Eye on the “dissent-fest” (part one)
As I exited the controlled climate of the L.A. Religious Education
Congress exhibit hall to enter the crisp Anaheim air, I looked up.
After two days of intermittent rain and overcast skies, the clouds were
gone–welcome relief. Palm tree tops against blue sky. California. As
my gaze returned to ground-level, it landed on a tall man with wild
white hair, towing a hand truck and handing out flyers to people as
they exited the side door of the Convention Center. Naturally, I
approached him.
“What do you have there?” I asked. The man explained that he was distributing a “thoroughly researched and well-documented” dossier on the Congress speakers.
“Ah, and–”
“It’s all fully documented,” he reiterated rapidly. “Otherwise, the
archdiocese would sue us in a heartbeat.” He smiled pleasantly.
I nodded: “Okay. Thanks.”
He went on his way, and I continued toward the parking garage, reading as I walked.
“Stop Cardinal Mahony’s subversion of Catholic doctrine at the
world’s largest dissent-fest!” The subheadline was even more excited:
“Pro-’gays,’ priestess advocates, occultists, and anti-Pope rebels to
‘educate’ tens of thousands of Catholic religion teachers.” As if the
reader’s attention wasn’t already grabbed, the subheadline continued,
“Millions of Catholic children’s souls in grave danger worldwide.”
The rest of the bilingual flyer goes on in a similar fashion,
listing several “dissenters,” including R. Scott Appleby, who “heaped
scorn on ‘fundamentalist’ Catholics” in his book Being Right;
the late Bishop Kenneth Untener, who “ran a sex-desensitization program
for his seminarians that had them watch pornographic movies”; Thomas
Groome, who “wants not only women priests but also women bishops”; Tom
Reese, SJ, who “was known for publishing pro-and-con articles about
church teachings”; and many others.
The newsletter is published by Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
and written by Kenneth M. Fisher, president of the group. As I approached the parking structure near the front of the Convention Center, I saw two men handing out more flyers under a row of about a dozen hand-made signs bearing slogans similar to the newsletter’s headline. One of the Concerned Roman Catholics (CRCs) was engaged in a heated exchange with a young man of about seventeen years. I moved within earshot.
“If you’re going to tell me that the Latin Mass is more of a Mass than today’s, then that’s where you lose me,” the teenager said. He was walking away from the CRC in the wide-brimmed straw hat. The boy’s mother was with him. She said nothing.
“It’s more traditional,” the CRC explained.
“If there’s a Liturgy of the Word, and a Liturgy of the Eucharist,” the boy said, “you have a Mass.”
Just then, a woman in her thirties pushing a stroller approached the group. She was on about something. A priest, she explained loudly, had “mocked” the pope’s statement on end-of-life care.
“How did he mock it?” I had entered the fray.
“He said the pope didn’t even write it!” she exclaimed. It’s not clear that he did, replied another in the group, which had grown by a few.
“There’s been some question as to how the pope’s statement fits in with traditional teaching on end-of-life care,” I offered.
The woman took a large step backward, her eyes widened, and she declared (again, loudly): “So you support euthanasia then?”
The child in the stroller paid none of this any mind.
“If you’re going to tell me that the Latin Mass is more of a Mass than today’s, then that’s where you lose me,” the teenager said. “If there’s a Liturgy of the Word, and a Liturgy of the Eucharist,” the boy said, “you have a Mass.”
I love that a teenage boy said this. Yet another sign that we need to give young people a little more information and a lot more credit.
Great post; I can hardly wait for Part II
I have been trying to warn Catholic school trustees in the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where Catholic schools are 100% publicly funded that the growing and increasingly shrill divide between “‘fundamentalist’ Catholics” and the predominately progressive approach used by Catholic teachers in our schools has the potential to do our school systems real harm.
I’m not sure this is true in America or the other Canadian provinces, where a private system exists, in which competing visions of Catholic education can vie for the loyalty and dollars of Catholic parents.
One trend that has emerged in Ontario is an increase in private Catholic schools offering a program in the “classical tradition”. Some of the more elite have tuition in the $12,000.00 range. Others are very small and are in the $5000.00 category . What bothers me is that the diocesan newspapers have been giving them considerable play. What does this tell us about an Archbishop’s or Bishop’s support for our publicly funded Catholic schools since they control their diocesan publications?
