P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Wow, this thread is still going?
- Status
A
ac_claire
Guest
Thanks for the info piouswoman, but I kinda already know who Thomas Aquinas is. He did not ever promote or rationalize willful
dissent or disobedience to the Church. Your inference to the contrary is simply not true and seems like just another way of trying to justify a cafetria-style Catholicism.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
Yes, there is a consensus on what is infallible that is easily known. There is no real dispute (unless one is a dissenting liberal) that artificial contraception is wrong and violates the Natural Law. Nor is there any dispute on topics such as heaven, hell, purgatory, abortion, homosexual acts, etc. Other obvious instances are the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and the Immaculate Conception. Granted, on a subject such as EENS we cannot know whether any particular individual is ultimately saved or not (unless they have been declared a Saint).
The non-infallible prudential decisions that traditionalists and others sometimes object to are also obvious. It is obvious that there is no infallible teaching attached to allowances like Communion in the hand or altar girls. Or to changes in the liturgy.
J
JReducation
Guest
Where should the tabernacle be placed?
CANON LAW
Can. 938 §1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved habitually in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.
§2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is to be situated in some part of the church or oratory which is distinguished, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
Actually the first norms governing tabernacles were promulgated in the
Middle Ages. Until this time, no uniform custom regarding where tabernacles were located in churches existed.
“It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently, and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” (No. 53).
Moreover, the “Instruction” recommendation does not prohibit having the tabernacle in the center of the church, stating, “the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place” (No. 54).
The tabernacle can be located in the “center of the church,” perhaps on an elevated area behind the altar so as not to diminish the attention to the Eucharistic sacrifice.
If the tabernacle distracts the faithful from what is happening on the altar during the liturgy, then it should be on a side altar or chapel. For example, in St. Peter’s Basilica their is a signficant distance between the tabernacle and the main altar.
At the National Shrine of the Immaculate Concpetion in Washington DC the tabernacle is in a beautiful Blessed Sacrament chapel.
In religious houses, it is usually on a high place above the the enclosure that separates the secular congregation from the religious, but visible to both sides.
It seems that the main concern is that its placement must be dignified and conduscive to adoration outside of mass, not during mass.
Hope this helps to understand the rules.
JR
S
stmaria
Guest
What it proves is that there are no rules. Only options, options and more options. Pope Pius had it right. The Tabernacle should not be separated. The synod of bishops addresses this question.Where should the tabernacle be placed?
CANON LAW
Can. 938 §1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved habitually in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.
§2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is to be situated in some part of the church or oratory which is distinguished, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.
CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY
Actually the first norms governing tabernacles were promulgated in the
Middle Ages. Until this time, no uniform custom regarding where tabernacles were located in churches existed.
“It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible,** the tabernacle be placed in a chapel **distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently, and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures” (No. 53).
Moreover, the “Instruction” recommendation does not prohibit having the tabernacle in the center of the church, stating, “the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place” (No. 54).
The tabernacle can be located in the “center of the church,” perhaps on an elevated area behind the altar so as not to diminish the attention to the Eucharistic sacrifice.
If the tabernacle distracts the faithful from what is happening on the altar during the liturgy, then it should be on** a side altar or chapel. ** For example, in St. Peter’s Basilica their is a signficant distance between the tabernacle and the main altar.
At the National Shrine of the Immaculate Concpetion in Washington DC the tabernacle is in a beautiful Blessed Sacrament chapel.
In religious houses, it is usually on a high place above the the enclosure that separates the secular congregation from the religious, but visible to both sides.
It seems that the main concern is that its placement must be dignified and conduscive to adoration outside of mass, not during mass.
Hope this helps to understand the rules.
JR
SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html
“Likewise, the positioning of the tabernacle in an easily seen place is another way of attesting to faith in Christ’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. In this regard, the responses to the Lineamenta request that significant thought be given to the proper location of the tabernacle in Churches, with due attention to canonical norms. It is worth considering whether the removal of the tabernacle from the centre of the sanctuary to an obscure, undignified corner or to a separate chapel, or whether to have placed the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary or in front of the tabernacle—as was done in many renovations of older churches and in new constructions—has contributed in some way to a decrease in faith in the Real Presence”
I believe it is one of the reasons.
