E
Edward_H
Guest
Who are you to judge?
- Status
P
phil19034
Guest
which is still not common in many parishes. 
S
Spyridon
Guest
Nobody, doesn’t change the fact thats a ridiculous thing to say.
Oh yeah guy, the HORROR of the laity praying to God and singing hymns and psalms… the unspeakable horror. Literally worse than the holocaust.
Any layman praying the LOTH is literally Hitler.
Oh yeah guy, the HORROR of the laity praying to God and singing hymns and psalms… the unspeakable horror. Literally worse than the holocaust.
Any layman praying the LOTH is literally Hitler.
P
phil19034
Guest
funny… when I attend a parish run buy Capuchin friars, there are always far more lay people praying the Evening Prayer than Friars.
E
Edward_H
Guest
It’s not ridiculous to point out a general clericalizing is underway…robes, minister titles.
This point may slip by you, but the real problem is that most lay don’t realize what a lay vocation is, and how to go about integrating their faith into their lay life, truly.
Most think God and they think Sunday! Or priests.
I’ll ignore your too frequent recourse to the “Hilter” language. That’s a sign of something.
This point may slip by you, but the real problem is that most lay don’t realize what a lay vocation is, and how to go about integrating their faith into their lay life, truly.
Most think God and they think Sunday! Or priests.
I’ll ignore your too frequent recourse to the “Hilter” language. That’s a sign of something.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Wait.
I am not suggesting that LOTH can’t be said by the lay. Not at all.
I am pointing out that many lay…don’t know how other they should pray…so they do what priests are required to do.
I am rejecting that the lay have to or should follow what the priests do.
Properly understood the LOTH is PART OF THE ONGOING liturgy that the Church celebrates…it’s “fills up” what gaps we might have between Masses, if you will so that our prayer as a Church is constant.
It’s a FORMAL part of the LITURGY itself.
But that doesn’t mean the lay need or should pray it
I am not suggesting that LOTH can’t be said by the lay. Not at all.
I am pointing out that many lay…don’t know how other they should pray…so they do what priests are required to do.
I am rejecting that the lay have to or should follow what the priests do.
Properly understood the LOTH is PART OF THE ONGOING liturgy that the Church celebrates…it’s “fills up” what gaps we might have between Masses, if you will so that our prayer as a Church is constant.
It’s a FORMAL part of the LITURGY itself.
But that doesn’t mean the lay need or should pray it
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
https://divineoffice.org/ was offering a great app that was very popular until they got in trouble for not having the proper licenses.
The Liturgy of the Hours has nothing to do with ministries. The Church is clear in its magisterial teaching: it’s not the exclusive realm of clerics, but for all the faithful including the lay.
You shouldn’t bring up extraordinary ministries when the discussion is about the Divine Office. Calling it “clericalization” is wrong. It’s rather, the laity for centuries have been deprived of what has also been rightfully theirs, and now have access to it again. It’s not about playing priest, but praying the Prayer of the Church according to their office and station in life.
You shouldn’t bring up extraordinary ministries when the discussion is about the Divine Office. Calling it “clericalization” is wrong. It’s rather, the laity for centuries have been deprived of what has also been rightfully theirs, and now have access to it again. It’s not about playing priest, but praying the Prayer of the Church according to their office and station in life.
Well that’s what it sounds like. You stuck in the word “clericalization” in the context of the discussion of the Liturgy of the Hours and brought up the extraordinary ministries. How else did you expect us to interpret your words? At the very least, you imply, very strongly, that it’s a bad idea. Well here’s news: Holy Mother Church teaches (TEACHES!) us otherwise.
Yes, it is indeed a formal component of the Liturgy, which is what makes it so great. And further, all that’s needed is the universal priesthood of the baptized. Contrary to what some think, it remains Liturgy even when celebrated solely among laity, or even alone. I’ve said this before: a lot here push the Rosary as the greatest prayer besides the Mass. I push back: the honour actually belongs to the Liturgy of the Hours.
Of course the laity need not pray it, if they’re not bound. But what a lot of us find a joy is praying it PRECISELY because we’re not bound to it. We therefore see and cherish it as a gift given by Holy Mother Church to offer her Prayer according to our state of life, and I daresay, carries merit because we don’t do it under pain of sin.