I know this situation isn’t the same in the U.S. but is there anyway in which this “Closed Circle” movement is perceived as a threat to American parochial schools?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200604%5CPOL20060411a.html
“Its more traditional” when did that become a synonym for truth, or faith building or commnity involvemenyt. It is a great example of how belief are not to be inviolable.
You gotta love that kid!
For recent data on students and religion in Canada you can check out the work of Dr. Reginald Bibby.
Bibby holds the Board of Governors Research Chair in the sociology department at the University of Lethbridge, Alta. For three decades he has been monitoring social trends in Canada through a series of national surveys of adults and teenagers, in the process gathering pioneering and historic data on religion and youth. His books include: Fragmented Gods (1987), Unknown Gods (1993), Restless Gods: The Renaissance of Religion in Canada (2002) and Restless Churches (2004).
Two recent newspaper articles on a workshop he gave in March in the Province of Saskatchewan, from the Prairie Messenger are currently on line at http://www.stpeters.sk.ca/prairie_messenger/
(1) Canada in ‘emerging religious renaissance’: Bibby
(2) People looking for ministry, not churches: Bibby
Clearly, these folks are cranks of the first order and thier literature is hardly worth the space it will inevtiably occupy in the round file.
That said, there are many reasonable people who have offered thoughtful criticism of the LA Catechetical Conference both past and present. Perhaps it would be a more interesting use of this space to engage in a dialog with those more thoughtful criticisms than to merely engage in self-congratualtory “thank God we’re not like those ignorant right-wing publicans” posting.
Perhaps the more thoughtful stuff will be forthcoming in part II.
It is delightful to hear people who are right and also laconic. The young person is a theologian in the making. But it is also discouraging to think of so many people who are so confused. I alway think “sheep without a shepherd”.
Tradition? Truth?
When St. Paul speaks of tradition he is not speaking merely of dogma. In 2 Thessalonians St. Paul says, “Hold fast to the traditions that you have received from us, whether by word or by letter.” There we have both the oral tradition and the written tradition. But he is not only referring to teaching. He himself makes this clear with one of the most famous expressions coming out of the New Testament. St. Paul says, “I have handed over that which I received.” He then explains what it is that he has received. What he describes is the Holy Mass. That the Lord, before He suffered, took bread saying, “This is My Body which is given up for you. This is the chalice of My Blood,” etc. So when St. Paul says “hold fast to the traditions” and “I have handed over that which I have received,” he refers specifically to the liturgy of the Holy Mass.
There is so little understanding concerning the doctrine about liturgy in the Church that it has become almost entirely obscured. In the Summa of St. Thomas you find next to nothing about liturgy. The reason for this is quite obvious if you know the history of doctrinal development. When a point becomes controversial, that is when the theologians do a great deal of writing and speaking on that topic. But if a doctrine is not questioned, not much is said about it.
The Christological controversies of the early ages and the development of the doctrine of transubstantiation — in what manner is there the Real Presence of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine — provoked a great deal of writing.
The one thing that was the least questioned was the doctrine of liturgy, because it was so well and universally understood. The liturgy was a sacred patrimony handed down from generation to generation in the Church.
The process of handing down is what we call tradition. Tradition, having been established, becomes custom. The liturgy grows gradually, as does a human being, in a natural organic way until it reaches its adulthood. It reaches the full term of its development and that is where the development ends. Then the form of the liturgy remains fixed and undergoes, from there on, very little change. In the life of tradition, there are always minor accretions and minor changes and, after a period of time, the liturgy needs to be trimmed again. And that’s when we have revision of the liturgy undertaken by the Roman pontiffs.
After centuries of development, the Roman Rite was top-heavy and needed to be trimmed and codified. This is what Pope St. Pius V did.
A major misconception in the post-Conciliar Church is that Pope Paul VI did what Pope St. Pius V did. In fact, we’re going to see that he did something quite the opposite.
The Rule of Tradition on Liturgy
One of the main points of Traditional Catholics is to underline the importance of the Roman Rite of the Mass as opposed to the Rite of Paul VI, because of the deficiencies in the Rite of Pope Paul VI. As soon as you mention deficiencies in the Rite of Pope Paul VI, the so-called conservatives become very alarmed. They will say “But the Rite of Paul VI was promulgated for the whole Church and has the protection of infallibility. How can you dare to say that there is some defect in the new Rite of Mass when the Holy Ghost gives protection to the Pope in promulgating the rites for the whole Church?”
