P
piouswoman
Guest
Are you?
When a chuch leader teaches error, you must reject it, it is your duty as a Catholic.
LET US HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH!
KYRIE ELEISON!
- Status
When a chuch leader teaches error, you must reject it, it is your duty as a Catholic.
LET US HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH!
KYRIE ELEISON!
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
To get back to the thread . . .
Communion in the hand is an indult, not a mandate. No one is forcing anyone who does not want to do so to receive communion in the hand.
As to the application of the indult, the Conference of Bishops decides whether to make use of the indult or not. However, they do not demand that the individual faithful do so.
While I was on mission in South America, the local Conference of Bishops made an interesting declaration. They did not make use of the indult, but declared that given the fact that many Catholics from other countries lived and worshipped within the local Catholic Church, that they should not be denied communion in the hand, if they presented themselves with the proper reverence. It was their belief that to do so could cause a distraction by calling attention to something that was, to a degree, less important than the reception Christ’s Body and Blood by the faithful and the unity of the faithful in the Eucharist, rather than the form. Thus, many foreigners adapted to communion in the mouth and others held out their hands. The mass flowed with dignity and solemnity.
I also saw the same when attending Mid-night mass at the Vatican. While the rule at the Vatican is communion in the mouth, if a person held out their hands, the priests and deacons gave the person communion. The sacredness of the liturgy and the proper reverence for reception of the Sacrament is of greater importance. When you attend mass at the Vatican, presided by the Pope, they give you a booklet with the rules. They do not forbid communion in the hand. During John Paul’s reign they reminded the visitors that the Holy Father always distributed communion in the mouth so that those who received communion from him would be prepared. They didn’t make it an issue.
What is very clearly forbidden is that communion must be received from the priest, deacon or acolyte (if necessary). But the laity, even Eucharistic ministers, may not help themselves to communion from the sacred vessels.
I fail to see why we’re making a point of contention out of something that the Holy Father is not. There are recommendations on the table regarding this matter. The Congregation of the Liturgy will take those recommendations under consideration and give the Holy Father their suggestions. Why can’t we wait and see what happens?
Sometimes it feels as if we all want to be authorities in Church matters. It’s like the old saying goes, “too many chiefs and not enough Indians.”
JR
Communion in the hand is an indult, not a mandate. No one is forcing anyone who does not want to do so to receive communion in the hand.
As to the application of the indult, the Conference of Bishops decides whether to make use of the indult or not. However, they do not demand that the individual faithful do so.
While I was on mission in South America, the local Conference of Bishops made an interesting declaration. They did not make use of the indult, but declared that given the fact that many Catholics from other countries lived and worshipped within the local Catholic Church, that they should not be denied communion in the hand, if they presented themselves with the proper reverence. It was their belief that to do so could cause a distraction by calling attention to something that was, to a degree, less important than the reception Christ’s Body and Blood by the faithful and the unity of the faithful in the Eucharist, rather than the form. Thus, many foreigners adapted to communion in the mouth and others held out their hands. The mass flowed with dignity and solemnity.
I also saw the same when attending Mid-night mass at the Vatican. While the rule at the Vatican is communion in the mouth, if a person held out their hands, the priests and deacons gave the person communion. The sacredness of the liturgy and the proper reverence for reception of the Sacrament is of greater importance. When you attend mass at the Vatican, presided by the Pope, they give you a booklet with the rules. They do not forbid communion in the hand. During John Paul’s reign they reminded the visitors that the Holy Father always distributed communion in the mouth so that those who received communion from him would be prepared. They didn’t make it an issue.
What is very clearly forbidden is that communion must be received from the priest, deacon or acolyte (if necessary). But the laity, even Eucharistic ministers, may not help themselves to communion from the sacred vessels.
I fail to see why we’re making a point of contention out of something that the Holy Father is not. There are recommendations on the table regarding this matter. The Congregation of the Liturgy will take those recommendations under consideration and give the Holy Father their suggestions. Why can’t we wait and see what happens?
