I can well imagine. I don’t think the courts want to touch differing nuances of what kinds of religious practices and ministries that employees of Catholic institutions may be required to carry out.HomeschoolDad:
It would do zero good. The Church has wide latitude on employment, see the ministerial exception in US law.
I know what you mean by this, but there is no “Vatican II Church”, only the Catholic Church unchanged and eternal. I would hope that any bishop would recognize that different Catholics have different spiritualities, and some of those spiritualities prefer older ways to newer ones. Again, I thought we were all into respecting individual consciences these days.
Vatican II changed the Church, there is no question about that. However she is the same Church as she was prior to Vatican II.Anesti33:
I know what you mean by this, but there is no “Vatican II Church”, only the Catholic Church unchanged and eternal. I would hope that any bishop would recognize that different Catholics have different spiritualities, and some of those spiritualities prefer older ways to newer ones. Again, I thought we were all into respecting individual consciences these days.
Well, they should, that’s all I can say. As the saying goes these days, you’ve got to give respect to get respect.
I personally don’t believe that applies to a pastor or an employer that is a parochial school. Respect may well be a one-way street in these cases, but it is not optional.Anesti33:
Well, they should, that’s all I can say. As the saying goes these days, you’ve got to give respect to get respect.
Anesti33:
This is the hill I would die on. Absolutely.
This isn’t about how the OP “receives”, it’s about the OP being required to distribute Holy Communion to others.
But the proper term is actually Ordinary Form, or OF. What was originally called Novus Ordo is no more.
I do not see a necessary causal link between attending TLM and being uncomfortable with distributing Holy Communion.
I’ve heard this argument before, that only the very first revised missal (1969) is correctly called the “Novus Ordo”. It’s just a colloquial pars pro toto, the same way that all of the Netherlands is commonly called “Holland” even though, technically speaking, that only describes one part of the country. Growing up on the fringes of the American South, we referred to everyone east of Cleveland and north of the Mason-Dixon Line as “New Yorkers” — I know that sounds ignorant, and maybe it was, but we didn’t make fine distinctions between Philadelphia, New Jersey, upstate New York, NYC, Connecticut, Vermont, and so on, to us it was all the same.EmbraceTradition:
But the proper term is actually Ordinary Form, or OF. What was originally called Novus Ordo is no more.
I wouldn’t call it an argument so much as a statement of fact.
No, it doesn’t, but it has been used in such a way so often by a small, but vocal, group that the pejorative connotation has “stuck” so to speak. Not to say that everyone who uses it means it that way. So if it isn’t even accurate any more, and it bothers enough people to the point that they tend to get their backs up over it, why must it be used still?
I grew up deep in the old South, not anywhere near the fringes, and I never used or heard anyone use “New Yorker” for anyone other than someone from New York (usually meaning the city, but could also be applied to the state). The general term we used for someone from the areas you mentioned was “Yankee”, or maybe “Northerner” if we weren’t too mad at them at the time.
The “fact” is that only the first missal was called the Novus Ordo Missae. The “argument” is that this is not a suitable name, not even colloquially, for the revisions to that missal.HomeschoolDad:
I wouldn’t call it an argument so much as a statement of fact.
The other way of looking at it, would be that they are being “snowflakey” about a colloquial term that serves as easily understood shorthand. It does not rise to the level, for instance, of various coarse colloquialisms that are used as offensive names for certain groups by people who do not like them, or view them as inferior. Those who desired massive changes in the liturgy, either found in antiquity or seen as more suited to the condition of modern man (or both), have achieved a near-total victory, and have every procedure they could have ever desired — communion under both kinds, communion in the hand, reception from lay ministers, kneeling for communion no longer normative, women unveiled, and both liturgy and scripture in everyday, pedestrian vernacular language. No one under the age of 40 even remembers matters ever having been otherwise. If I’d gotten that much of what I wanted, I wouldn’t be complaining if a few disaffected people referred to it by a Latin name used by the Church herself when it was introduced. I’d just be happy that my point of view won over the vast majority.HomeschoolDad:
No, it doesn’t, but it has been used in such a way so often by a small, but vocal, group that the pejorative connotation has “stuck” so to speak. Not to say that everyone who uses it means it that way. So if it isn’t even accurate any more, and it bothers enough people to the point that they tend to get their backs up over it, why must it be used still?