What these people fail to understand is that they have not read the documentation very astutely for the so-called promulgation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, which is called the Roman Missal fraudulently because the Rite of Mass contained therein is not the Roman Rite of Mass. It is not the Roman liturgy. It is what the great architect of the new Rite of Mass, Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, called a new creation. His right-hand man, Joseph Gelineau, S.J., said of the new rite, “We have to speak frankly. The Roman Rite no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” He should know. He was one of the principal destroyers.
Canon 27 of the New Code of Canon Law explains that custom is the best interpreter of the laws. So when we look at liturgical law in the spirit of canonical tradition, that is to say, authentically understand the law as it was meant to be understood, then it must be understood according to that tradition that has established the ecclesiastical and liturgical customs. This is how important custom is in determining the sense, the meaning, of law.
Among the ancient Fathers we have St. John Chrysostom, who says it in one line: “Is it tradition? Ask no more.”
Among the medieval Doctors we find not too many pronouncements, but what we find is unanimously taught by such as St. Peter Damien and others who insist that you must not change the landmarks. What has been handed down is not to be altered. So much so that even if the Pope should make a change in the universal customs of the Church, he should not be followed. A book dealing specifically with custom, a theological treatise written by the great Pope Innocent III, says if the Pope makes changes in the universal customs of the Church, he is not to be followed.
Now we have so many bishops who insist that priests and faithful adhere to this new Rite of Pope Paul VI because, they claim, that it was decreed by the Pope and therefore, in humble obedience, we must accept it; that we’re not loyal Catholics if we insist on adhering to the old Rite. But here we have the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who insist on adherence to the traditional liturgy in the Church. Here we have one of the greatest Popes explaining that if the Pope should dare to make such changes, he is not to be followed.
And then it goes even further. Cardinal Torquemada was named by Pope Eugenius IV to be the official theologian of the Council of Florence, which upheld the principle that custom governs the liturgy. Cardinal Torquemada explains in quoting Pope Innocent III — in that book I just mentioned, that if the Pope should attempt to change the customs of the Church, especially the liturgical Rites, if he were to attempt to change the Church’s liturgical ceremonies, he would commit an act of schism.
Now this does not mean that absolutely nothing can ever be changed in the liturgy? According to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, changes that are mainly of a nature of a restoration, can be made. Minor accretions are permitted. And it pertains to the authority of the Pope to restore the liturgy, to preserve the liturgy, as was taught by Pope Pius XI. It is the duty of the Popes to preserve the liturgy and to protect it from adulteration.
When the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, proposed the simplification of the liturgy, the use of the vernacular throughout, and the reciting of the Canon of the Mass in a loud voice, Pope Pius VI condemned these propositions. Those reforms proposed at the Synod of Pistoia are precisely the same things that were proposed at the Second Vatican Council.
Now at this point those who, out of a misguided loyalty to the Council, begin to suspect Traditional Catholics of being not entirely orthodox will say “But how can you dare question the Second Vatican Council? It is the Pope together with all the bishops issuing these decrees. How can you possibly dissent from that? You’re not being loyal to the Church’s authority.” The answer is quite simple. I’ve used the expression of then Cardinal Ratzinger who spoke of those who turn the Second Vatican Council into a “super dogma”.
As a matter of fact, the official policy of the Second Vatican Council was quite clearly stated by Archbishop Pericle Felici, who at the time was the General Secretary of the Second Vatican Council. In his capacity as General Secretary, he told the Council Fathers when they asked about the theological weight — to use the more precise term the theological note — of the Council. He said something that must never be forgotten. “We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.” Very clearly, very precisely, the policy position of the Second Vatican Council regarding itself was that those propositions and doctrines which are of a novel character are not being imposed, under any obligation, on the faithful. It is the Council itself which leaves the faithful the right to have reservations, which is to say they don’t have to give assent to everything the Council is saying, only to that which has been previously defined. And that is what we must adhere to.
And so we have the right to question some of the reforms of the liturgy that were even called for at the Second Vatican Council. What is most plain to those who still have a Catholic understanding of the Church’s liturgy is that the liturgy may not be ambiguous. It may not suggest heresy. The ambiguities and Protestant suggestiveness of the new Rite are well documented, (they were even pointed out by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci during the reign of Pope Paul VI). They show that the new Rite fails to be what Pope Pius XII declared that the liturgy must be: an explicit profession of Catholic Faith. It is the ambiguities, the distortions, the suggestions of heresy in the new Rite of Mass that has brought about what Sister Lucy refers to in connection with the Third Secret of Fatima: “the diabolical disorientation in the post- Conciliar Church.”