Sometimes it feels as if we all want to be authorities in Church matters. It’s like the old saying goes, “too many chiefs and not enough Indians.”
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Are you trying to say that I’m a modernist and that my mind is filled with mush?
I was simply stating a fact, not denying any truth.
The truth is that one can use any Doctor of the Church to support anything one wishes to support, if you take him out of context.
Realize, that Aquinas is not the only Doctor of the Church, nor the only great theologian of his time. What happened to Bonaventure? Many of our teachings are based on Bonaventurian theology. Many are based on the theology of Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila or Robert Bellarmine.
To say that this is absolute, because Aquinas said so is risky, unless you first check to make sure that what he said is official church teaching.
Aquinas also said that masturbation was a sin, because there was a tiny human being in the human semen. He also had difficulty with the Immaculate Conception, whereas Bonaventure defines it clearly. The definition of the Immaculate Conception that the Catholic Church uses is Bonaventure’s not Aquinas’. The Church felt that Bonaventure has a better handle on it.
Bonaventure believes that the approach to Christ is through the heart and Aquinas is through reason. The Church adopted both positions.
As you can see, I’m just putting Aquinas in perspective.
He is more than likely speaking of authority, not including the Pope, because this would have been inconsistent with his Dominican charism. If we read Aquinas and Dominic, we see much of Dominic in Aquinas. No one argues that Aquinas was a greater theologian and no one is saying that he was deceptive.
Mine is neither a modernist or traditionalist approach to Aquinas. Terms such as modernist and traditionalist only serve to divide rather than unite. There is good and errors on both sides of this line. Neither side has a monopoly on truth or error.
JR
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Ah, yes, the mush of the modern mind, as explained by Bishop Williamson. He spoke a lot of truth in that video.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
Do you believe every Catholic determines for themselves what is Truth and what is error. If not, then what rock of stability does one have to know they are right and Pope X, or Bishop X is wrong? If it is every Catholic for themselves, then you are proposing a variant of sola scriptura, only instead of the Bible being everyone’s individual guide, each Catholic decides for themselves how to interpret the Bible, Church councils, Church fathers, the writings of the Saints, Papal documents…
And you call us the cafeteria?
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
A
ac_claire
Guest
It looks like the cafeteria isn’t closed, after all.
We’re not talking about a “church leader” who is teaching an error. We’re talking about the Pope - several popes, actually- and a Church council, Vatican II-- which it appears you reject. Correct me if I’m wrong. How do you know when the Church is teaching error? By what/who’s standards do you hold the Church to?
I sincerely don’t understand how you can reconcile the beliefs you hold. On one hand you seem to be a traditional, orthodox Catholic. On the other hand, you’re saying that ultimately it’s up to you to judge if any Church teachings are valid or not.
A separate question for you: do you reject the actual decrees of Vatican II or the abuses that have taken place since then in the supposed “spirit of Vatican II”?
B
Brother_John
Guest
Yippee Skippee…SolO Scriptura rears it’s ugly head
P
piouswoman
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
What I’m seeing here is that error seems to be decided by those who do not have the authority to define it. If and when a pope teaches error, the only other infallible source that we have is the bishops united as one voice. That is part of Church doctrine. The bishops of have not spoken thus about any pope in recent history.
Also, the issues that we’re discussing are not issues of dogma, they are issues of discipline. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that one pope cannot change a discipline that another pope puts in place.
Let’s get away from communion in the hand and the Tridentine Mass for a moment. Let’s talk about celibacy for the priests in the Latin rite. If tomorrow Benedict XVI decided to change this law, he has the authority to do so. There have already been exceptions made for married ministers who convert to Catholicism to be ordained and remain married in the Latin rite. Married men can be ordained deacons. This was prohibited by previous church discipline. However, it has been allowed by current church discipline.
