Okay. I've been reading many of these postings, though I missed some. Anyway, here is the opinion of someone who worries that the church is too often stuck in an earlier period of history.
A little intro. I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant background, with devout and good and sincere people on both sides. I have read widely in the field of religion, including such church fathers as Justin Martyr, Anselm, Jerome, Cyprian, Clement and Augustine as well as mild heretics like OrIgen and Tertullian. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on St. Thomas Aquinas. I read Catholic periodicals regularly, watch EWTN, etc.
So, what have I concluded after all this? Many devoted (and fine) Catholics here on CAF need to demonstrate a little more tolerance and flexibility. There are millions of Catholics with differing views, produced in large part by our democratic society, advanced education, and inquiring minds. They don't feel required to believe everything that our ancestors believed.
Now we have superb telescopes and know that there may be a million solar systems out there, and we have modern medicine which discovered that diseases are caused by germs and not by demons or our sin. The church fathers did not have such instruments and their works often are flawed because of that. So, intelligent people can't and should not feel required to accept the idea that tradition is sacrosanct, that we have to accept the judgment of St. Paul that women should obey their husbands or that of St Timothy who wrote that women should never exercise authority over men, etc. These sorts of admonition come from a strongly patriarchal society and should not be taken literally today. There are many things, yes, even in scripture, that are totally irrelevant today. Read Ex. 21, Lev. 20, and/or Deut. 22-23 for some examples
The same when it comes to liturgy. There are those who love the Tridentine Mass with its Latin, its many smells and bells, its music from an earlier era, its emphasis on a medieval aura, its ornate statues and such. Fine. I, for one, would be totally alienated if the church were to revert to such practices. This emphasis upon the necessity of a precise liturgy is, in my mind, a form of liturgical legalism, no better than others forms of religious legalism. I even find it prissy and am turned off by too much attention paid to ritualistic detail by those priests who can seem more concerned about ritual propriety than about righteous living. The church has suffered from too many of them. One priest in this area who was noted for his focus on liturgical piety and perfection was caught for - well, you can guess.
Jesus was disturbed by the narrowness of Judaism and he boldly defied tradition in many ways, whether eating with sinners or 'breaking' the Sabbath or associating with Samaritans. I can't believe that he would give a hoot about the minutiae of mass. He would ask, as he did. "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say!?"
Could go on but you get my drift. And by the way, one of the Catholic churches in town has the risen Christ above the altar rather than the crucified Christ. Personally, I think the former is a far better representative the central message of Christianity - victory over defeat, good over evil, positive over negative, hope over despair, etc. We are an Easter people and should cry aloud: HE IS RISEN!
God bless the whole world with joy, harmony, peace, and love, and may he forgive us our pettiness.
