More liturgical abuse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim_Kirchoff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chicago said:
And how far has complaining to priests and griping to bishops incessantly gotten us?

What it usually leads to is not so much correction as dismissal and marginalization. But, then, some just like to play the martyr.
Click to expand...
From reading this forums the last few years—it seems people have been encourage( via various means) to Not complain to the priests and bishops. That has been one of the major obstacles put out to trip those who do want to help correct the problems.

The “marginalizing” that is becoming more clear —it seems is being done with the attempt to continue the current downward spiral that the Mass is in. It other words–demoralized the people into inaction–by way of making people believe they will be “dismissed”, “marginalized”, they can’t make a difference.
 
chicago said:
So should dioceses set up a special department of “Liturgical Abuse” which receives complaints on a daily basis and nags priests to fall in line?

And if Rome does nothing?
Click to expand...
I believe it was Bear06 who did get action from Rome.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Thread
Rather than giving a definition that you are already aware of, lets just say that If I had your picture I would post it along side the definition>

So by that, I could put your picture next to fundamentalist?

😃

Jim
Click to expand...
Then -you would have to place a picture of our late Pope JPII
and our current Pope Benedict along side “Your” interpretation of “fundamentalist”.
 
chicago said:
So should dioceses set up a special department of “Liturgical Abuse” which receives complaints on a daily basis and nags priests to fall in line?

And if Rome does nothing?
Click to expand...
Picket the Church?
 
Walking_Home said:
From reading this forums the last few years—it seems people have been encourage( via various means) to Not complain to the priests and bishops. That has been one of the major obstacles put out to trip those who do want to help correct the problems.

The “marginalizing” that is becoming more clear —it seems is being done with the attempt to continue the current downward spiral that the Mass is in. It other words–demoralized the people into inaction–by way of making people believe they will be “dismissed”, “marginalized”, they can’t make a difference.
Click to expand...
More likely what is being suggested is the wisdom of hard learned life experience. It is not meant to discourage action for demoralization, but to offer perspective as to what is practical by way of response and where our larger focus ought to be such that we don’t miss the forest for the trees. Really, I rarely see the suggestion on these boards that such concerns aren’t important. Instead, the question is almost always a matter of degree and type of appropriate response.
 
chicago said:
More likely what is being suggested is the wisdom of hard learned life experience. It is not meant to discourage action for demoralization, but to offer perspective as to what is practical by way of response and where our larger focus ought to be such that we don’t miss the forest for the trees. Really, I rarely see the suggestion on these boards that such concerns aren’t important. Instead, the question is almost always a matter of degree and type of appropriate response.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Walking_Home said:
Then -you would have to place a picture of our late Pope JPII
and our current Pope Benedict along side “Your” interpretation of “fundamentalist”.
Click to expand...
Not even close. Pope John Paul II was not intolerant of other opinions and beliefs. He is a hero of mine!

Jim
 
Not even close. Pope John Paul II was not intolerant of other opinions and beliefs. He is a hero of mine!

Jim
 
chicago said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by estesbob
Picket the Church?

Dismiss the pope as unworthy of his position and not to be followed is more like it, usually.
Click to expand...
If you mean by those who disregard the Church directives–then I agree — otherwise it seems there is confusion as to Who is really dismissing the Pope.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#Ars_celebrandi
  1. In the course of the Synod, there was frequent insistence on the need to avoid any antithesis between the ars celebrandi, the art of proper celebration, and the full, active and fruitful participation of all the faithful. The primary way to foster the participation of the People of God in the sacred rite is the proper celebration of the rite itself. The ars celebrandi is the best way to ensure their actuosa participatio. (114) The ars celebrandi is the fruit of faithful adherence to the liturgical norms in all their richness; indeed, for two thousand years this way of celebrating has sustained the faith life of all believers, called to take part in the celebration as the People of God, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-5, 9) (115).
The Bishop, celebrant par excellence
  1. … It is his responsibility to ensure unity and harmony in the celebrations taking place in his territory. Consequently the Bishop must be “determined that the priests, the deacons, and the lay Christian faithful grasp ever more deeply the genuine meaning of the rites and liturgical texts, and thereby be led to an active and fruitful celebration of the Eucharist” (119). I would ask that every effort be made to ensure that the liturgies which the Bishop celebrates in his Cathedral are carried out with complete respect for the ars celebrandi, so that they can be considered an example for the entire Diocese (120).
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Not even close. Pope John Paul II was not intolerant of other opinions and beliefs.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, was what drew criticism from the more fundamentalist elements.

Naturally, the same could honestly be said for Pope Benedict, also, as any sincere look reveals.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Not even close. Pope John Paul II was not intolerant of other opinions and beliefs. He is a hero of mine!

