P
PatrickKennedy
Guest
One and three are not sacramentally possible number two is (St Peter was probably married wasn’t he?)
- Status
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The issue of same sex marriage and the ordination of women as priests is circumscribed by divine action, which the Pope cannot change. This is a different issue theologically from man made norms and customs.
The Pope cannot change, for example, the matter and form of baptism because that is circumscribed by the Divine Founder. By his own authority, however, he has changed the form of the sacraments of confirmation and the anointing of the sick in the recent past since the form of those sacraments are not prescribed by the Divine Founder and therefore under the Pope’s control. Pope Pius XII famously clarified the matter for the Sacrament of Order. The formula of absolution was also changed in the recent past, although not the essential words.
When we are talking about the liturgy, his power is extremely vast – and limited only by what the Divine Founder has circumscribed.
The words are quite very explicit. Supreme, full, immediate, and universal
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Hmmm good to know
C
chris123678
Guest
My personal opinion, I think a return facing the East is a return to tradition.
Personally, I’m indifferent to the direction the priest faces.
If we look at this from a historical standpoint, then Jesus probably was probably facing the Apostles when he instituted the Eucharist.
In all honesty, when I see the priest saying the Eucharistic prayers and holding up the consecrated host, it’s as if I’m looking at Christ himself offer the sacrifice.
I honestly don’t see how the direction the priest faces during the Eucharistic sacrifice helps anyone focus. Maybe I’m wrong, but actually being able to see the bread and wine helps visually.
I will admit, I do think it makes sense for us all to face God.
The Novus Ordo for some reason doesn’t look right when the priest says Mass to the east.
Personally, I’m indifferent to the direction the priest faces.
If we look at this from a historical standpoint, then Jesus probably was probably facing the Apostles when he instituted the Eucharist.
In all honesty, when I see the priest saying the Eucharistic prayers and holding up the consecrated host, it’s as if I’m looking at Christ himself offer the sacrifice.
I honestly don’t see how the direction the priest faces during the Eucharistic sacrifice helps anyone focus. Maybe I’m wrong, but actually being able to see the bread and wine helps visually.
I will admit, I do think it makes sense for us all to face God.
The Novus Ordo for some reason doesn’t look right when the priest says Mass to the east.
T
twf
Guest
That being said, I can’t imagine a pope making “vast” liturgical changes without the collaboration of the college of bishops. The Novus Ordo was, I am sure, the biggest “overnight” (in terms of implementation not development) reform in the history of the Church, but it was only done after an ecumenical council called for significant reforms. If a pope, at any point in history, attempted to impose such a drastic reform on his own, pulling a fast one on all the world’s bishops, I can imagine open schism or at least disobedience would be likely even if the reform was “licit”.
O
otjm
Guest
Most people do not attend Mass with their eyes closed. And there are plenty of people who attended Mass before Vatican 2 still around, and it does make a significant difference to them,
Maybe not to you. Definitely it does to others.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The comment was not about “vast changes” but about the scope of the Pope’s authority to change the liturgy unilaterally…which is vast. Now that you raise the matter, in point of fact he could make a vast number of simultaneous changes motu propio. I don’t think it is something that a Pope would do lightly…but the power to change is nevertheless his.
It is his prerogative to unilaterally to alter the form of a sacrament or to define the matter of a sacrament as well liturgical rites…all of which occurred in the 20th century.
As we saw with both Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus, the Bishop of Rome does consult his brother bishops…although he was free to act without doing so. The decision concerning consultation and the extent of it rests with him and his discretion.
As for the rest of the language in the comment…“pulling a fast one” or “open schism” or even disobedience…I find it so untoward as not to be at all comfortable with its employ.
When a priest is presented for Ordination as Bishop, after have affirmed that there is an apostolic mandate from the Holy Father allowing for the ordination, among the questions the priest must answer before he can be ordained bishop are:
*
- Are you resolved to build up the Church as the body of Christ and to remain united to it within the order of bishops under the authority of the successor of the apostle Peter?
- Are you resolved to be faithful in your obedience to the successor of the apostle Peter?
It is certainly true that there were many bishops who raised objection in 2007 to the Holy Father’s decision for a greater permissiveness toward the vetus ordo…and they are within their prerogative to express their concern – even their alarm and disagreement – but as the Pope wrote to them, it is his prerogative and they are to comply. By his fiat was that provision granted, motu proprio…at his fiat, it could be derogated. And, of course, there is no authority to whom to appeal, save God alone.