There is a rule in Church discipline that says that non-Catholics cannot receive communion at a Catholic mass. However, Benedict XVI gave Tony Blair communion before he converted. He said that it was the charitable thing to do and that Blair met the basic requirements for the reception of the Eucharist.
It seems to me that what some are calling traditionalism is really slavery. They’re not arguing about the doctrines of faith such as Christ’s divinity and his redemptive work, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the Trinity or the efficaciousness of the sacraments. They are arguing about things that are not in the canon of dogma, which are really subject to the authority of the Church.
To say that the Church cannot change the way that we distribute communion, practice ecumenism, and celebrate the liturgy or the rituals for celebrating the sacraments is to try to enslave the Church in her own disciplines. It’s like saying that once something is made into law it cannot be changed or exceptions cannot be granted.
This is the same rule of law that some of the Jewish leaders wanted to impose on Jesus and his disciples. This was when Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus was pointing out the faith is the rule that governs, not law. The purpose of the law is to support the practice of faith. The law is not the object of faith. While something is law we are bound to obey it, unless it defies a dogma. What dogma did Vatican II or Popes John XXIII thru Benedict XVI violate? Every dogma is still in place.
If you want to complain about those who stretched the rules or who disobeyed the rules handed down since Vatican II, you can and those are legitimate complaints. The rules themselves haven’t violated any dogma.
In addition, let’s not forget that there was one important dogmatic document that came out of Vatican II that many on the left and right have violated, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. The Constitution made it very clear where the authority lays and who has the power to do what. It does not give authority to any one individual other than the Pope. Aside from him, the bishops must act as one body, not independently. According the Constitution, the bishops exercise their ministry in communion with the Pope, not instead of the Pope.
As to Canon Law, let’s keep things in perspective. Canon Law is subject to the Pope, not the other way around. Every revision of Canon Law, even those laws that refer to the Pope, must have his approval for validity. Remember when the voting age of the Cardinals was lowered. This was added to Canon Law with the Pope’s approval. The Church is not a democracy with a President and a Congress, much less a court of lay people who play supreme justices.
Before you condemn you must follow the rules and get the competent authorities to declare the condemnation of the Pope’s actions or teachings.
JR
Also, the issues that we’re discussing are not issues of dogma, they are issues of discipline. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that one pope cannot change a discipline that another pope puts in place.
Let’s get away from communion in the hand and the Tridentine Mass for a moment. Let’s talk about celibacy for the priests in the Latin rite. If tomorrow Benedict XVI decided to change this law, he has the authority to do so. There have already been exceptions made for married ministers who convert to Catholicism to be ordained and remain married in the Latin rite. Married men can be ordained deacons. This was prohibited by previous church discipline. However, it has been allowed by current church discipline.
There is a rule in Church discipline that says that non-Catholics cannot receive communion at a Catholic mass. However, Benedict XVI gave Tony Blair communion before he converted. He said that it was the charitable thing to do and that Blair met the basic requirements for the reception of the Eucharist.
It seems to me that what some are calling traditionalism is really slavery. They’re not arguing about the doctrines of faith such as Christ’s divinity and his redemptive work, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the Trinity or the efficaciousness of the sacraments. They are arguing about things that are not in the canon of dogma, which are really subject to the authority of the Church.
To say that the Church cannot change the way that we distribute communion, practice ecumenism, and celebrate the liturgy or the rituals for celebrating the sacraments is to try to enslave the Church in her own disciplines. It’s like saying that once something is made into law it cannot be changed or exceptions cannot be granted.
This is the same rule of law that some of the Jewish leaders wanted to impose on Jesus and his disciples. This was when Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus was pointing out the faith is the rule that governs, not law. The purpose of the law is to support the practice of faith. The law is not the object of faith. While something is law we are bound to obey it, unless it defies a dogma. What dogma did Vatican II or Popes John XXIII thru Benedict XVI violate? Every dogma is still in place.
