Los Angeles Religious Education Conference 2006 / Dancers Deluxe

[buffalo]

frommi:

This is not DOCTRINE…its a pastoral document dealing with matters of liturgical practice…but I’d hardly call it doctrinal.

So?. It is clear who has the authority to regulate the liturgy. It is clear what is reprobated. It is clear how to register complaints.

Did the Pope by approving and ordering its publication violate a dcoctrine of the Church?

 

[frommi]

msproule:

Excellent point! In the same line of thought, why would a Bishop continue to defy easy-to-interpret instructions, knowing that such actions will lead to controversy and distraction from what is truly important…honoring God?

I imagine one must devote a lot of time and effort to be so defiant.

Ask the bishop…I don’t know the answer…

All I wonder is if they view is good from the cheap seats at liturgy? It’s obviously easier to tear down the church than to build it up from the vantage point of the liturgical referrees we seem to have.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Frommi try this:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

What part of this are you having trouble with?

“Pastor of the entire Church”
“Full, surpeme and universal power…”
“Which he can always exercise unhindered.”

If you don’t accept Catholic doctrine - fine. But stop holding out your either honest or dishonest erroneous and misleading opinions as to what is Catholic doctrine on the Papacy (or any other matter).

I do accept Catholic doctrine…I don’t think I ever said any of the above wasn’t true.

It seems to me that you are the one with the misguided view of what a bishop is and what their responsibilities are. Your face to face with a successor to the apostles when it comes to a bishop.

This is why, I can be frustrated by one bishops unwillingness to submit to a child abuse audit…and you can be all torn up over liturgical dancing…because a bishop has full proper authority over his diocese. Period, end of story.

I have to go back and see where I was against Catholic doctrine…thats a hoot.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

The Bishop is the chief liturgist of his diocese

Can you point us all toward a site or cite for this?

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Can you point us all toward a site or cite for this?

adoremus.org/1004Arinze.html

At least you won’t have an issue with the source…

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

I do accept Catholic doctrine…I don’t think I ever said any of the above wasn’t true.

It seems to me that you are the one with the misguided view of what a bishop is and what their responsibilities are. Your face to face with a successor to the apostles when it comes to a bishop.

This is why, I can be frustrated by one bishops unwillingness to submit to a child abuse audit…and you can be all torn up over liturgical dancing…because a bishop has full proper authority over his diocese. Period, end of story.

I have to go back and see where I was against Catholic doctrine…thats a hoot.

You said this Post 54 laity raising hands

"Ahh…the argument that Rome is the authoritative center of the church and we are just little workers in the office branch vineyards of the Lord…which is an incorrect argument.

Rome exists as a unifying center of the church…not as a place where all authority and power flow."

Kind of looks different from what you’re saying here.

 

[joyfulmess]

I truly believe that the "Holier than thou " attitude is exhibited quite often on these forums. It just isn’t Christain in the eyes of God. What authority do we as “lay persons” have to pick apart and criticize a youth conference that was done in good will for all? It’s a done deal, its over, and I guarantee you that young people who attended are being called to do the Lord’s work right now.

May the Lord have mercy on you for criticizing so harshly.

 

[johnnykins]

adoremus.org/1004Arinze.html

At least you won’t have an issue with the source…

Nope I agree fully. How do you feel about this quote from that document:

" It is easier to enunciate the principles than to do actual inculturation. And even two good bishops can disagree on what is best done in a concrete case. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal in paragraphs 386-399 gives guidelines on the areas where bishops’ conferences can propose adaptations in the Roman Mass and where they can go into deeper inculturation in the sense of Ad Gentes 22 and Sacrosanctum Concilium 37-40. In all cases they will act in understanding with the Holy See which grants the required recognitio before something new is introduced into the Liturgy." [my highlight]

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

You said this Post 54 laity raising hands

"Ahh…the argument that Rome is the authoritative center of the church and we are just little workers in the office branch vineyards of the Lord…which is an incorrect argument.