Can 333 §3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Indeed they did not come about overnight…as those of us who knew and are familiar with the liturgical movement will attest unto our dying breaths.
T
twf
Guest
Yes, reforms began much earlier, but the Novus Ordo Missal was still a very significant reform implemented in a very short period of time. The fact that it built upon decades of liturgical development doesn’t change that. Regardless, in the scheme of Church history 1903 to 1970 is a blink of an eye in any case.
T
twf
Guest
Father,
Theologically, canonically, the Pope has the authority, but I hope we can agree that synodal action is both the historic norm and the ideal. Pope Francis has spoken of the need for greater synodality in the Catholic Church and even suggested we learn from the Orthodox in this regard. When I spoke of unilateral liturgical reform I wasn’t necessarily thinking only of the Roman Rite. Here on this very forum, if you were to visit the Eastern Catholicism board, you would find Eastern Catholics, in full communion with the Holy See, who find the very concept deeply disturbing. I agree that it is highly unlikely that unilateral papal reform would lead to open disobedience / schism within the modern Latin Church, but issues of liturgical and disciplinary practice have definitely led to schism historically. I think, for example, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada which is, to a large extent, comprised of the descendants of Ukrainian Greek Catholics who severed communion with Rome and sought refuge under the protection of the Ecumenical Patriarch when Latin bishops attempted to impose Latinizations upon them.
O
otjm
Guest
Yes, and in today’s world, 50 years later, things move even faster.
Interestingly, the implementation of the changes - not just in the liturgy, but the whole of the Council, went far better and with a tremendously lower amount of angst, in countries like Poland, whereas in Europe and North America, we saw a goodly bit of chaos.
For my own 10 cents worth of opinion, some of that was the differences in culture - Poland was a Church under siege, and we were not.
Additionally, there had been suppression by the Curia. a number of theologians who had been silenced well prior to V2 were rehabilitated, once some of the individuals in the Curia were retired or replaced - and some of them were considered ultra conservatives. Legitimate theological inquiry was at best questioned and often challenged; and that undoubtedly led not only to resentment and anger, but I posit contributed to a backlash effect when the Council was completed - and showed particularly to the laity when the over-reaction to the changes in rubrics lead to a sort of free-for-all in liturgy. It had all the markings of the “preachers’ kid” who got away from home to college and went ape.
Society itself was still reeling; first, from WW2 and the carnage related to that (this was particularly strong in Europe, where people had a terribly hard time coming to grips with not just the war itself, but also the Holocaust. And not long after that was the Korean war - the one no one talks about or seems to remember; and then to the Vietnam war (in which I participated). And socially, we were at the beginning of the hippie and free love movement, trust no one over 30, the Civil Rights movement, Kent State, SDS, Black Panthers, and the list goes on and on. The whole world seemed to be spinning out of control.
And one last parting shot: it was up to the bishops to implement V2, and the Mass. at least some of the failure needs to be laid to some of the bishops, who appear now to have been far better bureaucrats than shepherds.
And so it goes. Things have settled down considerably.
My parish out here in one of the most unchurched states has Adoration 23/7/363; we have produced 4 priests, 2 deacons, one professed sister and another approaching final vows in the last 20 years, and have one seminarian. So to a certain degree, it depends on how you look at the glass - half empty or half full.
Or like the engineers - twice as big as it needs to be…
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
This is debatable. Many seem to think they may have been on the same side of the table. I don’t know how accurate that is
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
My eyes closed was in response that someone saying that it would sound different. It wouldn’t
For your second point, I think you are confusing what is being debated. We aren’t talking about going back to pre vatican 2 form
Z
zz912
Guest
The word “afraid” speaks to how quickly Rome and the Vatican responded to a simple suggestion from Cardinal Sarah. He was brought in to meet with the Pope, multiple bishops and priests refuted him, and official communiques were made. All with lightning speed for the Vatican.
Now contrast this speed with the reaction you see when some in the Church contradict Church teaching, speak in favor of homosexual acts/relationships, speak in favor of women’s ordination, contradict Church teaching on life.
The speed at which one addresses an issue tells you how important that person views it.
Z
zz912
Guest
Which means the priests/bishops were facing God instead of each other or the congregation.