If you want to complain about those who stretched the rules or who disobeyed the rules handed down since Vatican II, you can and those are legitimate complaints. The rules themselves haven’t violated any dogma.
In addition, let’s not forget that there was one important dogmatic document that came out of Vatican II that many on the left and right have violated, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. The Constitution made it very clear where the authority lays and who has the power to do what. It does not give authority to any one individual other than the Pope. Aside from him, the bishops must act as one body, not independently. According the Constitution, the bishops exercise their ministry in communion with the Pope, not instead of the Pope.
As to Canon Law, let’s keep things in perspective. Canon Law is subject to the Pope, not the other way around. Every revision of Canon Law, even those laws that refer to the Pope, must have his approval for validity. Remember when the voting age of the Cardinals was lowered. This was added to Canon Law with the Pope’s approval. The Church is not a democracy with a President and a Congress, much less a court of lay people who play supreme justices.
Before you condemn you must follow the rules and get the competent authorities to declare the condemnation of the Pope’s actions or teachings.
JR
B
Brother_John
Guest
Thank You
:tiphat:
:tiphat:
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
JR,What I’m seeing here is that error seems to be decided by those who do not have the authority to define it. If and when a pope teaches error, the only other infallible source that we have is the bishops united as one voice. That is part of Church doctrine. The bishops of have not spoken thus about any pope in recent history.
Also, the issues that we’re discussing are not issues of dogma, they are issues of discipline. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that one pope cannot change a discipline that another pope puts in place.
Let’s get away from communion in the hand and the Tridentine Mass for a moment. Let’s talk about celibacy for the priests in the Latin rite. If tomorrow Benedict XVI decided to change this law, he has the authority to do so. There have already been exceptions made for married ministers who convert to Catholicism to be ordained and remain married in the Latin rite. Married men can be ordained deacons. This was prohibited by previous church discipline. However, it has been allowed by current church discipline.
There is a rule in Church discipline that says that non-Catholics cannot receive communion at a Catholic mass. However, Benedict XVI gave Tony Blair communion before he converted. He said that it was the charitable thing to do and that Blair met the basic requirements for the reception of the Eucharist.
It seems to me that what some are calling traditionalism is really slavery. They’re not arguing about the doctrines of faith such as Christ’s divinity and his redemptive work, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, the Trinity or the efficaciousness of the sacraments. They are arguing about things that are not in the canon of dogma, which are really subject to the authority of the Church.
To say that the Church cannot change the way that we distribute communion, practice ecumenism, and celebrate the liturgy or the rituals for celebrating the sacraments is to try to enslave the Church in her own disciplines. It’s like saying that once something is made into law it cannot be changed or exceptions cannot be granted.
This is the same rule of law that some of the Jewish leaders wanted to impose on Jesus and his disciples. This was when Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Jesus was pointing out the faith is the rule that governs, not law. The purpose of the law is to support the practice of faith. The law is not the object of faith. While something is law we are bound to obey it, unless it defies a dogma. What dogma did Vatican II or Popes John XXIII thru Benedict XVI violate? Every dogma is still in place.
If you want to complain about those who stretched the rules or who disobeyed the rules handed down since Vatican II, you can and those are legitimate complaints. The rules themselves haven’t violated any dogma.
In addition, let’s not forget that there was one important dogmatic document that came out of Vatican II that many on the left and right have violated, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. The Constitution made it very clear where the authority lays and who has the power to do what. It does not give authority to any one individual other than the Pope. Aside from him, the bishops must act as one body, not independently. According the Constitution, the bishops exercise their ministry in communion with the Pope, not instead of the Pope.
As to Canon Law, let’s keep things in perspective. Canon Law is subject to the Pope, not the other way around. Every revision of Canon Law, even those laws that refer to the Pope, must have his approval for validity. Remember when the voting age of the Cardinals was lowered. This was added to Canon Law with the Pope’s approval. The Church is not a democracy with a President and a Congress, much less a court of lay people who play supreme justices.
