police?” That’s a very bizarre notion.

 

[JReducation]

Dunstinsdad et al:

I’ll begin by stating that from 1971 to 1983 I was in college and graduate school studying theology and philosophy, not to mention the many years that I have worked directly for the Church. I do not consider myself a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, as that is not what I done for the Church. I have always taught, run pastoral care programs, mission work, parish ministry, retreat ministry, guidance and designed pastoral programs. However, what I have learned over the many years since I joined the Catholic Church, through education and experience is to DO theology, not just read it. Theology has its own system and its own method. One must know how to read it, otherwise it appears ambiguous and often may confuse.

I know from my own experience that I have had to read some things several times or think about some public displays of the Church more than once to “get it.” I agree that it’s not always easy. The same applies to the Church’s liturgy, such as the liturgies of Holy Week. That being said, nothing happens in the Vatican by accident. It is all well orchestrated and has some intent.

While the Church encourages Catholics and other persons to think about what it says and teachers, it also reserves the final opinion for the teaching Magisterium and the bishops. There is a limit to how far we are allowed to go with our questioning. While the Church does not have nor does it need a mind police, it has defined lines of authority. This is something that the great saints all understood. In the end, sanctity is what we’re striving for, not governing the church.

As to salvation outside the Church, John Paul II already made it clear that the Spirit of Christ does use other faith communities as a means to salvation. John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II have already made the same clarification by lifting the excommunication of the Orthodox Church and the anathemas. These are facts. Anyone who knows HOW TO DO THEOLOGY, understands that if they are no longer excommunicated, then the Church is saying that they do have access to salvation, even though they do not have full communion with the Catholic Church. Full communion would be preferable; but that’s not the current reality.

In my next post I would like to lead the thread through a reflection on the path to salvation that the great saints and mystics have taught us, especially how they have dealt with weaknesses within the Church. Sanctity should be the goal of every Christian, not policing the Church. It seems that recently a group who claim to be “orthodox” with lower case “o” have taken it upon themselves to tell the Church the right way of doing things. While one can express one’s views with very broad strokes, because we are not robots, we are bound to obey even when something is not declared infallible teaching. This is part of belonging to a Church that is not a democracy, but a monarchy based on the Kingship of Christ and a Church that has the power to bind and unbind.

To conclude, what I posted about the Holy Week Services of the Church was with the intent of showing everyone how the Church is trying to bring all Catholics together and how those things that some would consider wrong with the liturgy cannot be wrong, if the Holy Father himself uses this form. Peter cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Can you think of anything that is more intimately connected to or expresses better the faith of the Church than the liturgy?

I was hoping that those who are afraid that the liturgy of the Church is contrary to faith would see that such is not possible, because Peter himself celebrates it. Peter can commit personal sin, but he cannot lead the Church to sin. The celebration of a liturgy or the use of a liturgical form that is contrary to faith by Peter is contrary to a fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church and a central theme of the Gospel, Peter cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

When Jesus says to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he is giving Peter the power and authority of the Good Shepherd. He is sharing his authority and his ministry with Peter. Therefore, for those who fear that the current liturgical form is in error or even sinful, that fact that the Vicar of the Good Shepherd celebrates liturgy in this form should be a source of great comfort and put their fear to rest.

JR

 

[I_Believe]

…Therefore, for those who fear that the current liturgical form is in error or even sinful, that fact that the Vicar of the Good Shepherd celebrates liturgy in this form should be a source of great comfort and put their fear to rest.

JR

Don’t waste time on the misguided traditionalists JR.
Look to Rome to settle the matter…

Alluding to the composition of the New Mass, Father Duggan states: "It is enough to compare the text of this Missal (the Missal of 1570) with the Novus Ordo of 1969 to see that there has been a revolutionary change (November AD2000).

**Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes: “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)” (pages 9-10).**

Monsignor Klaus Gamber agrees with Fr Gelineau that the Roman Rite has been destroyed. Monsignor writes: “[A]t this critical juncture the traditional Roman Rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed” (The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, page 99).

Father Kenneth Baker SJ, who is editor of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, concurs with Fr Duggan that the liturgical changes have been revolutionary. Lamenting the numerous changes imposed on the people which they scarcely had time to digest, Fr Baker wrote: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately” (February 1979).

Cardinal Ratzinger claims that our ecclesial malaise is attributable, at least in part, to the condition of the Liturgy. He writes:** “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the Liturgy” (Milestones, page 148).**
ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Comments ?

 

[catharina]

Don’t waste time on the misguided traditionalists JR.
Look to Rome to settle the matter…

Comments ?

Because Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in 1998:

…

(Milestones-1998 pg 148-149)

“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy……when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless.”

… perhaps we can count it as even more of a blessing that he as Pope Benedict XVI has now made use of the grace and opportunity to lead the Church in a reverent and beautiful celebration of Holy Week and the Easter litugies.

 

[JReducation]

Don’t waste time on the misguided traditionalists JR.
Look to Rome to settle the matter…

Comments ?

I concur with the citation that you provide and I believe that the Holy See is trying very hard to reconcile the two: Tridentine form and the Novus Ordo. Some people seem to want more than what the Church is giving us. I believe that the Church is being judicious in her approach.

The reinstatement of the EF was a move in the right direction, while at the same time the declaration that the NO is the norm for celebrating the liturgy. The Tridentine form should have been preserved. But it is not for me to tell the Church what is right or wrong. Today the Church wants the NO celebrated correctly, not abolished.