Rome exists as a unifying center of the church…not as a place where all authority and power flow."

Kind of looks different from what you’re saying here.

There is a difference between unifying the church and keeping all moving in the same direction and usurping the authority of local bishops in decisions that are pastoral in judgment.

I think you look to the Pope to be ‘supreme’ not for unitys sake but in case you disagree with a bishop, even if that bishop is not your own.

The youth conference/re congress was put on under the auspices of Cardinal Mahony…to the best of my knowledge…they did not ordain a woman, they did not have soda in place of sacramental wine…so get over it.

 

[buffalo]

I truly believe that the "Holier than thou " attitude is exhibited quite often on these forums. It just isn’t Christain in the eyes of God. What authority do we as “lay persons” have to pick apart and criticize a youth conference that was done in good will for all? It’s a done deal, its over, and I guarantee you that young people who attended are being called to do the Lord’s work right now.

May the Lord have mercy on you for criticizing so harshly.

Good will can be very shortsighted and reactionary. The Liturgy should not be messed with to achieve good will. Catholicism should not be watered down for the sake of good will.

Why don’t we change the ten commandments for good will purposes? That is a slippery slope.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

There is a difference between unifying the church and keeping all moving in the same direction and usurping the authority of local bishops in decisions that are pastoral in judgment.

I think you look to the Pope to be ‘supreme’ not for unitys sake but in case you disagree with a bishop, even if that bishop is not your own.

The youth conference/re congress was put on under the auspices of Cardinal Mahony…to the best of my knowledge…they did not ordain a woman, they did not have soda in place of sacramental wine…so get over it.

Testy!!

Let’s go back to the catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

What part of this are you having trouble with?

“Pastor of the entire Church”
“Full, surpeme and universal power…”
“Which he can always exercise unhindered.”

FULL SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL - you reject that - your own comment above rejects it by limiting it!! You reject this doctrine. Admit it.

WHICH HE CAN ALWAYS EXERCISE UNHINDERED -you simply don’t agree with that. Admit it. Truth will set you free.

But it is not CATHOLIC to reject those. Admit it. You’re not Catholic in any shape except nominally and maybe culturally.

For you who rejct catholic doctrine to now defend HE the Cardinal Archbishop for his eveident abuses at the youth Mass is unsurprising. My Presbyterian friends wouldn’t be offended either. That’s OK. Just don’t claim the Church allows it - when it doesn’t

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Testy!!

Let’s go back to the catechism:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

What part of this are you having trouble with?

“Pastor of the entire Church”
“Full, surpeme and universal power…”
“Which he can always exercise unhindered.”

FULL SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL - you reject that - your own comment above rejects it by limiting it!! You reject this doctrine. Admit it.

WHICH HE CAN ALWAYS EXERCISE UNHINDERED -you simply don’t agree with that. Admit it. Truth will set you free.

But it is not CATHOLIC to reject those. Admit it. You’re not Catholic in any shape except nominally and maybe culturally.

For you who rejct catholic doctrine to now defend HE the Cardinal Archbishop for his eveident abuses at the youth Mass is unsurprising. My Presbyterian friends wouldn’t be offended either. That’s OK. Just don’t claim the Church allows it - when it doesn’t

The church clearly allows it…this congress has been going on for years…

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

The church clearly allows it…this congress has been going on for years…

How about clearing up the antecedent to “it” Awfully hard to tell what you’re refrring to here.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

The church clearly allows it…this congress has been going on for years…

Uh No! It took some time for abuses to finally make it to Rome. Rome presumes the good will of its Bishops and Priests. Who could predict the extent of these abuses and innovations? Now that the abuses are well recognized the Church is issuing disciplinary documents to end them. Don’t call them changes, call them corrections.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I truly believe that the "Holier than thou " attitude is exhibited quite often on these forums. It just isn’t Christain in the eyes of God. …

I can’t but help to note the irony in your holier and thou attitude toward others while accusing others of being holier than thou. Astonishing.

The Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states, “By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have,* the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church.***”

The fathers of the Second Vatican Council clearly stated that “…no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 23).

According to the Code of Canon Laws: “******It is] the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed” [Canon 838.2].

John Paul II asserted, “the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi” (*Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS), *10).

John Paul II warns against the use of unapproved adaptations to the liturgy: “Take care, nevertheless, that the norms of the liturgical renewal be everywhere observed; otherwise, regrettable misunderstandings easily arise. Many people accuse the Church and liturgical renewal of that which in reality is not the intention of the Church but rather goes back to individuals who act arbitrarily” (L’Osservatore Romano, February 22, 1988). And “you will have to take care that the established norms are respected, above all in the Eucharistic celebrations, which should never depend on the whim or the special initiatives of individuals or groups who disassociate themselves from the directives given by the Church.” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 27, 1988).

It is not holier than thou to insist upon what the pope insists upon. Catholics have a right to receive the liturgy in the manner prescribed by liturgical norms. Jazzing-up the Latin liturgy contrary to the Roman Missal is a violation of that right.

According to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: "[T]he obligatory character of the essential parts of the Liturgy also guarantees the true freedom of the faithful: it makes sure that they are not victims of something fabricated by an individual or a group, that they are sharing in the same Liturgy that binds the priest, the bishop and the pope." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Feast of Faith, translated by Graham Harrison. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1981) p. 67.)

We simply want to share the same Liturgy that binds the priest, the bishop, and the pope.

 

[johnnykins]

itsjustdave1988:

I can’t but help to note the irony in your holier and thou attitude toward others while accusing others of being holier than thou. Astonishing.

The Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states, “By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have,* the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church.***”

The fathers of the Second Vatican Council clearly stated that “…no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 23).

According to the Code of Canon Laws: “******It is] the prerogative of the Apostolic See to regulate the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, to publish liturgical books and review their vernacular translations, and to be watchful that liturgical regulations are everywhere faithfully observed” [Canon 838.2].

John Paul II asserted, “the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi” (*Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS), *10).

John Paul II warns against the use of unapproved adaptations to the liturgy: “Take care, nevertheless, that the norms of the liturgical renewal be everywhere observed; otherwise, regrettable misunderstandings easily arise. Many people accuse the Church and liturgical renewal of that which in reality is not the intention of the Church but rather goes back to individuals who act arbitrarily” (L’Osservatore Romano, February 22, 1988). And “you will have to take care that the established norms are respected, above all in the Eucharistic celebrations, which should never depend on the whim or the special initiatives of individuals or groups who disassociate themselves from the directives given by the Church.” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 27, 1988).

It is not holier than thou to insist upon what the pope insists upon. Catholics have a right to receive the liturgy in the manner prescribed by liturgical norms. Jazzing-up the Latin liturgy contrary to the Roman Missal is a violation of that right.

Outstanding post

 

[koda]

I truly believe that the "Holier than thou " attitude is exhibited quite often on these forums. It just isn’t Christain in the eyes of God. What authority do we as “lay persons” have to pick apart and criticize a youth conference that was done in good will for all? It’s a done deal, its over, and I guarantee you that young people who attended are being called to do the Lord’s work right now.

May the Lord have mercy on you for criticizing so harshly.

I understand very well what this poster is saying. I often get the feeling (correct or not) that there are people on this forum who start their day googling for something they disagree with so they can post it here and rip whoever was “guilty” to shreds. There are far more “negative” threads/posts than positive. And the attitude can be defined as self-righteous. Can’t anybody think of anything good to say - even in this case, surely something good came out of the Congress, surely the Holy Spirit was present and some of these people got closer to God. None of you were even there. Okay, you don’t approve of the liturgy, but this even lasted for days and you just write it all off and improper. The reason one gets the idea the some people enjoy “pointing the finger at those less holy” is because it is done so often. Truly, I all I knew about Christianity was what I saw on this thread I would be sure it was a hateful religion caring more about rules than about people.