T
TMC
Guest
If there is consensus, why is there so much disagreement. Can you point me to a Church document that lists the infallible teachings? I have never seen one.
T
TMGallyon85
Guest
OK first off I communion in hand is still an INDULT. It is not the church Norm in the world. And i am sorry to dissapoint the Progressive camp but it is a known fact that after Vatican Two the Progressives pushed their agenda that included communion in the hand, eucharistic prayers etc. I am not a complete rad trad, but I do believe we need to retain some of our Heritage.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Folks her is the root of things. If the Pope comes out and say to receive the Eucharist I must stand and receive in the hand then that is what I must do. If he says that either knelling or standing is proper and either on the toung or in the hand then I can make the decision on how I shall receive based solely on how I believe showing the most reverence to Christ and the limitation of my physical ability. We are caring on here about things that have noting to do with the salvation of your soul as if the fate of the world is in the balance. I would prefer that all received knelling at a communion rail on the toung, but it is not my call to make nor does it mean that those who prefer to stand and receive in the hand are wrong to do so. If the Holy Father makes a decision to stop the practice of receiving in the hand then I pray that those how do will compile with If he makes not comments on way or the other or says that both or just standing and in the hand are to be allowed then we all need to just do s we are told if you disagree with the form you can make a private grievance with the Holy father but keep it private. If asked express your opinion in a manner that is a reflection of Christ within you. Not as some child have a tantrum. It would be my wish that a lot of the things that have come to past since VII had not, But I must obey. I can make my disagreement known to those in positions of authority, But unless It is a blatant Heresy, then I must obey.
There are those among us both young and old that reject any change to the way we have always done things. Likewise there are those both old and young that will throw the old away for the ever changing new. I am not sure who said this but in have heard it in a song " The good old days were not always good and tomorrows not as bad as it seems." The way I see thing is that we made a lot of change over the last 40 years and in some cases have thrown the baby out with the bath water. I can give my ideas as can everyone here on what need to be keep of those changes and what we need to change back to the way it was. though no ones would be any more valid than anyone else’s.
To address the OP though I do not care one way or the other as when I proceed toward the Alter I am in prayer and humbling myself to receive My Lord and I do not watch those around me to see if they are ( IMO) show the correct amount of reverence. That is not my place to judge.
There are those among us both young and old that reject any change to the way we have always done things. Likewise there are those both old and young that will throw the old away for the ever changing new. I am not sure who said this but in have heard it in a song " The good old days were not always good and tomorrows not as bad as it seems." The way I see thing is that we made a lot of change over the last 40 years and in some cases have thrown the baby out with the bath water. I can give my ideas as can everyone here on what need to be keep of those changes and what we need to change back to the way it was. though no ones would be any more valid than anyone else’s.
To address the OP though I do not care one way or the other as when I proceed toward the Alter I am in prayer and humbling myself to receive My Lord and I do not watch those around me to see if they are ( IMO) show the correct amount of reverence. That is not my place to judge.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Doesn’t the Catechism address the Church’s infallible teachings?
Do you mean dogmas? It doesn’t all have to be dogma. A disciplinary decree can be binding without being solemnly declared infallible. As far as disagreement… Do you really believe that the Church’s teaching against ABC is open for debate, because some people disagree with it? Church teaching has always been clear on the matter… See Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana.
(Sorry if this wasn’t what you were asking about)
A
ac_claire
Guest
Doesn’t the Catechism address the Church’s infallible teachings?
Do you mean dogmas? It doesn’t all have to be dogma. A disciplinary decree can be binding without being solemnly declared infallible. As far as disagreement… Do you really believe that the Church’s teaching against ABC is open for debate, because some people disagree with it? Church teaching has always been clear on the matter… See Humanae Vitae and Persona Humana.
(Sorry if this wasn’t what you were asking about)
P
pnewton
Guest
While you and I are on opposite sides of many issues, I think you have a valid point here. It may be the very point that drives the Church back to a unified way of reception.