T
twf
Guest
They would have all been on the same side of the table as per Jewish custom.Which means the priests/bishops were facing God instead of each other or the congregation.
E
edwest2
Guest
People changed things in the West - individuals and groups inside and outside the Church. Time did nothing, people did. Poland was part of the Communist bloc.Yes, and in today’s world, 50 years later, things move even faster.
Interestingly, the implementation of the changes - not just in the liturgy, but the whole of the Council, went far better and with a tremendously lower amount of angst, in countries like Poland, whereas in Europe and North America, we saw a goodly bit of chaos.
For my own 10 cents worth of opinion, some of that was the differences in culture - Poland was a Church under siege, and we were not.
Additionally, there had been suppression by the Curia. a number of theologians who had been silenced well prior to V2 were rehabilitated, once some of the individuals in the Curia were retired or replaced - and some of them were considered ultra conservatives. Legitimate theological inquiry was at best questioned and often challenged; and that undoubtedly led not only to resentment and anger, but I posit contributed to a backlash effect when the Council was completed - and showed particularly to the laity when the over-reaction to the changes in rubrics lead to a sort of free-for-all in liturgy. It had all the markings of the “preachers’ kid” who got away from home to college and went ape.
Society itself was still reeling; first, from WW2 and the carnage related to that (this was particularly strong in Europe, where people had a terribly hard time coming to grips with not just the war itself, but also the Holocaust. And not long after that was the Korean war - the one no one talks about or seems to remember; and then to the Vietnam war (in which I participated). And socially, we were at the beginning of the hippie and free love movement, trust no one over 30, the Civil Rights movement, Kent State, SDS, Black Panthers, and the list goes on and on. The whole world seemed to be spinning out of control.
And one last parting shot: it was up to the bishops to implement V2, and the Mass. at least some of the failure needs to be laid to some of the bishops, who appear now to have been far better bureaucrats than shepherds.
And so it goes. Things have settled down considerably.
My parish out here in one of the most unchurched states has Adoration 23/7/363; we have produced 4 priests, 2 deacons, one professed sister and another approaching final vows in the last 20 years, and have one seminarian. So to a certain degree, it depends on how you look at the glass - half empty or half full.
Or like the engineers - twice as big as it needs to be…
Shortly before stepping down as Pope, Pope Benedict clarified what happened after Vatican II at a time when the West was still more religious, twice.
ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-media-spread-misinterpretations-of-vatican-ii/
ncregister.com/daily-news/benedict-and-the-second-vatican-council-calming-the-storm/
Meanwhile, the wrecking ball began moving through the Churches and things were done that were not even suggested by the Council. Today, that damage is being repaired.
liturgyguy.com/tag/communion-rails/
carmeloftraversecity.org/lit…el-renovation/
lincolndiocese.org/news/d…uer-renovation
creamcitycatholic.com/2016/0…v=7516fd43adaa
And the dissidents inside the Church tried to wreck our minds/beliefs as well, blaming the scapegoat, Vatican II.
wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764
My Dad was a World War II vet. He and the other vets in the neighborhood rarely talked about the war. They settled down, got married and had families. The war was done and it was time to look forward.
The Korean War was officially declared a “Police Action” and is technically not over. Only an armistice was signed. That’s it.
As far as the late 1960s, the Hippies and Anarchists began coming into our neighbors preaching their gospel. Live with your girlfriend, Christian morality was out, study Eastern mysticism, and in some cases, join radical groups. Smoke a lot of dope. Profanity was OK. Porn was OK. I had Hippie friends. A friend of mine was a member of the SDS. That went nowhere. The Black Panthers, aside from some radical members, was misrepresented by the media. I recently met a young man who told me his father was a member of the Black Panthers. I asked him what happened to it. He replied that once the drugs began appearing in black neighborhoods, things stopped. And the FBI was very concerned about these groups. They launched a program called COINTELPRO - well documented - that disrupted activities among the major figures in these groups, along with ongoing surveillance.
Vietnam? Only a few people have answered the question: “Why were American troops sent there?” Only a few complete or mostly complete histories exist. In summary, there was no defined objective, and the enemy, the VC in black pajamas, who were they, really?
Nothing spins out of control by itself.
Ed
O
OraLabora
Guest
edwest2;14059224 said:
- Status