CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Catholic Theology Q & A
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 7th August 2012, 07:23 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Blind obedience, I wanted to add, is not what is required of us, in my opinion. There are Catholics who have always obeyed the eternal moral law to avoid using contraception, because the Church required it, but they did not believe this teaching to be true in their hearts, and, in fact, resented it. In this case, I'm not sure which is worse... to obey with resentment in one's heart or to disobey with "love". It would have been best to find out why the Church teaches as it does, and if one still disagrees or resents, then, perhaps to live as brother and sister until one does understand it, rather than blindly obey.
  #32  
Old 7th August 2012, 12:00 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
Even if it is not technically a sin to disagree with the liturgical norms, it detracts from the good of the community to do so, though in this particular case being discussed, may be a non-issue.

It does not necessarily detract from the good of the community to disagree with liturgical norms. For example, some Catholics (like Fr. Z.) speak out in favor of changing the norms: not allowing Communion in the hand, kneeling at reception of Communion, etc. It may benefit the community to speak in favor of different norms, or in favor (my view) of norms that permit the priest to make some small variations in the Mass. It was most probably the case in the early Church that the form of the Mass varied a great deal from one place to another. There were no liturgical norms, nor Canon law, nor Bishops' Conferences for many centuries in the Church.

On the question of dissenting from a non-infallible teaching, this may benefit the Church in that either an error is corrected, or the correct teaching may be clarified in response to an opposing position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
Another example of faithful disagreement is Marian apparitions and, we know that the Divine Mercy message was condemned at one point, but now there is a Divine Mercy Sunday. So, one could have followed the Diary of St. Faustina during those years, and still have been a faithful Catholic?

Yes, it would have been faithful for a Catholic to follow the diary of Sr. Faustina, during the time it was condemned, as long as the faithful had the disposition to always put the teaching of the Church first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
Currently at our parish, there is a Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament from Monday - Friday for 24 hrs, and a Cenacle of Life, and Benediction, etc. This is all good, but many are also following the false apparition of the Holy Love Shrine. There is a First Friday Holy Hour prayer vigil with prayers from Fatima mixed in with these false messages. The bishop of Cleveland has written a decree against it in 2009, yet it seems to be ignored. Is this faithful disagreement? The one promoting these messages is one spearheading the regular praying of the rosary in church.

A person might faithfully and incorrectly believe that one claimed private revelation is true, or that another is false, in contradiction to the decision of the temporal authority of the Church. However, certain claimed private revelations have teachings that are clearly contrary to infallible teachings of the Church. One cannot adhere to heresy faithfully, nor can one faithfully ignore or reject a large number of non-infallible teachings.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #33  
Old 7th August 2012, 12:09 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
Blind obedience, I wanted to add, is not what is required of us, in my opinion. There are Catholics who have always obeyed the eternal moral law to avoid using contraception, because the Church required it, but they did not believe this teaching to be true in their hearts, and, in fact, resented it. In this case, I'm not sure which is worse... to obey with resentment in one's heart or to disobey with "love". It would have been best to find out why the Church teaches as it does, and if one still disagrees or resents, then, perhaps to live as brother and sister until one does understand it, rather than blindly obey.

The teaching against contraception is infallible, so this dissent could not fall under licit dissent. If a person does not believe a teaching is true, despite it being taught by the Church infallibly, he or she sins. Prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy are the path to repentance.

Some types of acts are inherently immoral, and so they are sinful whenever they are deliberately chosen. So it is not morally permissible to commit an intrinsically evil act "with love", i.e. with a loving intention.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #34  
Old 7th August 2012, 01:49 PM
tapinu33 tapinu33 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: WA
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
It does not necessarily detract from the good of the community to disagree with liturgical norms. For example, some Catholics (like Fr. Z.) speak out in favor of changing the norms: not allowing Communion in the hand, kneeling at reception of Communion, etc. It may benefit the community to speak in favor of different norms, or in favor (my view) of norms that permit the priest to make some small variations in the Mass. It was most probably the case in the early Church that the form of the Mass varied a great deal from one place.

Pre Vatican II I am sure all Masses said throughout the world were said with very little error.
The Mass is The Mass. Allowing "options" at Mass eg receiving in the hand or the tongue creates problems. Having the tabernacle front and center or "in the parking lot" ( sometimes I can't find it and have to ask) Along with changing the odd word here and there allows the priest to "tailor" the Mass. I believe we need to get back to rules and regulations of The Mass then there is no confusion, no irritations and only true worship and Love.
__________________
I Wish You Heaven
  #35  
Old 7th August 2012, 02:57 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tapinu33 View Post
Pre Vatican II I am sure all Masses said throughout the world were said with very little error.
The Mass is The Mass. Allowing "options" at Mass eg receiving in the hand or the tongue creates problems. Having the tabernacle front and center or "in the parking lot" ( sometimes I can't find it and have to ask) Along with changing the odd word here and there allows the priest to "tailor" the Mass. I believe we need to get back to rules and regulations of The Mass then there is no confusion, no irritations and only true worship and Love.

This discussion is about faithful dissent and faithful disagreement. You faithfully disagree with the prudential decision of the Church to permit the option of Communion on the tongue and other changes to the form of the Mass. So I take it that you agree: some disagreement with Church rules and rulings is faithful.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #36  
Old 7th August 2012, 05:06 PM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
The teaching against contraception is infallible, so this dissent could not fall under licit dissent. If a person does not believe a teaching is true, despite it being taught by the Church infallibly, he or she sins. Prayer, self-denial, and works of mercy are the path to repentance.