I know in the GIRM an emphasis is placed on uniformity of the laity. There is something to be said for having as much of the Mass as possible uniform and this is one area that could be made uniform.
S
stmaria
Guest
The Roman Catholic Church dogmas
From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm
J
JReducation
Guest
I wasn’t trying to prove that the tabernacle belongs in one place or another. I was trying to point out exactly what you’re saying. The Church gives options.
Nor was I trying to say that Pius was wrong. The Council Fathers and Canon Law have not said that. They have simply expanded what Pius said. Notice that the Council Fathers and Canon Law equally emphasize the importance of placing the tabernacle in a dignified place that leads the faithful to prayer and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.
What I was trying to do was to bring closure to the debate on this thread about where the tabernacle should be. There is no absolute answer on the matter.
The only absolute is that it must be in a place that is worthy of its dignity and available for public worship and that the tabernacle’s presence must not distract from the altar while the liturgy is celebrated.
There is also a strong support for leaving it in the centre of the Church, if it does not distract from the liturgy or if it’s not in a place where there is a constant flow of people.
The other concern is that older churches, which are truly works of art should not be damaged in an effort to move the tabernacle, as the Church considers these buildings of great historical and aesthetic importance.
Neither the Council nor Canon Law is proposing anything that is inconsistent with the reverence that the Blessed Sacrament deserves.
That being said, the final approval of all designs is up to the local Bishop. It is his job to ensure that the tabernacle is placed in a fitting location where it fulfills its purpose: a place to store the viaticum and a point of Eucharistic adoration. Bishops will not consecrate permanent churches that do not meet these requirements.
In houses of male religious orders of Pontifical right, this authrority is given to the major superior, because he is the ordinary, not the bishop. However, the major superior is bound to follow the rules of law and exceptions are made only if they are necessary in keeping with the charism of the order.
In our parish, the church is very small. It is a temporary arrangement (which has lasted 25 years), because we still don’t have the money to build the permanent church and we do not get much financial support from the diocese, as the property is owned by the order. The sanctuary is very small. The tabernacle is in the front, just right of the sanctuary. However, the entire wall has been beautifully done and there is no way that one can miss the tabernacle when you enter.
At the same time, the Brothers did a wonderful job with the optics using lighting. While the liturgy is being celebrated, the spot light on the tabernacle is off and the spot on the altar is on. It draws your eyes over to the altar where your attention should be during the liturgy.
These are just examples of how to preserve both the focus on the liturgy at the proper time and the reverence to the Eucharist in the tabernacle when there is no liturgy being celebrated.
Any other option that does not give proper reverence to the liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament is out of compliance with Church law and the Council.
That’s all I was trying to point out.
I hope this is clearer.
JR
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
My main point is that the things traditionalists and others sometimes disagree about, such as communion in the hand, altar girls, or changes to the liturgy, are not infallible teachings on Faith and Morals. They are non-infallible prudential decisions. If you want to argue that they are a part of infallible dogma then go ahead. St. Maria has posted a list of infallible dogma. I would also say again that discerning what is infallible dogma is not hard. If it’s a teaching on Faith or Morals that has always been taught by the Church then most likely it is going to be infallible dogma. Things like heaven, hell, purgatory, the Resurrection, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, homosexual acts, abortion, etc.
Even dissenting liberals most of the time recognize these things as part of dogma, they just (wrongly) disagree with them, which would essentially make them heretics.
J
JReducation
Guest
P
palmas85
Guest
From your post I can only assume that you were present at the Last Supper and were therefore and eyewitness to the entire thing. Otherwise how could you possibly know how Jesus distributed? As you may or may not know in ancient Judaism, it was quite common in very close groups for the Patriarch or leader to place a small morsel of each of the prescribed foods in the mouths of all present so it is quite possible that Christ did it that way. Noy saying He did, but there is the possibility that he did so.
As far as the early Church goes it has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum that what the early Christians received was generally NOT the same as we do today. Rather it was a substantial size loaf that after the ritual consumption, they then took home to consume throughout the week. A very logical reason to receive in the hand
From most accounts reception on the tongue was fairly common by the 3rd and 4th century in most areas although there was very little in the way of uniformity in the way things were done in those days.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Oh? Then what is this?