Last edited:
And further, to lay to rest the nonsense that somehow laity praying the Hours is “clericalization”:
Emphasis mine.
- Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.
Emphasis mine.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
I don’t want to argue. I’m just tired of hearing the whole “Vatican II really made the Divine Office accessible to the laity” spiel. Most modern Catholics don’t even know what the Divine Office is!
Last edited:
Yeah. But a lot of us do.
What would you say, then about us who DO know, cherish and love the Liturgy of the Hours?
Vatican II DID make the Divine Office more accessible. That others don’t care to know, learn, or pray it is another matter entirely. But it’s there for the taking.
I, and others I’m sure, don’t understand why you and others are so negative about this.
What would you say, then about us who DO know, cherish and love the Liturgy of the Hours?
Vatican II DID make the Divine Office more accessible. That others don’t care to know, learn, or pray it is another matter entirely. But it’s there for the taking.
I, and others I’m sure, don’t understand why you and others are so negative about this.
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
My favorite example of this would have to be “altar girls” in cassocks! Unbelievable!
This thread is not about altar girls in cassocks. Drop it. Stick to the Liturgy of the Hours for laity.Edward_H:
My favorite example of this would have to be “altar girls” in cassocks! Unbelievable!
Last edited:
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
It all goes hand in hand with the clericalization of the laity.
S
Spyridon
Guest
I’m with ya 100% good buddy @porthos11
Last edited:
Which is also NOT what this thread is about, and again, the Liturgy of the Hours is not “clericalizing” the laity.porthos11:
It all goes hand in hand with the clericalization of the laity.
So again, unless you want to discuss the Liturgy of the Hours as prayed by laity, drop the “clericalization” and altar girls complaints. That’s not what this thread is about.
Vatican II is very clear about the value of the Liturgy of the Hours in the life of laity as well as clerics.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
In Mediator Dei (1947), Pope Pius XII describe those who are to pray the Divine Office as such:
“The divine office is the prayer of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, offered to God in the name and on behalf of all Christians, when recited by priests and other ministers of the Church and by religious who are deputed by the Church for this”
The Second Vatican Council disregarded the magisterium of Pius XII on this point, as well as on many other liturgical points in favor of novelty.
“The divine office is the prayer of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, offered to God in the name and on behalf of all Christians, when recited by priests and other ministers of the Church and by religious who are deputed by the Church for this”
The Second Vatican Council disregarded the magisterium of Pius XII on this point, as well as on many other liturgical points in favor of novelty.
Last edited:
So now you’re pitting one Magisterial document against another?
What Pius is writing is true and remains true. Priests and who have received the mandate of the Divine Office exercise the function of praying in the name of the Church, as her ministers. Laity, who do not possess the character of Holy Orders or the mandate, do not offer the Divine Office in the same capacity as official intercessors.
Vatican II does not contradict that, but still offers it to the laity so that they can pray the Prayer of the Church in their official capacities as baptized Christians. That station is to join in the prayer of praise sung by the Church. THAT is their function, and THAT is their office, and yet they still offer the Official Prayer of the Church.
I assure you: if you are pitting Vatican II against previous Magisterium, the problem is not with Vatican II, with Pius XII, or the Church.
What Pius is writing is true and remains true. Priests and who have received the mandate of the Divine Office exercise the function of praying in the name of the Church, as her ministers. Laity, who do not possess the character of Holy Orders or the mandate, do not offer the Divine Office in the same capacity as official intercessors.
Vatican II does not contradict that, but still offers it to the laity so that they can pray the Prayer of the Church in their official capacities as baptized Christians. That station is to join in the prayer of praise sung by the Church. THAT is their function, and THAT is their office, and yet they still offer the Official Prayer of the Church.
I assure you: if you are pitting Vatican II against previous Magisterium, the problem is not with Vatican II, with Pius XII, or the Church.
R
R_H_Benson
Guest
More from Mediator Dei:
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
My emphasis.
Table altars? No more black vestments? Interesting.
Last edited:
- Status