Pope Pius XI declared that the Mass is the most important organ of the ordinary Magisterium of the Church. When liturgy is restored to a clear and unequivocal profession of Catholic Faith, then the faithful will cease living in the clouds of confusion that have been brought about by the failure of their pastors and by negligence of the upper hierarchy to plainly and unequivocally uphold the Catholic Faith. But by spreading confusion, by ambiguities and equivocation, they have brought about what is expressed in the Third Secret of Fatima — revealed by no less than the former Bishop of Fatima — apostasy, the loss of Faith on entire continents.
Dear Mr “t ommy boy”,
Please post your real name. As it now stands you are just another gutless web wonder. Until you have the courage to use the Christian name you were given at birth, in baptism, all your long winded posts stand for nothing because it comes only from some anonymous source and thus lacks credibility.
To others, this was, originally sent to the address supplied upon registration but no such e-mail exists. Such falsification is reprehensible at as classy a blog as dot.Commonweal. Hence I am posting my comment publicly.
To whom ever you are please, stop cowering in some hidden corner of cyberspace, stand-up like a man and post with the integrity and dignity becoming an educated Catholic with knowledgeable and strong opinions.
Remember you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
John Borst
Some who’ve posted are impressed by the self-assurance of the laconic youth who says : if there’s a liturgy of the word and a liturgy of the sacraments, it’s a mass. I think he’s mistaken. There are, after all, the problems of defective “home-made” eucharistic prayers, of defective matter in the gifts themselves and always the possibility of defective intention on the part of the priest consecrating. I’m sure many readers will have been to experimental liturgies where one or other (and sometimes all three) of these problems arose. It’s a sickening experience, especially when the defect is a matter of wanton insouciance on the part of the celebrant, and you don’t have to be a raving right-winger or dyed in the wool traditionalist to take such questions seriously. But this young “born theologian” doesn’t seem to understand that some liturgies and sacraments are simply not valid.
Although I think the purpose of Grant’s original comments, have been lost in the cacophony of opinion over a “valid” mass, I will wade in with this observation.
If I remember my early lessons on validity correctly, I believe the state of purity of the celebrant or the accuracy of celebration does not invalidate the sacramental nature of what is intended to happen at Mass.
We as participants have no control over either component. It is God who knows the intent and creates the sacramentality there-in. Those who are arguing that the externals create the validity are like lawyers arguing over the meaning in law, of a word.
I would appreciate some clarification of this “traditional” understanding.
Sorry, Christopher, I was perhaps too brief. I was assuming that the young man was referring to the Liturgies according to the current prescription originating from Paul VI as being no less valid than the Tridentine mass of “tradition”. I understand that there can be various defects in performance and intention. I personally would never attend an “experimental” mass. I always check to see that the clerical gentlemen is following what is in the book provided for the participants. I have sometimes noticed minor discrepancies. I do wish no one would improvise at the close of mass with some such idiocy as “have a nice day”.
The warts in a vernacular performance are all too visible. But It is wrong to suppose that in the good old days of tradition the clergyman was always truly able to pronounce, much less comprehend, Latin. Those who had ears to hear, heard, sometimes to their dismay.
The traditions what genuinely go back to the beginnings, when they embody the essence of the mass, we ought to cherish. For the rest, perhaps we must compromise without yielding to fad, seek a via media between the chatty and the pompous, and try to find more presbyters whose native tongue is English.
For those determined to give tradition its due I have a proposal. The original Roman liturgy, as I understand, was Greek. Hence the Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison in the Tridentine mass. Why not offer the option of mass in Greek today. What could be more Roman? It might also help with ecumenical relations.
Joseph et. al.
It is nice that you can check out a Mass before you attend. But when you live in a small town where you have one priest, who speaks English-as-a-second-language and does his own little things and the only alternative is either 1 hour north, 1&1/2 hours west or two hours south you take what you get.
In my opinion arguing over your preferences for the way in which Mass is presented/offered is nothing short of making the Mass just one more “consumer” choice.