Some types of acts are inherently immoral, and so they are sinful whenever they are deliberately chosen. So it is not morally permissible to commit an intrinsically evil act "with love", i.e. with a loving intention.

I agree, of course, that contraception is immoral, but, sadly, I have seen the damage done to families who don't understand the reason for the teaching, but obey it blindly with anger and resentment, and who make comments that affect the children for the rest of their lives. This is why we became NFP teachers, to try to help others to understand, not just blindly obey.

Another example, of faithful disagreement on the liturgy is whether to remain standing during communion until all have received, or to kneel. It was the practice at our parish to kneel. This summer, the new bishop of Fresno issued a statement that we should all remain standing and our pastor printed it in the bulletin. Yet, everyone still kneels.
  #37  
Old 8th August 2012, 02:14 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think there is a need for distinctions here. for the record, my examples were are about strict liturgical use of the current Mass. Something that is standardized and has been for a very good reason, unity. Examples about the early church and variations, of course, dont apply since there was no standard. I dont think kneeling or standing or receiving in the hand or mouth is considered a part of the liturgy. I dont think the faithful are getting a bad message if a priest, for instance, leaves out the "sign of peace" since that is optional in the liturgy. i also agree that the liturgy is fallible and anyone can disagree with the use of the current words faithfully, but to change it without explanation gives the message that its ok to not follow church teaching. If a priest is going to do this, #1 his bishop must give him approval to CHANGE the liturgy and the faithful should know why. Priests cannot just change the liturgy at will.

Canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law states:
1.The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.

Number 22 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states:
1.Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2.In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3.Therefore, absolutely no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Therefore, no one may change any approved and confirmed liturgical text. This includes, but is not limited to the "Lectionary for Mass" and the "Sacramentary."

http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/policies/

The repeated statement that I will be willing to die for is as follows!

For a priest to change the approved black and white printed liturgy, ON HIS OWN, is scandalous!!!!!

God bless you all, and my email for the few that do not have it is!
prolifecensus@optonline.net

Last edited by TheGiftOfLife : 8th August 2012 at 02:35 AM.
  #38  
Old 8th August 2012, 03:54 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,628
Default

I've edited GiftofLife's post above, removing references to myself and to my PM to GiftofLife.

I appreciate GiftofLife providing some support for his position. There is nothing wrong with taking the position that the priest should not change the form of the Mass.

However, I disagree. I think that the priest should be permitted to make some minor changes to the form of the Mass. This was most probably the case for most of Church history, since Canon law and the GIRM did not exist until the 20th century.

I don't agree that it is necessarily scandalous. In order for an act to be the sin of scandal, it must be done with the reasonable anticipation that the act will do more harm than good by leading others into sin, (e.g. by means of a bad example). One way to set a scandalous example is of course by sinning publicly. Another way is by some action or words that would be likely to be misunderstood in a particular circumstance. A priest making small changes to the liturgy of the Mass does not lead people into sin, nor does it set a bad example. The GIRM and Canon Law are norms, not dogmas.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
  #39  
Old 8th August 2012, 04:00 AM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

GOL,

You once said this, April 4th, 2012 under the 'Fr. Z. on Latin Acts of Contrition' thread:

Quote:
'I think we are all just flagging how certain, practices, can possibly lead the faithful astray.

If I ever found a church in the current form of the Mass that had NO liturgical abuses, I would attend it.

I only find this only at the Tridentine Mass in Manhattan

Really, not one single Church ??? Are you not just flag waving here; i.e. your motive behind your current posts on this topic is trying to say the old Mass is much better and don't even bother with the Novus Ordo, its full of abuse ?

Luke
{24:30} And it happened that, while he was at table with them, he took bread, and he blessed and broke it, and he extended it to them.
{24:31} And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their eyes.
{24:32} And they said to one another, “Was not our heart burning within us, while he was speaking on the way, and when he opened the Scriptures to us?”
{24:33} And rising up at that same hour, they returned to Jerusalem. And they found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them,
{24:34} saying: “In truth, the Lord has risen, and he has appeared to Simon.”
{24:35} And they explained the things that were done on the way, and how they had recognized him at the breaking of the bread.
__________________
While awaiting these things, be diligent, so that you may be found to be immaculate and unassailable before him, in peace. 2 Peter 3:14
  #40  
Old 8th August 2012, 05:26 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
GOL,
Really, not one single Church ??? Are you not just flag waving here; i.e. your motive behind your current posts on this topic is trying to say the old Mass is much better and don't even bother with the Novus Ordo, its full of abuse ?

Well Pontifex, lets deal with the actual words I said and stand by 100%

If I ever found a church in the current form of the Mass that had NO liturgical abuses, I would attend it.

I live in New York City, in particular, the Brooklyn Queens diocese. I have never attended a Mass where I have not seen abuses.
next..
I only find this only at the Tridentine Mass in Manhattan
Once again, TRUE. At this Mass, I dont see any abuses.

Did I say the reason for the abuse IS the Pope Paul VIth Mass?? no!
Did I say that the reason for the non abuse WAS the Tridentine Mass? no!

It just so happens that the Tridentine Mass just happens to be conducted by devout Priests that are informed and a congregation that are believers.

Can a Tridentine Mass have abuses? SURE! If it was conducted with people that did not know or believe in their faith.
Can the current form be said without liturgical abuses? of course!, Have I seen one that is not a dog and pony show? NO!

Are you calling me a liar? hmmm not sure, why dont you clarify your point again? I dont really understand it.

The problem is NOT the current form, the problem is what happened to the faithful after the current form was introduced!

Why dont you ask the Pope why hes so big on the Tridentine Mass. I think he might have more insight.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.