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
  #41  
Old 8th August 2012, 05:46 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
...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.

This is an interesting point... I went to a Mass in another city where the priest asked us to bow our heads and to pray for peace instead of the usual "sign of peace", and then moved right into the Lamb of God, so there was no hand shaking. I appreciated this, though I did not receive any explanation as to why he made the change. In this case it seemed to be reverent. In the case of the change in the Creed to "We believe" which was spoken into the priest's microphone while everyone else is saying "I believe", seemed scandalous to me. But, like I said, it may have been a simple mistake made by an elderly retired priest.

I do think that the virtue of obedience can be modeled by both clergy and laity during the Mass, by doing what is recommended for proper liturgy. What is said and done at Mass can and does spill over into every day life, especially for so many lay people who do not further educate themselves about their faith, but rely on what is heard on the street, so to speak. The people in this discussion group obviously care enough to try to learn more about their faith, but so many people just don't and it is a miracle that they even go to Mass.

Personally, I was spiritually uplifted by the Sunday evening Masses at the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia. Archbishop Chaput is such a blessing to our Church, and I continue to cherish the memory of our short time there. The cantor, also, was not only a fine singer, but was very reverent in her gestures, always mindful and never fidgeting, not even once. This example goes a long way toward encouraging others to be holy in every day life, in my opinion.
  #42  
Old 8th August 2012, 01:45 PM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post

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

And what did happen exactly to the faithful after the NO ???

See, its this is this kind of flag waving from traditionalist that I detest: its the fault of the NO. I don't know if you are one or not, but this is typical traditionalist speak.
__________________
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
  #43  
Old 8th August 2012, 07:35 PM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex View Post
And what did happen exactly to the faithful after the NO ???

See, its this is this kind of flag waving from traditionalist that I detest: its the fault of the NO. I don't know if you are one or not, but this is typical traditionalist speak.

The change to the Novus Ordo happened before I was born, so I can't say with authority, but I have noticed negativity on both sides. My father-in-law loved the changes of Vatican II, but says that it didn't go far enough and he wanted a married priesthood, women priests, etc. He gets angry at the drop of a hat with anyone who disagrees, and I have met many others like him, who resist any type of authority and who vilify the Hierarchy and Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the Rosary. Was this the result in the change to the Novus Ordo? I don't think so, rather, the change in attitude of the faithful coincided with Vatican II, but wasn't caused by it. Then, there are extremists on the traditionalist side who get angry about rock and folk music in church, etc.

Personally, as a convert, I try to be observant and not get too upset. If something bothers me too much, I can always try to find another parish, as did tapinu33. There is something to be said for sticking with one's territorial parish and finding fellowship there, even with the many flaws. Think of the missionaries of past eras who were perhaps very lonely in a faraway land without the splendor of a beautiful liturgy.

I did go to the Tridentine Mass recently for the first time, but I just couldn't get into it, though I did really try. I even read a book about it. Also, I can't receive communion there, because of my allergy to wheat, as the chalice is not offered.

Last edited by Sacredcello : 8th August 2012 at 07:43 PM.
  #44  
Old 8th August 2012, 10:04 PM
Arax Arax is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 313
Default

I'm not entirely certain I want to get too sucked into this discussion. It's obviously caused some hard feelings. Nonetheless, I've read most of the comments and I think I understand what everyone is saying. I sincerely feel that the main problem with allowing any intentional changes to the Mass, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is that it leads to taking liberties. Granted, no one is perfect and sometimes things aren't done exactly as they're supposed to be, but if you intend to do them correctly there's no harm done.

I realize that the Mass can be changed by the proper authorities, as can other disciplines of the church, but I think we've had enough of "I know better than everyone else and I'm going to do things my way". The rebellious priests in Ireland who were refusing to accept the new improvements would be a good example.

There are things about the Novus Ordo that I don't like, but I've accepted the fact that the Mass doesn't belong to me. It is the way it is and I can't change it. There are things about the Tridentine Mass that I don't like, but I've accepted the fact that it also doesn't belong to me and I can't change it either. It is what it is.

By the way, Claudia, I was very small when the Mass was changed, so I barely remembered what the Tridentine was like. When I first went as an adult I was really confused. You have to go several times before you really get the hang of it. I went to one every Sunday for about five years. I still go occasionally. There is something to be said for it, but I prefer the low Mass since I can participate more.
  #45  
Old 9th August 2012, 02:59 AM
Pontifex Pontifex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
Personally, as a convert, I try to be observant and not get too upset. If something bothers me too much, I can always try to find another parish, as did tapinu33.

I am the same way. We attend the Cathedral here where I live and things bother me like the kneelers that were stripped away a long time ago, etc. I have learned that these things are secondary, important, but secondary, and that the Mass is beautiful because our Lord is present when the host is consecrated.

Liturgies have changed over the course of the centuries and maybe are a reflection of the place of the Church in the world. I think that as we enter the end times, our liturgy will be lived more an more like it was lived at the beginning of Christianity, in small communities, at people's homes, away and hidden from the secular pagan societies wishing to get rid of every trace of religion.
__________________
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
  #46  
Old 9th August 2012, 04:16 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,565
Default

This thread has moved away from the initial topic: the possibility of faithful disagreement on matters of discipline, and on rules and rulings under the temporal authority of the Church. So I will make a few closing remarks, and then close the thread. (Please do not reopen the same topics in a new thread.)

On the question of liturgical norms, there is a range of faithful opinions. A faithful Catholic can hold that everyone should adhere to the norms. A faithful Catholic can hold that relatively limited departures from the norms are permissible under the eternal moral law; it is not a sin, and so it may do more good than harm.

However, it would be a serious doctrinal error to treat any matter of discipline or prudential judgment as if it were a dogma (infallible doctrine). Dogmas requires the full assent of faith (theological assent). Non-infallible doctrines require only the religious submission of will and intellect (religious assent). Non-infallible teachings allow for the possibility of licit theological dissent, within certain limits, called the norms of licit dissent.

But matters of discipline and prudential judgment, even by the Pope about a grave matter such as war or the death penalty, are not teachings and do not require assent. A faithful Catholic can disagree with the Pope, or the local Bishop, or a Cardinal, or the local Bishops' Conference. A faithful Catholic can also disagree with a liturgical norm, or a provision of Canon law.

Finally, an act is only a sin if it violates the eternal moral law. But violations of liturgical norms, canon law, and anything that falls under the temporal authority of the Church is not necessarily sinful.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
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 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.