John, I think we have a right to expect that a clergyman who undertakes to deliver a homily shoul be intelligible in the language he is pretending to use and should be able to go beyond a badly paraphrased version of the Gospel he has just scarcely been able to read. It is a question of professional standards. There are alternatives to incompetents who have nothing but their celibacy to offer. Is it to much to expect that the bishops should take notice? If it were a question of consumer choice, I would try another ecclesial community. It is not, and I will not.
Grant, well that young woman pushing the stroller was me . My name is Susan and that child you saw in the stroller who payed no attention was my soon to be two year old son. Considering his age I don’t think he would have payed attention.I remember having a brief conversation with two young men and a blonde haired lady about what you referenced here. I attended the workshop by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. former editor of “America” magazine on the Friday March 31 at Cardinal Mahony’s Religious Education Congress. It was during the Q and A time of the workshop , that Fr. Reese was asked a question on Euthanasia . Fr. Reese did say that he believed that Pope John Paul II didn’t right the speech , and made refrence to the Pope being sick and old. This is the same speech given by the late Holy Father before his death. ( this is also the time when The Terri Shiavo execution was going on.) Fr. Reese also said the speech the late Pope gave was not in line with “church” teaching. I sat back a thought what a lie and such arrogance this priest has but ah! he is Jesuit and plenty of them have turned their back on Jesus Christ and His Church. Beware ! Grant of false teachers and their teachings. It is sad that Fr. Reese has fallen for such teachings and has turned himself into a false teacher deceiving many . You probably are saying to yourself what a crack pot this Susan is . I know and can say I would give up my life for the Church’s teaching on euthanasia. Grant you never answered my question that day in Anahiem do you support Fr. Reese teaching on ethunasia or The Church’s teaching on euthanasia? If you say you support Fr. Reese ‘s position would give up your life for his teaching? or would you search deep down in your soul and get rid of your intellictual pride (we all have that to some extent) and surrender in complete freedom to Christ and his Church( the teaching Magisterium) Iam looking foward to your part Two of Cardinal Mahony’s Religious Education Congress. I do believe and know there are many speakers at his congress who promote dissent and for the liturgies that take place ,well all I can say is that Cardinal Mahony thumbs his nose to Redemptonis Sacramentum. Please forgive me if I misspelled any words, my soon to be two yearold son is on my lap and is being very fussy. Susan.
tommy boy and Susan:
It’s great that you took the time to write. Tommy Boy, I really did appreciate your informative summary of the liturgy situation. I’m not as well versed as you as far as the history, but I know liturgical abuses when I see them (oh, look, there they go dancing up the aisle again) and I see them a lot. And thank you, Susan for speaking up as well.
At the risk of being labeled a “crank” (what a charitable, tolerant term that is) I was outside the REC with the protesters as well. As it was the first time I’d met any of the CRCOA, I didn’t do that much as far as protesting goes but I did get to talk to Kenneth Fisher and a few others.
I have to ask, Mr. Gallicho: did you read the newsletter? If you did, you know that it brings up some very concerning (actually disturbing) issues.
Another question that I would ask you is if you had attended Fr. Radcliffe’s keynote address. If you did, you know that the man actually endorsed the viewing of the pornographic Brokeback Mountain. And that he actually stated that he was “shocked” at the “violence” of the language of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, now our Holy Father. Or that we should “see with the eyes” of “militant feminists.” Regarding the sex abuse scandal, Radcliffe states, “But we must also help into freedom the bishops who did not react to the scandal well. We must help them to unbind their faults, and let them be free. Most difficult of all, we must cherish the abusers. They’ve become the lepers of the modern Church, the unclean whom we fear to touch. We may be tempted to leave them in the tomb to rot. We must hear the voice of the Lord Who commands, ‘Unbind them and let them go.’”
And this is just one of the speakers–the keynot speaker no less.
So, tell me: does this reflect the true teaching of the Magisterium of the Church? Are those who stand against such heresy really cranks?
Hasn’t this thread meandered all over the place. Is it unfortunate that we started to talk about ‘valid’ masses? Sounds so legal. Remember there were times in church history when the celebrant conducted the Eucharist without any script. Later scripts were written for some priests who were not that well educated. The psuedo-Dionysius papers gave rise to a precise celestial and ecclesial hierarchy which did things ever so precisely. All that nonsense about the ranks of angels came from this lying work.
