Pope’s upcoming Apostolic Exhortation likely to call for increased liturgical solemni

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Yeah…Golden Oldies maybe.

I don’t know what the fascination is with things like the communion rail.

Latin is lovely…so is English.

Do you really have no idea what the “fascination with things like the communion rail” is? Somehow I just can’t believe that.

The “fascination” is a yearning for the sacred, the transcendant, the holy, the faith that sustained so many generations of Catholics, the connection to all those who went before us. It’s a “fascination” that grew out of the “I’M OK, You’reOK” we’re all OK and all we need to do is be tolerant form of Catholicism that has been marketed for the last 40 years. It’s a reaction against felt banners with trite sayings. It’s a reaction against music that it downright terrible and often heretical. It’s a reaction against clown Masses, liturgical dancing, homosexual priests, incompetent Bishops and anti-Catholic nuns and teachers in Catholic schools. It’s a reaction against priests and nuns who in a post-Vatican II twist of logic claim the Mass and Catholicism as their own to be done with as they see fit - and to hell with the laity, Rome and anything they don’t like - it’s a reaction against the clericalism of the non-believing clergy. It’s an avowal that we believe that GOD Almighty is truly present in the Eucharist. It’s a desire to show that we believe we do need to kneel before God. It’s a rejection of the best intentioned, and the worst intentioned, errors of the last 40 years. It’s a statement that the iconoclasm of the last 40 years was a major mistake that has led to the loss of faith by millions.

It’s a fascination with claiming unashamedly that we are Catholic.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Which actually proves my point…

Brendan claims he only crticizes bishops, and never the Pope…well…I have news for all…the bishops are in college with the Pope, they are elected BY the Pope…so criticizing them and acting like you can go around your Bishop and simply be “loyal to Rome” is a false model of church.

Arius was a Bishop. Nestorius was a Bishop. Cranmer was a Bishop. And on, and on…

Bishops, can be heretics, have been heretics and will be heretics.

History has shown that repeatedly.

If the Bishop is a heretic - well…

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

So…why be concerned at all about getting the lefebrveites (sp) back in the fold?

Could it be that even though they are ‘excommunicated’ that they have a valid claim to apostolic succession…and thus it isn’t good for anyone to have that line be unbroken?

Maybe it has to do with their eternal soul and salvation? And the salvation of those they lead astray?

I think that’s the real reason.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Oh right…I always forget that the key to fostering a greater appreciation in the real presence is to put up as many barriers as possible to the blessed sacrament.

Well taking down barriers has certainly contributed to the diminution of a belief in the real presence. So you may be right.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

And that’s where your eccliesology is incorrect…you treat “pope” like its another rank of holy orders, which it isnt.

A red herring!!

It’s true that the Papacy is not another rank of Holy Orders, but it is just as true that the position is distinct in many ways - especially as set forth in Vatican I.

Plus, it is clear Catholic teaching that only in the union with the Pope is the fullness of the Church found. See Declaration Dominus Iesus.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Which actually proves my point…

Brendan claims he only crticizes bishops, and never the Pope…well…I have news for all…the bishops are in college with the Pope, they are elected BY the Pope…so criticizing them and acting like you can go around your Bishop and simply be “loyal to Rome” is a false model of church.

But your suggestion is every bit as false - and more so. I suggest you read Bishop Gasser’s Relatio from Vatican I - the official explanation of the decree on papal infallibility.

Also, the pope “appoints” not “elects.”

BTW Catherine of Sienna criticised Popes and Paul criticised Peter. Yes, you most certainly can - and sometimes must - criticise Bishops.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Ehhhh…No

The Bishop gets teaching authority in Communion with Rome…and unless that’s taken away, he’s the authority in a particular diocese.

End of story.

The Bishop is the Bishop.

The Pope is not the Bishop.

