Stations of the Cross - help me please

  • Thread starter Thread starter s4c
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ham1 said:
This is exactly the way our parish celebrates the stations every Friday in Lent. Led by a priest wearing a beautiful purple cope. Except, it’s followed by Mass and then benediction. We use this text:

catholicculture.org/lit/overviews/seasons/lent/stations.cfm

Just to put this in perspective, our parish celebrates only the NO in english, is growing very quickly, and has several seminarians with more on the way.
Click to expand...
This is the one we used. Thanks!
 
And why? Because it raises the suspicion that the one disrespectful does not really believe in the Real Presence. Otherwise disrespect of itself has nothing to do with heresy.
Click to expand...
The numbers are quite high of those who no longer believe in the Real Presence…they are not suspect of heresy…they are explicitly stating a heresy.
 
Originally Posted by gorman64 View Post
Canon Law states that treating the Sacred Species with disrespect is an action which makes one suspect of heresy (CIC 2320)
Click to expand...
gorman64 said:
The numbers are quite high of those who no longer believe in the Real Presence…they are not suspect of heresy…they are explicitly stating a heresy.
Click to expand...
by MTD
And why? Because it raises the suspicion that the one disrespectful does not really believe in the Real Presence. Otherwise disrespect of itself has nothing to do with heresy.
Click to expand...
Disrespect may not qualify as a heresy, but disbelief certainly does. And, as Gorman pointed out above, Canon Law states that treating the Sacred Species with disrespect is an action which makes one suspect of heresy (CIC 2320)
 
brotherhrolf said:
Sorry folks. I served at many a Stations of the Cross as an altar boy before Vatican II which was led by a priest with crucifer and two candles and which was followed by benediction (except of course on Good Friday). Including singing the Stabat Mater in English - By the Cross her station keeping, stood the mournful Mother weeping, close to Jesus to the last.

oremus.org/hymnal/a/a383.html

And, although my cathedral parish has the Good Friday Liturgy at noon, we also have Stations at 3 led by a priest.

Now maybe this is just a south Louisiana thing, but this has been my experience all of my life and I’m 55.
Click to expand...
I haven’t thought of that for years…that song, I mean. Now it’s in my head…at least something is in my head and I think it’s that song.

Way back in the 1960s, my grade school had Stations every Friday in Lent at 3pm. You took your books with you, trudged across the alley to church, and all the kids and most of the mothers and old people in the parish gathered for Stations.

Thanks for the memories. Deb
 
gorman64 said:
The numbers are quite high of those who no longer believe in the Real Presence…they are not suspect of heresy…they are explicitly stating a heresy.
Click to expand...
True enough; I have nothing to object there.
paramedicgirl said:
Disrespect may not qualify as a heresy, but disbelief certainly does. And, as Gorman pointed out above, Canon Law states that treating the Sacred Species with disrespect is an action which makes one suspect of heresy (CIC 2320)
Click to expand...
First of all, I did not say anything about disbelief not being heresy; in fact, I indirectly said that it was heresy. So I don’t know why you’re telling me that.

Secondly, do you know why Gorman even brought up this argument? He is a sedevacantist who is trying to prove the invalidity of Pope Paul VI, etc. The premise of the sedevacantist argument is that a papal claimant is not a valid pope if he is a heretic; this is why Gorman brought up Communion in the hand and linked it with heresy.

Thirdly, did you know the CIC 2320 you mentioned belongs to the 1917 Code of Canon Law? Gorman does not recognize the 1983 Code because he is a sedevacantist; do you also not recognize the 1983 Code? I don’t think so, and so I don’t know why you cited CIC 2320.

Maria
 
Thirdly, did you know the CIC 2320 you mentioned belongs to the 1917 Code of Canon Law? Gorman does not recognize the 1983 Code because he is a sedevacantist; do you also not recognize the 1983 Code? I don’t think so, and so I don’t know why you cited CIC 2320.
Click to expand...
Maria:

No one likes it when someone agrees witha sedevacantist. 🙂

Seriously, the 1917 Code was in effect until 1983…and I understand that no one is suspect of heresy today…heresy is only associated with witch trials and inquisitions…right?

Yours,

Gorman
 
MTD said:
I beg to disagree. There is a difference between the terms traditional and Traditionalist. I’m traditional in a lot of ways; i.e., in my choice of devotions, in my choice of Catholic books, and in my position on certain liturgical disciplines (for example, I disagree with girl servers, though I do not on that account disrespect the pope). But I’m not a Traditionalist since I’m not attached to the TLM. Does this make any sense?

Maria
Click to expand...
👍
Yes, yes and YES!
 
gorman64 said:
Maria:

No one likes it when someone agrees with a sedevacantist. 🙂

Seriously, the 1917 Code was in effect until 1983…and I understand that no one is suspect of heresy today…heresy is only associated with witch trials and inquisitions…right?

Yours,

Gorman
Click to expand...
touchy touchy?,
 
MTD said:
True enough; I have nothing to object there.

First of all, I did not say anything about disbelief not being heresy; in fact, I indirectly said that it was heresy. So I don’t know why you’re telling me that.

Secondly, do you know why Gorman even brought up this argument? He is a sedevacantist who is trying to prove the invalidity of Pope Paul VI, etc. The premise of the sedevacantist argument is that a papal claimant is not a valid pope if he is a heretic; this is why Gorman brought up Communion in the hand and linked it with heresy.

Thirdly, did you know the CIC 2320 you mentioned belongs to the 1917 Code of Canon Law? Gorman does not recognize the 1983 Code because he is a sedevacantist; do you also not recognize the 1983 Code? I don’t think so, and so I don’t know why you cited CIC 2320.

Maria
Click to expand...
Maria, can I be in your “ditto” corner?
 
MTD said:
The premise of the sedevacantist argument is that a papal claimant is not a valid pope if he is a heretic; this is why Gorman brought up Communion in the hand and linked it with heresy.
Click to expand...
I need to make an apology. Gorman did NOT bring up Communion in the hand; I did. That clause should read: “this is why Gorman linked Communion in the hand with heresy.” My sincere apologies, Gorman.
gorman64 said:
No one likes it when someone agrees witha sedevacantist. 🙂
Click to expand...
Give me more credit than that. 😃 I’ve agreed with you quite often, both on this thread and on that other one.
gorman64 said:
Seriously, the 1917 Code was in effect until 1983
Click to expand...
Quite true.
gorman64 said:
…and I understand that no one is suspect of heresy today
Click to expand...
Can I get your signature on that??? The whole premise of sedevacantism is that all the Catholics in union with the current pope are suspect of heresy. 😉
gorman64 said:
…heresy is only associated with witch trials and inquisitions…right?
Click to expand...
No. 🙂
Mary_Henley said:
touchy touchy?,
Click to expand...
Hey, you stay out it! 😃

Maria
 
MTD said:
I need to make an apology. Gorman did NOT bring up Communion in the hand; I did. That clause should read: “this is why Gorman linked Communion in the hand with heresy.” My sincere apologies, Gorman.

Give me more credit than that. 😃 I’ve agreed with you quite often, both on this thread and on that other one.

Quite true.

Can I get your signature on that??? The whole premise of sedevacantism is that all the Catholics in union with the current pope are suspect of heresy. 😉

No. 🙂

Hey, you stay out it! 😃

Maria
Click to expand...
You can’t hog all the fun:mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top