"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
- St. Thomas Aquinas,
Doctor of the Church - Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104
KYRIE ELEISON!
J
JReducation
Guest
Does everyone here remember that Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican Brother? Much of his writing is also influenced by the teachings of Dominic and Francis of Assisi. This statement that you have quoted appears in the writings of Dominic and Francis regarding obedience to the Guardians and Priors of the Brotherhood and to civil authority, word for word. It seems that Thomas borrowed it from their Rule.
Interestingly enough, Francis’ Rule of the Friars Minor and Dominic’s Constitution for the Order of Preachers also forbid the Brothers from disobeying even the most sinful bishop or pope. They both ordered their Brothers to obey the Pope because he is the legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Dominic and Francis mandated, under penalty of eternal damnation that the brothers obey the Pope in all things, because even though he may be the most vile of creatures it is impossible for him to speak against the Holy Spirit. As to bishops, they were to obey them in all things that were outside of the Holy Rule approved by the Pope (who obviously outranks the Bishop) as successors of the Apostles’
It is unlikely that a Dominican Brother, who was very close to Dominic, Francis and Bonaventure, would make a blanket statement that included the Pope, when it was contrary to the rule of his order. We must remember to take Aquinas within the context of his time and his Dominican spirituality.
Given that Aquinas was not only a theologian and philosopher, but also a very saintly Dominican Brother, it is unlikely that he would make statements that negated or ignored the rule he promised to obey and in fact did obey until he died. At his canonization his sanctity was judged not on his writing, but on the way that he lived as a Dominican and a Christian.
It is unlikely that Dominic or Francis would have interpreted this statement by Thomas to apply to the Pope. Therefore, it equally unlikely that Thomas would have overruled Dominic’s mandate in the Constitutions of the Brother Preachers. It is more likely that he would be consistent with Dominic’s mandate and that he saw Dominic’s mandate as logical and good, thus including it in his writings.
JR
A
ac_claire
Guest
come on, are you serious?!
He’s saying we aren’t bound to obedience when a superior is leading us to sin, or to break the law. He’s not saying that you’re allowed to reject Church teaching because it doesn’t conform to your own personal opinions.
You can’t be more Catholic than the pope, pw.
P
piouswoman
Guest
I have to laugh to myself when people try to explain away a truth…that is a perfect example of the modernists mind…it is filled with mush…Does everyone here remember that Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican Brother? Much of his writing is also influenced by the teachings of Dominic and Francis of Assisi. This statement that you have quoted appears in the writings of Dominic and Francis regarding obedience to the Guardians and Priors of the Brotherhood and to civil authority, word for word. It seems that Thomas borrowed it from their Rule.
Interestingly enough, Francis’ Rule of the Friars Minor and Dominic’s Constitution for the Order of Preachers also forbid the Brothers from disobeying even the most sinful bishop or pope. They both ordered their Brothers to obey the Pope because he is the legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Dominic and Francis mandated, under penalty of eternal damnation that the brothers obey the Pope in all things, because even though he may be the most vile of creatures it is impossible for him to speak against the Holy Spirit. As to bishops, they were to obey them in all things that were outside of the Holy Rule approved by the Pope (who obviously outranks the Bishop) as successors of the Apostles’
It is unlikely that a Dominican Brother, who was very close to Dominic, Francis and Bonaventure, would make a blanket statement that included the Pope, when it was contrary to the rule of his order. We must remember to take Aquinas within the context of his time and his Dominican spirituality.
Given that Aquinas was not only a theologian and philosopher, but also a very saintly Dominican Brother, it is unlikely that he would make statements that negated or ignored the rule he promised to obey and in fact did obey until he died. At his canonization his sanctity was judged not on his writing, but on the way that he lived as a Dominican and a Christian.
JR
According to the great theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, true obedience is a balance between twin errors of defect and excess, which are disobedience and false obedience (IIaIIae, Q104,5 ad 3). Today this second error is common among Catholics who, when they follow orders to depart from Tradition, think they are being obedient.
TRUTHS CANNOT CHANGE!
KYRIE ELEISON!
- Status