This is what I was commenting on when I described the liturgies of Holy Week at the Vatican. The NO was used with propriety, as it was in many parishes around the world. When I saw the Vatican’s celebration, it looked exactly like our celebration in our parish. There were slight differences that most of our parishioners are not even aware of, but that’s because our friars have their own Sacramentary and lectionary. For example, the litany was different. Our litany replaced many of the saints with Franciscan saints. The friars are not allowed to be permanent deacons. But we do have three secular deacons who are permanent deacons. Our pastor is a friar-priest, but the superior of the house is a non-clerical friar (not a priest) he speaks to the congregation after the last prayer before the final blessing. But our parishioners don’t even notice these slight differences. I’m sure that there are thousands of parishes around the world that celebrated Holy Week using the NO with the same reverence and joy as the Vatican.

What I found interesting about the Vatican’s Easter Vigil was the way it concluded. As usual, there was the joy and “chaos” that occurs when the Pope is leaving the altar and walking out. This is spontaneous and it’s a sign of love, not disrespect for the liturgy or the faith. I have been in this crowd and there is an overwhelming sense of love and union with the Vicar of Christ that you can’t help yourself, but jump and cheer or whatever you do when your emotions are stirred by love and joy.

To conclude, the return of the Tridentine form is a good thing and should move all of us to rejoice. We must also recognize that it’s not for everyone.

JR

 

[I_Believe]

**“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy……when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless.” **

Thank you.

I love pope BXVI !

As I stated, it is very comforting that there are those in the Curia that share the concerns of traditionalists.

 

[DustinsDad]

…I’ll begin by stating that from 1971 to 1983 I was in college and graduate school studying theology and philosophy, not to mention the many years that I have worked directly for the Church.

Congratulations on your scholastic endeavours, and thank you for you service to HMC.

…One must know how to read it, otherwise it appears ambiguous and often may confuse.

Well, if something appears ambiguous, it is ambiguous. Ambiguous sort of describes appearance does it not?

…The same applies to the Church’s liturgy, such as the liturgies of Holy Week.

Well, this goes back to your saying that some traditional folks were ripping on the Good Friday Liturgy - I did a little searching since then, and I dont’ see any ripping on that particular liturgy, there was some (I would say some valid) critiques of the homily (see here and here) - where exactly did you see people complaining of this particular liturgy? I asked you this before but you didn’t respond.

You also said the homilist stated that previous encyclicals were wrongly interpreted and applied…I asked you where he said this, but you didn’t respond. Could you now?

Also, this is a picture of the homilist (not at the Good Friday liturgy)…what is going on in this picture?



Hmmmmmm. Looks like a Catholic priest is getting “blessed” by Protestant minsters. What would Pope Pius XII say??? See Mortalium Animos.

…That being said, nothing happens in the Vatican by accident. It is all well orchestrated and has some intent.

Perhaps, but it is not like everything that comes out of the Vaican is personally approved by the Holy Father. Unfortunately, there are politics involved here, different forces sometimes in conflict. There is a human side to HMC, and sometimes even those in high positions are opposed to the Holy Father.

…As to salvation outside the Church, John Paul II already made it clear that the Spirit of Christ does use other faith communities as a means to salvation.

And this is a vague statement that can be interpreted in a right way and a wrong way. Again, please, how do you take this and interpret it? It’s not a trick question?

…
John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II have already made the same clarification by lifting the excommunication of the Orthodox Church and the anathemas. These are facts. Anyone who knows HOW TO DO THEOLOGY, understands that if they are no longer excommunicated, then the Church is saying that they do have access to salvation, even though they do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.

If they are no longer excommunicated, then they are in communion. If they aren’t in communion, then they are excommunicated. 2+2=4, not 5. A circle is a circle, not a square.

Disciplinary sanctions and what not can be tweaked and changed and reversed, but the underlying truth of a given situation cannot. Truth does not conctradict truth. And truth that has already been Dogmatically revealed is that anyone who culpably rejects even one infallible teaching of HMC rejects Christ Himself, and thus will be rejected by the Father. And another dogmatically revealed truth is that outside the Church there is no Salvation. You cannot deny this and remain Catholic.

Therefore, I’m sure you still accept this, but somehow and for some reason, you are uncomfortable with it? Why?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[I_Believe]

Hi, JR. Fair enough. And really, since we do have a choice between the Novus Ordo and the Forma Extrordinaria (I love that name ) now, we have no real reason to knock either.

The NO, as introduced, is fine. Nothing non-catholic about it. The priests who take a “as long as the GIRM doesn’t forbid it, it must be ok” approach, and proceed to customize the NO is where the problems start.

I really don’t even want to debate it anymore though. I’ve decided that since the MP has finally freed the Forma Extraordinaria, it’s really in the hands of our priests now. Especially our new priests.
Will more of them choose traditional seminaries or others ? Time will tell.

Have a Blessed Easter

 

[JReducation]

Congratulations on your scholastic endeavours, and thank you for you service to HMC.

Thank you, at least you have said one nice thing to me this week.

Well, if something appears ambiguous, it is ambiguous. Ambiguous sort of describes appearance does it not?

Something may appear ambigious because you are not reading it properly or you do not have enough knowledge to read it properly.

Well, this goes back to your saying that some traditional folks were ripping on the Good Friday Liturgy - I did a little searching since then, and I dont’ see any ripping on that particular liturgy, there was some (I would say valid) critiques of the homily - where exactly did you see people complaining of this particular liturgy? I asked you this before but you didn’t respond.

At least you found one critique. As to the validity, I don’t know which critique it was, so I can’t say whether it had validity or not.

You also said the homilist stated that previous encyclicals were wrongly interpreted and applied…I asked you where he said this, but you didn’t respond. Could you now?

Read his homily again and observe how he explains that the difference in times from the first millenium to today. There is a change in time and circumstances and yet we want to apply something from yesteryear to today.