No, the bishop GIVES that authority away when he departs from the Pope.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I think the point that should be made is this: both Pope and bishops are necessary, both are divinely instituted offices by the mouth of the Savior Himself. The Pope is the ultimate authority (the final line in the sand, as it were), but bishops also are successors to the Apostles. Bishops cannot just hive off and do their own thing (ESP. when it is at odds with the express wishes of the Holy Father, witness this sorry mess over the Indult) and any Pope who’s read the New Testament and understands the importance of the office of Bishop realizes that the papacy wasn’t intended to micro-manage the Church (bishops are not and are not supposed to BE vicars apostolic, they’re supposed to be bishops, with the plentitude of authority that the office implies). The same bishops HAVE to be in communion to the Pope. It’s a balancing act between an extreme ultra-montanist position and a position that would allow a bishop to defy a pope (like the Lefebrevists, for example). According to the Second Vatican Council, that’s called collegiality.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

But your suggestion is every bit as false - and more so. I suggest you read Bishop Gasser’s Relatio from Vatican I - the official explanation of the decree on papal infallibility.

Also, the pope “appoints” not “elects.”

BTW Catherine of Sienna criticised Popes and Paul criticised Peter. Yes, you most certainly can - and sometimes must - criticise Bishops.

NO…the pope elects bishops…granted his is the only vote…but he elects bishops…which is why they are called bishop-elect

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

No, the bishop GIVES that authority away when he departs from the Pope.

Which has not happened in the United States, to the best of my knowledge, anytime in the last 50 years. Because I haven’t heard of any bishops being disciplined by Rome

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

NO…the pope elects bishops…granted his is the only vote…but he elects bishops…which is why they are called bishop-elect

Really, the official announcments from the Vatican state that the Pope ‘appoints’ a Bishop to a See.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s really a semantic argument, guys: he does appoint, for all intents and purposes, but the cardinals and bishops he appoints ARE refered to as “Cardinal-elect So and So,” etc. It’s a little like the Rite of “Election.” No one actually votes.

 

[otm]

johnnykins:

Well taking down barriers has certainly contributed to the diminution of a belief in the real presence. So you may be right.

Now that is a new charge, that taking down the altar rails has lead to the loss of belief in the Real Presence.

Having been around since well before Vatican 2, and having read a good bit of the history of the Church, I find that hard to sustain, as altar rails were relatively slow in coming into the churches, and the Church. If not having altar rails equates with a loss in the belief in the True Presence, then one has to wonder how we ever made it as far as we did with that belief when there simply were no such things.

It might be better to ascribe the loss of understanding in the True Presence to the dumbing down of catechesis, since is it that which conveys the knowledge, not the altar rails, and it is more traceable to the twits who wanted to change catechetical materials to faith building, and away from dogmatic teaching.

I Have yet to discover anyone who has ever said that they lost belief in the True Presence because the altar rails were taken away; but I have met a lot of people who say they simply weren’t taught about it. Let’s not play the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” card so much.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

OK, Sacrosanctum Concillium #54 states that all the Faithful should be able to say or sung their parts of the Mass in Latin.

What steps is your parish taking to insure that mandate is being kept.

If there is nothing, would that not be a failure to implement SC #54

Only if you assume that any and all liturgical change stopped with SC54. The point I was trying to make, and you seem to not understand, is that Vatican 2 occured in the 1960s, and there has been liturgical changes since then. Againl it seems to me, that some take SC to be a age defining document, casting the liturgy into stone and not to be canged again until another council.

Brendan:

SC is the Liturigical Constitution of the Church. The only authority that could change that is the Pope.

well, there have been a couple of Popes since then, and the GIRM has been revised a couple of times since then under his (their) authority, as well as other lituyrguical changes made through other documents.

Brendan:

I have read every Encyclical, Apostolic Exortation ect… from each of the Vatican II and post V-II pontifs. None have changed that mandate.

Are you aware of when that mandate was revoked?

Again, you are treating it as a mandate, from which there can be no changes, Rome has made the changes, and you seem to want to ignore them.

SC was like a broad brush stroke; it was not intended to work out all details. Under the direction of several popes, we have had further liturgical changes. That is the answer. I don’t agree with you that it was a mandate, as in, a statement that was unchangeable except by revocation or another council. The “mandate” you insist upon has been changed by the various liturgical changes and rulings which Rome has produced since then.