 

[buffalo]

koda:

I understand very well what this poster is saying. I often get the feeling (correct or not) that there are people on this forum who start their day googling for something they disagree with so they can post it here and rip whoever was “guilty” to shreds. There are far more “negative” threads/posts than positive. And the attitude can be defined as self-righteous. Can’t anybody think of anything good to say - even in this case, surely something good came out of the Congress, surely the Holy Spirit was present and some of these people got closer to God. None of you were even there. Okay, you don’t approve of the liturgy, but this even lasted for days and you just write it all off and improper. The reason one gets the idea the some people enjoy “pointing the finger at those less holy” is because it is done so often. Truly, I all I knew about Christianity was what I saw on this thread I would be sure it was a hateful religion caring more about rules than about people.

One of the rules is to care about people.

 

[johnnykins]

koda:

I understand very well what this poster is saying. I often get the feeling (correct or not) that there are people on this forum who start their day googling for something they disagree with so they can post it here and rip whoever was “guilty” to shreds. There are far more “negative” threads/posts than positive. And the attitude can be defined as self-righteous. Can’t anybody think of anything good to say - even in this case, surely something good came out of the Congress, surely the Holy Spirit was present and some of these people got closer to God. None of you were even there. Okay, you don’t approve of the liturgy, but this even lasted for days and you just write it all off and improper. The reason one gets the idea the some people enjoy “pointing the finger at those less holy” is because it is done so often. Truly, I all I knew about Christianity was what I saw on this thread I would be sure it was a hateful religion caring more about rules than about people.

I know, and I believe most of the folks here know, what you’re talking about. What you seem to be missing is that for 40 years there have been abuses, heresies, destruction of church ornamentation, a diminution in the sacred, loss of vocations, etc., etc., which have been improperly and disingenously foisted on the Church all in the name of the “Spirit of Vatican II.” When folks have objected, they were usually shouted down and “not open” “rigid” “not welcoming” etc., etc. What is clear - especially since the sex scandal - is that we can’t be quiet any longer. These matters are related. The innovators are wrong as any honest reading of Vatican documents clearly demonstrates. The arguments for the innovations are faulty and have led to the mess we’re in now. It’s precisely because we care about people that we are starting to fight for the people, the Church and the Pope against those who would aggregate to themselves the power and right to do to the Church and it’s services what they want in opposition to what is valid and licit.

There is no reason why a Youth conference could not have a Mass conducted in accordance with the applicable rules. To do otherwise attacks the entire body of the Church and the Body of Christ. Simple as that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are those who insist upon the US “Bill of Rights” characterized as a bunch of hateful rule followers? I think ya’ll need to see the liturgical norms as a Catholic “bill of rights” regarding the Latin liturgy instead of just a bunch of arbitrary rules.

The liturgical norms are intended to guarantee true freedom, as Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed, so Catholics can enjoy their right to celebrate the liturgy unencumbered by illicit personal deviations and unapproved adaptations. It seems implied by some that Catholics have no such right in this regard, that the bishop can simply fabricate whatever liturgy he fancies without recieving the canonical recognitio from the Holy See as prescribed by canon law. This is astonishing. Catholics are begging that their clergy show them some charity and allow the faithful to worship in accord with the liturgical law of the Church described in the GIRM and Roman Missal. That we have to beg this of them is a tragic lack of understanding as to the binding nature of liturgical law. It is our ecclesial right to worship in accord with the Latin Rite as prescribed by the approved liturgical texts of the Catholic Church, not be subjected to the fabricated rite of individual priests and/or bishops.

We have a Catholic “bill of rights” and we want it followed by our clergy because that is precisely what liturgical law demands. To describe that insistence as mere “rule following” is ignorant and just as absurd as calling a human rights activist a mere “rule follower” for insisting upon basic human rights for the citizenry.