Before you condemn you must follow the rules and get the competent authorities to declare the condemnation of the Pope’s actions or teachings.
JR
I agree with much of what you say. The only distinction I would make is that the traditionalist authors I read recognize the Pope’s authority to change disciplines. Hence, I don’t think communion in the hand is a good idea, but I recognize the Pope’s authority over the discipline. The same for clerical celibacy and other disciplines, including the liturgy.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is nothing wrong with saying that something is not a good idea. That doesn’t make one a traditionalist. I believe that term should never have been adopted by Catholics. It’s almost a carryover from politics, conservatives vs liberals. It creates a two party system within what is only one Church.
That being said, one may make legitimate statements and respectuflly present them. Then you sit back and obey.
Remember Catherine of Sienna? Didn’t she tell the Pope that it was not a good idea for him to remain at Avignon and advised him to return to Rome? However, she did not insult his office or his choice. She made her argument.
Remember Francis of Assisi? Didn’t he present Honorious and Innocent III with a petition for a more ascetical form of religious life? At first they approved it and then they asked him to rewrite his rule and make some allowances that Francis didn’t like. He made his case and then obeyed.
In modern times the Latin American Church tried to impress Paul VI and John Paul II with the appropriateness of liberation theology. Paul allowed Juan Luis Segundo to write his Liberation Theology. Eventually, John Paul II said it sounded too much like Marxism and told Segundo to stop. The Latin American bishops withrew their support of Liberation Theology. Some didn’t like the discipline that John Paul imposed, but they obeyed.
There are always going to be points where one side or another is going to say, “This is not a good idea.” The dialogue begins and a conclusion is reached.
The Sacred Congregation for Religious Life has been engaged in dialogue with Pontifical religious communities over issues such as governance, habits, ministry, fidelity to the charism of their founders for 40 years. The dialogue continues. In many cases conclusions and agreements have been reached and in others there are still issues on the table.
Recently the Franciscans rewrote their Constitution to reflect the rule that St. Francis had given them. They took out the old discipline that only those Franciscans who are priests could be superiors. They also asked Rome to allow them to go back to the original title Brother for all Franciscans, instead of Father for those friars who are priests. They did this because Francis was not a priest and he did not want any of his Brothers to be called Father, even those who were priests. He was the only one who could be called Father, because he was the founder. In fact his full title is Holy Father St. Francis. Many people in Franciscan parishes thought this was a bad idea, because they had gotten used to the term the Franciscan Fathers or the Franciscan Monks, when in fact they were neither an order of priests nor an order of monks. They are an order of Brothers. The Sacred Congregation saw that this was in keeping with Francis’ desires and approved the change. They were authorized to use either the English term Franciscan Brothers or the Latin term Franciscan Friars. There are people who do not like this change in discipline and externals. But no one is pointing the finger at the Pope, the Franciscans or the Sacred Congregation on Religious Life and calling them heretics for wanting to return to the original wishes of St. Francis.
You may disagree with communion in the hand without fear of being out of compliance with the Church. I have had a hard time getting used to female altar servers. But neither is essential to the faith of the Church. Therefore, I do not panic that the Church is going to fall apart for it. I recognize that it’s me who has the problem, not the Church. I bite the bullet. On the other hand, I like the changes that were allowed to the Franciscans, because it is consistent with the will of their founder.
Even Paul told Peter that it was not a good idea to exclude the Gentiles. Eventually, Peter got it. The Church doesn’t always have good ideas, just truth. It has a history of very bad ideas, but a consistent history of truth when it comes to dogma. Even in morals, the Church has revised some of its ideas. Look at what is needed for a valid marriage. There have been changes in that area as we learn more about human behaviour and human development. But the essential doctrine on marriage has been kept intact, only the requirements for getting married have been changed.