If truth be told celebrating the Eucharist is not rocket science and it is a mistake to lock this celebration into frigid definitions. It is the celbration of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord. And woe to those who do not love one another or receive the Body of the Lord without that discernment.
Bill:
Talk about meandering. Why you’d even bring up Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite in this thread is beyond me. (Though I’d point out that minds such as St. Gregory the Great and Thomas Aquinas both speak of these angelic choirs, you’re wandering from the topic.)
I had brought us back to the blogger’s main points which were in reference to why people were protesting. I am not enough of a liturgical scholar yet to answer the Novus Order vs. Tridentine question but, luckily, someone already spoke to that. I gave you specific statements made by the keynote speaker, teachings that have been the cause of dismay for those of us who’d like to have the truth taught at a congress for Catholic religious educators. And I’d appreciate an answer to that.
I’ll leave it to others to address your charitable claim that, in striving for a Eucharistic Celebration that is closer to what the Magisterium has commanded, that somehow people have become unloving.
Oh yeah, and your addition to the caution from Paul about failing to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord? Not helping your cause to alter Scripture that way.
Bill,
I’m at something of a loss to know where to start, but here goes…
1. the Church has its own legislation, canon law, which among other things deals with the niceties of who can say Mass and how it should be said. To complain of legalism is to miss the point. When people are performing solemn acts such as consecrating the elements, there is no room for spontaneity. The Church has always taken the view that it was bound by the precedents of sacred tradition and could not dare to depart from Christ’s own example. Hence no female priests, wheat flour in the host and wine made from grapes, etc.
2. “the Mass is not rocket science”. On the contrary, it is a profound mystery, involving the transformation of the gifts into the Body of the Lord and the representation of the Sacrifice on Calvary. What little we know of the earliest eucharistic practice (see Corinthians I) suggests that any confusion between an ordinary meal and a liturgy was being sorted out in no uncertain terms in apostolic times. We also know that the Last Supper followed at least in part the Jewish ceremonial forms, including recitation of psalms, a canticle etc and that the words of institution for the Blessed Sacrament would have been an absolutely memorable breach with tradition (a new and everlasting covenant, no less, sealed in His blood)seared on the memories of those present. The Church’s fidelity to tradition is not a case of obscurantism or dumb servility but obedience to her best understanding of her Lord’s example. It is the best, and perhaps the only, way that she can be sure that her eucharistic offering will be acceptable and that it will be guaranteed in its effectiveness.
With regard to:
a. The Tridentine: It is not truly “traditional” as some would want us to believe. Key word: ‘truly.’ I vote for the earliest liturgies of our primitive Christian communities. If a Mass Book will help, so be it. The Novus Ordo certainly comes closer to truly traditional in this regard.
b. Schiavo: Thank God the courts acknowledged her right to die. Machinery simply delayed the natural and inevitable. I am staunchly pro-life, but even I found Father Pavone and like-minded way off-base in this situation. Euthanasia? No way! At some point, we must face mortal death as a part of human life and as the gateway to eternal life. Various writers have shown how JPII’s pronouncement in this case was very much at odds with traditional Church teaching on end-of-life decisions. Let’s not see “pro-life” be comandeered by those who, perhaps without knowing it, are elevating medical technology to god-like stature — i.e., if we can do it, then we must do it. What an abomination!!!
Joe,the courts acknowledge her right to die? Teri, didn’t give permission for her to be put to death. Her adulterous husband did. The perverted florida courts delivered. Fr. Frank Pavone is godly man a real Roman Catholic priest. I know you can careless what I have to say. The thing about time will be when the contracepting and aborting oh! and the euthansizing “so called catholics” are gone and meet their reward. Come back Joe, before it is too late the Mercy of God is there but you must first repent .
Hi Jared,
I was not accusing you specifically of ‘meandering.’ It was simply a description of the whole thread. You also wrote:
“I’ll leave it to others to address your charitable claim that, in striving for a Eucharistic Celebration that is closer to what the Magisterium has commanded, that somehow people have become unloving.”
I am pointing out that Paul’s point is that the people who celebrate the Eucharist must love one another above all. More stressing that than contra-magisterium. I think I have that Scripture on Paul right because this coincides with Jesus’ “By this will all know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.”
Dear Christopher: you wrote,
“The Church has always taken the view that it was bound by the precedents of sacred tradition and could not dare to depart from Christ’s own example. Hence no female priests, wheat flour in the host and wine made from grapes, etc.”