 

[otm]

ByzCath:

One thing I have noticed about the communion rail is that when one is in use a single priest can give communion to a larger number of people in a shorter space of time than when we stand in line.

You are correct that a priest can distribute Communion faster if everyone is kneeling down in a row; however, I have been to churches in which the Communion Rail is still used, and to those where people receive standing up, and the overall time for the congregation to receive is about the same.

However, the time of distribution per person is much faster with everyone kneeling in a line.

So why, during one of the more sacred moments of the Mass, are we trying to rush, to be efficient, to be quicker, to save time? Personally, I find it much more reverent to receive one by one, with nowhere near the rush; granted it may be three to five seconds instead of one or one and a half, but I don’t find a priest moving swiftly down the line saying what sounds like “BodyofChrist” and poking a host into each mouth in some sort of production line technique to be exactly awe inspiring.

 

[frommi]

JKirkLVNV:

It’s really a semantic argument, guys: he does appoint, for all intents and purposes, but the cardinals and bishops he appoints ARE refered to as “Cardinal-elect So and So,” etc. It’s a little like the Rite of “Election.” No one actually votes.

Actually…Cardinals are ‘cardinal designate’.

But, make no mistake…Bishops are elected

 

[JKirkLVNV]

frommi:

Actually…Cardinals are ‘cardinal designate’.

But, make no mistake…Bishops are elected

1. Well, actually, I googled both terms and both terms are used (ie, “Cardinal-designate” and “Cardinal-elect.”) So, a very nice compromise (we don’t have to hurl anathemas at each other over this critical issue ).
2. But who does the electing, really? The pope. When one person has the say, then it’s an appointment. It is still, however, refered to as an “election” in ecclesiastical terminology.

 

[frommi]

1. Well, actually, I googled both terms and both terms are used (ie, “Cardinal-designate” and “Cardinal-elect.”) So, a very nice compromise (we don’t have to hurl anathemas at each other over this critical issue ).

1. But who does the electing, really? The pope. When one person has the say, then it’s an appointment. It is still, however, refered to as an “election” in ecclesiastical terminology.

Good point…

I think the terminlogy speaks to a key issue…that bishops at one time were ‘elected’, so its not something out of the realm of comprehension for the future.

Whereas, being a cardinal is a personal honor bestowed by the pope

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Pax vobiscum!

If any of you know the true story behind The Exorcist, you may recall the word that it took to expel the devil: “Dominus”. Not “Lord” or anything else, but “Dominus”. I think that would be an argument for the holiness of Latin. It wasn’t until the boy saw the vision of St. Michael struggling with the devil and commanding him to leave “in the name of Dominus” that the posession ended.

I don’t see where this hostility towards Latin is coming from. I am seeing people repeatedly refer to this as an “imposition” upon the faithful. mom2boyz has said that she will not pay attention if the Mass is said in Latin. Why not? You would rather be stubborn and sit and brood than take the effort to learn a little bit of basic Latin (which I have done by simply going to Latin Masses–which are Latin and English with Gregorian chant–and by reading prayers in Latin) so you can understand? This seems quite ridiculous to me.

I prefer to have all the songs either in Gregorian chant, polyphony, or traditional vernacular hymns (those being either a capella or accompanied by organ). I like the Pater Noster and Credo as well as the Agnus Dei, Sanctus, Gloria, Kyrie, ect. The sign of the cross in Latin is also something I like. I have absolutely no problem following along or understanding what is going on…not to mention the church I go to for these Masses has an English translation of not only the prayers and responses, but of the words in the songs being used for the Mass that day.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JKirkLVNV]

frommi:

Good point…

I think the terminlogy speaks to a key issue…that bishops at one time were ‘elected’, so its not something out of the realm of comprehension for the future.

Whereas, being a cardinal is a personal honor bestowed by the pope

Actually, I think I read that there were still ancient accords or agreements that allowed certain cathedral chapters to elect bishops (subject to papal confirmation), but I may be confused.