Jim
Click to expand...
Apparently JimR-OCDS - his words to not add any credibility to your position. It just brings out more the transparency of your arguments. The document JPII spoke of below —is RS–2004.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P7.HTM

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.
 
Walking_Home said:
If you mean by those who disregard the Church directives–then I agree — otherwise it seems there is confusion as to Who is really dismissing the Pope.
Click to expand...
I’m speaking here of those (so often on the “right”) who dismiss whatever they don’t like of what the pope says, does, or doesn’t do when it fails to fit their way of thinking. They’ll appeal to Rome all day every day then decry that the Vatican doesn’t act and the pope isn’t beating down with a big stick. If either suggests something that they don’t like, they practically call the magesterium and pontiff heretics. There are plenty of those kinds of people to go around, some of whom can be found on these forums.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#Ars_celebrandi
Click to expand...
Are you able to articulate any arguments on your own, without consistently sounding like some sort of law commentary book?
 
chicago said:
I’m speaking here of those (so often on the “right”) who dismiss whatever they don’t like of what the pope says, does, or doesn’t do when it fails to fit their way of thinking. They’ll appeal to Rome all day every day then decry that the Vatican doesn’t act and the pope isn’t beating down with a big stick. If either suggests something that they don’t like, they practically call the magesterium and pontiff heretics. There are plenty of those kinds of people to go around, some of whom can be found on these forums.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#Ars_celebrandi
Click to expand...

Are you able to articulate any arguments on your own, without consistently sounding like some sort of law commentary book?​

Gee chicago----it seems you are getting down to scraping the bottom of the barrel with the comment above. It really seems to bother some that documentation to back up ones position is available.
 
Walking_Home said:
Apparently JimR-OCDS - his words to not add any credibility to your position. It just brings out more the transparency of your arguments. The document JPII spoke of below —is RS–2004.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P7.HTM

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.
Click to expand...
So you’re trying to tell me that Pope John Paul II was intolerant of other points of view?

And how does this article, even come close to showing this?

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Apparently JimR-OCDS - his words to not add any credibility to your position. It just brings out more the transparency of your arguments. The document JPII spoke of below —is RS–2004.

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P7.HTM

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.

So you’re trying to tell me that Pope John Paul II was intolerant of other points of view?

And how does this article, even come close to showing this?

Jim
Click to expand...
The late Pope’s words speak for themselves. It seems --you are displaying a problem with comprehension.
 
Walking_Home said:
The late Pope’s words speak for themselves. It seems --you are displaying a problem with comprehension.
Click to expand...
Insult aside, I don’t see intolerance in the Pope’s words, but rather tolerance.

In fact, every aspect of his Papacy was tolerance.

Jim
 
I’ll offer another example on approach, employing the matter of hand shaking outside the sanctuary.

Options:
    1. Talk with the priest, noting the appropriate guidelines and offering your theological concerns as to why it would be better if he remained in the Sanctuary rather than coming out into the nave to share the sign of peace.
    1. Write to the bishop, his religious superiors, the principal, whoever might listen and correct this “abuse”. (Perhaps this would also be considered a second step to #1 should that fail.)
    1. Prayerfully tolerate the matter, appreciating it for the genuine value which it does offer while hoping that someday it might either be corrected or accepted as a legitimatized option in liturgical norms.
    1. Begin discussing matters with others who attend the Mass. Perhaps not necessarily bringing up this particular thing directly at first, but setting the foundation of theology of the Mass, the priest, and liturgical actions such that the particular question of his gesture could be raised and honestly engaged over in dialogue within that larger context, eventually and in time. Build a consensus if one exists. Then, (someday, when this has all been well established - should that day come about, recognizing that it may never), together politely suggest to the priest that while you understand and value what he is trying to do, you think it would be even better if he handled the moment differently - explaining why in hopes that he’d come to appreciate your concern and modify his behavior to align with what the greater number of people at Mass now desire and express.
Any and all of these options are legitimate and worthy. But some would prefer to choose one rather than another. That’s fine! And, it could also be argued that some options are more likely than others to have a greater and more positive effect for change (along with relationship building which is often key in respect and growth) over the long term. As such, you will have won over people rather than just stood up for the accurateness of upholding proper implementation of the rules.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The late Pope’s words speak for themselves. It seems --you are displaying a problem with comprehension.

Insult aside, I don’t see intolerance in the Pope’s words, but rather tolerance.

In fact, every aspect of his Papacy was tolerance.

Jim
Click to expand...
No insult intended. If you cannot see the intent of our late Popes statements—there is a problem. That goes for our current Pope statements too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top