Hasn’t the hierarchy departed from ‘Christ’s own example’ when they eliminated women from the sanctuary and from preaching? In the Gospel narratives women are around Jesus all the time and in significant roles. Most important at the resurrection, Magdalene. The Woman at the Well who announce Jesus to her own townspeople, Apostle. You also wrote:
“The Church’s fidelity to tradition is not a case of obscurantism or dumb servility but obedience to her best understanding of her Lord’s example. It is the best, and perhaps the only, way that she can be sure that her eucharistic offering will be acceptable and that it will be guaranteed in its effectiveness.”
Was being sure that the Eucharist would be acceptable and effective shown as the Hierarchy isolated the Eucharist so that it had to command reception at least once a year? Remember the bells at the consecration were started because the celebrant was so far away from the people and screened out that the bells were the only way of telling what was happening. And certainly the sacralization of the celebrants did not serve well the Church of the humble Nazarean.
The Eucharist is the most loving way in which God visits his people. People know how to treat their Lord. The celebrant has to point to God not stand in the way.
Susan, obviously we disagree. I did, by the way, check with God on this matter, and he agreed with me.
Bill, you wrote: “I am pointing out that Paul’s point is that the people who celebrate the Eucharist must love one another above all. More stressing that than contra-magisterium. I think I have that Scripture on Paul right because this coincides with Jesus’ “By this will all know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.”
So, basically, I could use this same passage to talk about how to deal with say, the situation Christ speak of in Matt. 18:15-18, wherein we are to treat one who won’t listen even to the Church like a Gentile or tax collector. So, if we fail to do that, we’re not discerning the True Presence in the Eucharist?
Chirst had Twelve Apostles–all men. Perhaps you need to read a bit more of St. Paul’s writings (and pretty much any of the early Church fathers) before you start spreading the heretical notion that women are called to the sanctuary. My gosh, if Jesus didn’t ordain His own mother (who was sinless, something which none of his all-male Apostle crew could claim), we can rest assured that the Church’s rulings on both the dignity and the various and differing vocations of women and men are exactly what Christ had in mind. Remember, He promised Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven.
You say, Bill, that “The celebrant has to point to God not stand in the way.”
The celebrant acts in persona Christi. How on earth could he ever “stand in the way” except by not obeying the rules set by the Peter of today, who has bound certain thing and looses others.
Joe: Feeding someone and gving them drink are corporal works of mercy, not extraordinary means … no matter what the means of administering said nutrition are.
Boy, this thread sure makes me glad I converted to the True Faith from the Anglican communion where all they do is argue about homosexuals, women’s ordination and the liturgy.
Jean:
It is rather discouraging, isn’t it? Thankfully, the dissenters will never have the rule of Church Law on their sides.
“… the gates of Hell will not prevail…”
Yeah, it’s discouraging that people like you equate people who ask questions about church teaching with minions of hell.
“People like me,” huh, Ron?
Having questions about the truth is different than teaching the opposite of the truth.
As far as I can see, nothing on this thread that resolves anything except the brokenness of the Body of Christ.
As a convert, I really can’t follow some of the exchanges here. Some seem to derive from “family” feuds that are too new for me to understand, and I’m just not deep enough to follow most theological arguments.
First, may I express my appreciation to Jean Raber for her fine response to one of the posts of 21 April. Second, I would like to thank Grant and the editors of Commonweal for their forbearance at the tone and poor argumentation of a number of posts in this thread. Like Jean I am perplexed by both the contents and the shrillness of a number of the posts I have studied here. I am sure that Grant meant only to start a serious exchange here, but some of this discussion has drifted and in my opinion deteriorated.
Here is wishing all of you peace.
I passed this thread on to a friend, and she was extremely upset that the late Bishop Kenneth Unterner had been dragged into the fray.
“It’s all fully documented,” said Grant’s source. “Otherwise, the archdiocese would sue us in a heartbeat.”
Dead people, of course, cannot sue for libel, nor are others allowed to sue on behalf of that person’s reputation.
That’s one way scurrilous publications like the National Enquirer get away with making outrageous claims about Elvis and other dead celebrities.
And it’s why any fair-minded person should be wary when they read scurrilous allegations against people who are dead.
… [Trackback]…
[...] Read More here: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=172…