To close I’ll share one of the more humorous bad ideas in the area of morals. This is actually true. When the Europeans first introduced coffee from the Americas to Europe, the Pope said that it was so delicious that it was sensual. For a while he held that it was too sensual to be good for the soul. I can’t remember who it was, but it was one of the popes during the conquest of Latin America. Imagine banning coffee on moral grounds (pun intended). That would have been a very bad idea. LOL
I’m not sure if this makes sense. I hope it does.
JR
PS. As a Catholic I find it more appropriate to say I like this tradition and I like this change. Because I do like some traditions and I also like some of the changes. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a Catholic, not a member of a political party. Tradtion with an upper case T is another story. That’s part of revelation.
T
TMC
Guest
I think the Church’s teachings on ABC are open to debate and being debated. The Church has always taught that marriage should be open to life and that everyone should be open to God’s will. The specifics in HV have not been declared infallible. I agree that all of the catechism in binding on all Catholics, and that to disagree with the catechism is to dissent from the Church. But one can debate and discuss the teachings. But we are drifting pretty far here.
A
Alexios
Guest
When will the belief end that one must obey the Pope in everything to be truly Catholic? Talk about papolatry! Not every word and opinion from a Pope is some divinely-inspired gift from God, people. That should be abundantly clear from numerous pontificates, including those of Paul VI and John Paul II.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
JR,There is nothing wrong with saying that something is not a good idea. That doesn’t make one a traditionalist. I believe that term should never have been adopted by Catholics. It’s almost a carryover from politics, conservatives vs liberals. It creates a two party system within what is only one Church.
That being said, one may make legitimate statements and respectuflly present them. Then you sit back and obey.
Remember Catherine of Sienna? Didn’t she tell the Pope that it was not a good idea for him to remain at Avignon and advised him to return to Rome? However, she did not insult his office or his choice. She made her argument.
Remember Francis of Assisi? Didn’t he present Honorious and Innocent III with a petition for a more ascetical form of religious life? At first they approved it and then they asked him to rewrite his rule and make some allowances that Francis didn’t like. He made his case and then obeyed.
In modern times the Latin American Church tried to impress Paul VI and John Paul II with the appropriateness of liberation theology. Paul allowed Juan Luis Segundo to write his Liberation Theology. Eventually, John Paul II said it sounded too much like Marxism and told Segundo to stop. The Latin American bishops withrew their support of Liberation Theology. Some didn’t like the discipline that John Paul imposed, but they obeyed.
There are always going to be points where one side or another is going to say, “This is not a good idea.” The dialogue begins and a conclusion is reached.
The Sacred Congregation for Religious Life has been engaged in dialogue with Pontifical religious communities over issues such as governance, habits, ministry, fidelity to the charism of their founders for 40 years. The dialogue continues. In many cases conclusions and agreements have been reached and in others there are still issues on the table.
Recently the Franciscans rewrote their Constitution to reflect the rule that St. Francis had given them. They took out the old discipline that only those Franciscans who are priests could be superiors. They also asked Rome to allow them to go back to the original title Brother for all Franciscans, instead of Father for those friars who are priests. They did this because Francis was not a priest and he did not want any of his Brothers to be called Father, even those who were priests. He was the only one who could be called Father, because he was the founder. In fact his full title is Holy Father St. Francis. Many people in Franciscan parishes thought this was a bad idea, because they had gotten used to the term the Franciscan Fathers or the Franciscan Monks, when in fact they were neither an order of priests nor an order of monks. They are an order of Brothers. The Sacred Congregation saw that this was in keeping with Francis’ desires and approved the change. They were authorized to use either the English term Franciscan Brothers or the Latin term Franciscan Friars. There are people who do not like this change in discipline and externals. But no one is pointing the finger at the Pope, the Franciscans or the Sacred Congregation on Religious Life and calling them heretics for wanting to return to the original wishes of St. Francis.
You may disagree with communion in the hand without fear of being out of compliance with the Church. I have had a hard time getting used to female altar servers. But neither is essential to the faith of the Church. Therefore, I do not panic that the Church is going to fall apart for it. I recognize that it’s me who has the problem, not the Church. I bite the bullet. On the other hand, I like the changes that were allowed to the Franciscans, because it is consistent with the will of their founder.
