Pope Francis on Rigidity

  • Thread starter Thread starter RHIC12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stpurl said:
Why did you quote only the last bit of my post, but not the rest which puts the above in context?

It is not ‘understanding versus mystery’, it’s a lot more nuanced than that.
Click to expand...
You said support for OF reflects a purpose, and support for the EF reflects a different purpose, so they should be treated the same, which you call “fair.” But that only makes sense if you evaluate the purposes. I do not see where you do anything like that, so I did not quote the rest.

Vatican II called for full conscious active participation. People prefer the OF because it offers fuller, more conscious and active participation. Other people prefer the EF because chant, rogation days, latin, etc. enable them to participate more fully, consciously, actively. In that situation, it might be fair to treat both equally.

But instead of making that claim, you say people prefer the EF because it is mysterious. As if less conscious, more passive alienation was a way to realize the teaching of Vatican II. Because some people thing mysterious is “better” it is fair to treat them the same as those who think understanding is “better.” You seem to empty “better” of any meaning beyond personal preference.

If I have missed any nuance in what you wrote, my apologies. It just seemed like a note that was indifferent to the purpose of reforming the liturgy, that proposed judging the reform without reference to the purpose of the reform.
 
Emeraldlady said:
That is usually the accusation of those who don’t believe Jesus would have fought for social justice were he incarnate today.
Click to expand...
Jesus called sinners to repent. He did not tell the Apostles to accompany them in their sin.
 
His Holiness is exhorting us to be inclusive in our worship but I don’t think we should dismiss the sacred in tradition. The articles the celebrate uses in the Mass is a case in point. The corporal represents the shroud, the Paten the stone rolled from the entrance to the crypt, the chalice is the sepulchre., The pall the cloth that covered the face of Jesus. All these ,if known , adds to the sacredness and history of each and every Mass. Now, with the veil, not being used in the modern Mass, represented the veil of the temple which was wrenched in two when Jesus died, now lost from our Mass.
 
That is not the rigidity Francis talks about. No one gets it. Francis is referring to the nearly jansenist types of catholics, we have many groups like that here in Argentina. He is not talking about theological orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Social Justice is acompanying someone in their sins? Remember no one is talking about contraception, or abortion. Look at Dorothy Day, look at Mother Teresa.
 
You did, and apology accepted.
I believe that one participates as ‘fully, actively, and consciously’ in the EF as the OF. The way that one does (more vertical as opposed to more horizontal might be one way of many of looking at it) does not make one way better or worse.

Again, one can understand the liturgy of the EF just as well as one understands the OF, and not just by knowing Latin.

I believe that in an attempt to make a liturgy that might be considered more understandable in a vernacular (though missals of Latin to whatever have existed for decades, pretty much ever since people became literate on a large scale) way, much of the aspect of liturgy which is mystery and has always existed was thought unnecessary and downplayed or omitted --to the detriment of all. Remember, even the documents of Vatican 2 called for the people to know a large part of the liturgy in Latin and to know it well. . .and did not in fact offer so many of the current ‘options’ which make it possible, depending on the options chosen by the priest, to emphasize the liturgy as ‘meal’ and ‘community’ (which it is) and omit sacrifice and worship (which it is).
 
JimG said:
As a matter of interest, I note that my former parish which celebrated only the OF Mass, uses all the same items that were used in the EF: corporal, pall, paten, purificator, chalice veil.
Click to expand...
As does my OF parish. And we ring bells at Consecration.
 
Last edited:
The Church guards and explains this deposit of faith. She does not add to it, for it was completed and closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. To guard means to keep and defend; in doing this the Church must sometimes declare truths which are not contained in revelation but which are necessary to keep revealed truth. To explain means to make clear what is obscure. The so-called developments of doctrine through dogmatic definitions may be compared to the sharpening of the focus on a film which is projected on a screen. The details which become discernible with clear focus are not new; they were all in the original picture, but they are now brought out more clearly.
Click to expand...
If Amoris Laetitia is not adding something new to the deposit of faith but just explaining what was always there then on pain of being considered overly rigid must we agree what was always categorically denied (communion to adulterers) was always meant to be sometimes allowed ?
 
Malcolm said:
If Amoris Laetitia is not adding something new to the deposit of faith but just explaining what was always there then on pain of being considered overly rigid must we agree what was always categorically denied (communion to adulterers) was always meant to be sometimes allowed ?
Click to expand...
If this logic holds true, then wouldn’t the Catholic Church owe Henry VIII and all (or some or many) adulterers in its history an apology for denying them the Holy Eucharist? Are the current bishops/priests, who are against giving Holy Communion to adulterers, are in fact only not rigid, but also are in error in this issue? Who in the history of Church must be held to account for this massive doctrinal error? How does this measure up against Christ’s promise to protect his bride—the Catholic Church—from the gates of Hell?

More specifically, what did St. Thomas More die for—if not for upholding the Church’s teaching on adultery? Was this saint’s martyrdom in vain—given that (some, many or all) adulterers should have always been able to worthily receive the Holy Eucharist? What was the point/reason for making him a saint?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top