The Catholic Church since 1900

[otjm]

I am implying nothing. I said the teaching of the Church has not changed. It is solid as a “Rock”. The reletivism is not from the Magisterium.

And the teaching of the Church is that if a Catholic engages in a non sacramental marriage, he/she ends up living in adultery. I am sure you will find many who will use their “prudential judgement” to not rock the boat and attend being a witness and throw truth aside as a consequence. This is the relativism I mean.

You are confusing two issues. The issue of an irregular marriage is one issue; whether or not you may attend the wedding is another issue. The teaching on the first matter has not changed; the Church’s position on the other matter is that you may make a prudential judgment as to whether or not you attend.

You seem to be presuming that attendance de fact means you approve of the irregular form. Factually that may or may not be the case. That is why you may exercise a prudential judgment as to whether or not to attend. You certainly could tell your brother that he is erring, and doing so seriously. Your position then has been made clear to him; you could say that you choose to attend in support of the family and for love of him, but that your attendance does not mean that you approve of his attempting to marry in front of a minister. That makes clear that you do not approve of the ceremony; (and actually, this is not adultery - it is fornication, as adultery is intercourse, when one is properly married, with a third party).

You appear to be confused even to the correct term of his status after the ceremony. Perhaps you should not set yourself up as an authority on the other matter?

Since the matter of prudential judgment is from the Church, your charge of relativism is flat out wrong.

 

[concretecamper]

You are confusing two issues. The issue of an irregular marriage is one issue; whether or not you may attend the wedding is another issue. The teaching on the first matter has not changed; the Church’s position on the other matter is that you may make a prudential judgment as to whether or not you attend.

You seem to be presuming that attendance de fact means you approve of the irregular form. Factually that may or may not be the case. That is why you may exercise a prudential judgment as to whether or not to attend. You certainly could tell your brother that he is erring, and doing so seriously. Your position then has been made clear to him; you could say that you choose to attend in support of the family and for love of him, but that your attendance does not mean that you approve of his attempting to marry in front of a minister. That makes clear that you do not approve of the ceremony; (and actually, this is not adultery - it is fornication, as adultery is intercourse, when one is properly married, with a third party).

You appear to be confused even to the correct term of his status after the ceremony. Perhaps you should not set yourself up as an authority on the other matter?

Since the matter of prudential judgment is from the Church, your charge of relativism is flat out wrong.

You just made my point perfectly!

 

[Tom_Baum]

I would hardly call the 2 that passed by “good”.

What I was referring to was that they followed the “religious law” of the day because if the one needing help was dead, they would have been defiled or if they would have gotten his blood on them they would have been defiled.

Look it up, it is pretty simple, rather than help when help was needed they followed the letter of the religious law and chose not to be defiled, it may not be spelled out as such but the people of Jesus’s day would have known the law and what Jesus was trying to get across.

In the “eyes” of the “religious law”, they were “good observant Jews”.

Jesus pointed stuff like this out a lot.

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[gracepoole]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI**

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com

You’ve linked to a dissident, sedevacantist group that’s not faithful to the Church. See this: catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3502&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=1241903

And not for nothing, it’s also listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

[LilyM]

What I was referring to was that they followed the “religious law” of the day because if the one needing help was dead, they would have been defiled or if they would have gotten his blood on them they would have been defiled.

Look it up, it is pretty simple, rather than help when help was needed they followed the letter of the religious law and chose not to be defiled, it may not be spelled out as such but the people of Jesus’s day would have known the law and what Jesus was trying to get across.

In the “eyes” of the “religious law”, they were “good observant Jews”.

Jesus pointed stuff like this out a lot.

Not quite. It was in fact considered a good deed to assist in burying the dead, even though handling a corpse was considered ritually defiling, see the book of Tobit where Tobias is praised for same. And physicians, despite their work of necessity exposing them to blood and unclean diseases like leprosy and so defiling them, were honoured. See the book of Ecclesiastes which has a whole chapter praising physicians.

Remember, those listening to the story of the Good Samaritan instinctively knew who had done the right thing in a moral and religious sense, and none argued that the priest or Levite were ‘good observant Jews’, nor that they were justified in any way in ignoring the wounded man,

 

[OraLabora]

Here are some major liturgical changes:

1908, Pius X publishes the Vatican Edition of the Roman Gradual (all the chants for Mass), based on the work of the monks of Solesmes, in particular Dom Pothier. Gregorian chant finally was “standardized” if you will, after being moribund and adulterated for many centuries.

1910, Pius X reforms the Divine Office (now known as Liturgy of the Hours), in a major departure from the traditional monastic structure the office, in order to better adapt it to the lives of secular priests.

1953, Pope Pius XII reforms the liturgy of Holy Week and the Easter Vigil finds its rightful place in the night.

Mid-60s, various experimental reforms of the Mass and introduction of Mass in the vernacular.

1970, reform of the Mass to become what we now know as the “Ordinary Form” mass, aka. Mass of Paul VI, or Novus Ordo; obviously very controversial for some.

1970, reform of the Divine Office which becomes the Liturgy of the Hours on a 4 week cycle. Also somewhat controversial but beneath the surface, many interesting things, including the obligation to respect the verity of the hour and avoid nonsense like anticipating Lauds the night before or praying the entire breviary in one shot to “get it over with”.

1983, publication of the Liber Hymnarius, the Gregorian hymnal for the LOTH for both the Roman and Monastic rites

2010, publication of the first volume of the new Roman Antiphonary (to chant the LOTH in Gregorian chant), covering first and second Vespers of all Sundays, feasts and solemnities.

Other less important reforms in the middle of all those, such as simplification of the calendar, minor structural reforms of the sung Divine Office by Pius XII, etc.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

What have been the ten biggest changes in Church teaching and practices from 1900 to the present?

From an Orthodox perspective, it would be the discarding to a large degree of the lay ascetical practices (mainly fasting) directly following Vatican II (1966 was the year, I believe).

Not to be entirely negative, from an Orthodox pov, the restoration of the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in Ordinary Form of the Mass was a positive development.