Even Paul told Peter that it was not a good idea to exclude the Gentiles. Eventually, Peter got it. The Church doesn’t always have good ideas, just truth. It has a history of very bad ideas, but a consistent history of truth when it comes to dogma. Even in morals, the Church has revised some of its ideas. Look at what is needed for a valid marriage. There have been changes in that area as we learn more about human behaviour and human development. But the essential doctrine on marriage has been kept intact, only the requirements for getting married have been changed.
To close I’ll share one of the more humorous bad ideas in the area of morals. This is actually true. When the Europeans first introduced coffee from the Americas to Europe, the Pope said that it was so delicious that it was sensual. For a while he held that it was too sensual to be good for the soul. I can’t remember who it was, but it was one of the popes during the conquest of Latin America. Imagine banning coffee on moral grounds (pun intended). That would have been a very bad idea. LOL
I’m not sure if this makes sense. I hope it does.
JR
PS. As a Catholic I find it more appropriate to say I like this tradition and I like this change. Because I do like some traditions and I also like some of the changes. As far as I’m concerned, I’m a Catholic, not a member of a political party. Tradtion with an upper case T is another story. That’s part of revelation.
I agree with much of what you say. And naturally, I don’t think any traditionalist should insult the Pope or his office. I do think the divisions that exist, say between traditionalists and conservatives are real, regardless of what labels one does or does not use. And will continue to exist as long as the liturgical (and other) situations remain the same (though I do think the MP definitely helps).
J
JReducation
Guest
Let me begin at the end of your post. The MP certainly helps.
What I find disturbing is that people can’t seem to separate dogma from discipline, liturgical reform from efficaciousness of the sacrament, and so forth.
Those who are prophesying doom and damnation over changes in form, rather than content are doing more harm than good. As I said above, there is no law or rule that says one cannot disagree or that one has to like everything.
Then there are those who attack the dissenters at a pesonal level instead of addressing their disagreement with charity. That’s equally wrong.
What should have been an open dialogue on form has turned into a moral war. People don’t realize that when they do this they develop tunnel vision. They run the risk of ignoring all of the good and beauty in the Church and the world.
JR
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I don’t really know of any traditionalist that has difficulty separating dogma from discipline or liturgical reform from efficaciousness of the sacrament. Thus almost any traditionalist I will read will state that the Novus Ordo is valid even if they object to aspects of the reform.Let me begin at the end of your post. The MP certainly helps.
What I find disturbing is that people can’t seem to separate dogma from discipline, liturgical reform from efficaciousness of the sacrament, and so forth.
Those who are prophesying doom and damnation over changes in form, rather than content are doing more harm than good. As I said above, there is no law or rule that says one cannot disagree or that one has to like everything.
Then there are those who attack the dissenters at a pesonal level instead of addressing their disagreement with charity. That’s equally wrong.
What should have been an open dialogue on form has turned into a moral war. People don’t realize that when they do this they develop tunnel vision. They run the risk of ignoring all of the good and beauty in the Church and the world.
JR
I would also assert, if I understand you correctly, that the changes to the liturgy are changes in both form and content. Form as in the rubrics and content in that a quite a number of prayers were dropped, altered, or added. And of course I would assert that authors who write on this subject such as Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in the article in my signature link below), Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. Brian Harrison, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, etc. are doing far more good than harm as they are being honest and accurate about the liturgical reforms. And since the law of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is still in effect their arguments are quite important.
I would further say that one of the reasons traditionalists (and others) want certain traditions (liturgical and others) restored is precisely so that the beauty of the Church can be made manifest to a seeking world and thus draw in potential converts, and edify the souls of Catholics.
I agree that dialogue is good. I would say that even argument is good, but not quarreling or ad hominem attacks (which you have not engaged in).
God bless.
- Status