. . . whenever I think of "smarmy", I always think of the egregious Rev. Obadiah Slope from Barchester Towers.
Brothers under the skin, sounds like.
Posted on 09/15/2006 8:49:34 AM PDT by NYer
I would be very suprised if they say it in private...in fact shocked wouldn't be strong enough a word.
I honestly think it would be impossible to find one who uses the Novus Ordo.
My comment was just an FYI, that I learned through the conversation I had with an FSSP Seminarian and Diocesan Seminarian from the same parish who were later ordained in the same year.
Reading all of these hair-splitting replies amuses me and makes me glad that I escaped the roman catholic denomination many years ago. I find it's much more satisfying to be a generic Christian with only Jesus as my master.
I'm not on either side of this issue. But I did catch the omission of the completion of the implied meaning of this sentence -- a sentence that is really the tossing of a bone.
Not in my Arch-Diocese.
We had some churches in the Arch-D that were built with out kneelers. Your options, stand or sit, kneeling is old-school. Yes, those post-VII bookstores. I know that in some of these parishes kneelers are being put in much to the chagrin of the Cafeteria Catholics who attend.
The Second Vatican Council set about restoring some of the more authentic practices from the early church. While I'm not sure at what point in time kneeling replaced standing in the Latin Church, it firmly embedded itself into the liturgy for 500+ years, and was / is viewed as a sign of reverence and respect. From the perspective of a devout Roman Catholic, Bishop Tod is asking them to be disrespectful.
"As far as Nicaea I, this legislation was appropriate for its time but we hardly think that the Church must be bound by every disciplinary canon from the primitive ages."
Personally, I agree with you. As you know, there are canons forbidding us to go to Jewish doctors. My point was that requiring the faithful to receive communion standing up is hardly some looney modernist innovation (though this bishop may be a looney modernist/syncretist). There is ancient practice to back it up.
And C, gbcdoj will tell you that when I want to be snippy, I'm pretty obvious about it.
"From the perspective of a devout Roman Catholic, Bishop Tod is asking them to be disrespectful."
NYer, as you know, I tend to be a bit on the "traditional" side myself! :) But in this case the devout Roman Catholic who believes his/her bishop is telling them to be disrespectful is just plain wrong (I hope!). I don't doubt for a second that kneeling for communion has been around at least 500 years. I'll bet even longer. Its age gives it immense value. But that's the argument to make, not that standing is some modernist, disrespectful innovation.
It is interesting that Bishop Brown does not think that he is obliged to observe the following norms:
Only when there is a necessity may extraordinary ministers assist the Priest celebrant [with Communion] in accordance with the norm of law.
(Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Redemptionis sacramentum, no. 88)Moreover, respect must everywhere by shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.
(Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei)
"Its age gives it immense value."
satan worship was around for a long time before Jesus submitted to incarnation. Does its age "give it immense value?"
It is certainly NOT a mortal sin (perhaps one of the most ridiculous and outrageous modernist statements of recent times).
Now, people who believe that they have to kneel at Holy Communion would be better off attending the TLM.
There is yet another aspect to this which makes the modernist position here even more absurd. Progressive liberal modernists are great at accomodating their liberal friends who want to dissent on the politics of abortion. And we hear all sorts of pieties about "liberty of conscience" and how Vatican II was all about involving the laity and accomodating their opinions and conscience. Why not "liberty of conscience" on kneeling?
Why does the modernist minimalist bishop here fail to invoke the liberal hosannas and pieties on behalf of the sacred liberty of conscience of the laity? Inquiring minds would like to know... It seems a strange omission, considering no doubt that liberal Catholics who support abortion are receiving Holy Communion while standing at minimalist liturgies in his diocese. And so, if he is willing to accomodate them in their grave liberties of conscience on matters of human life, he ought to be able to accomodate those who exercise conscience merely on one of the musical chairs issues of liturgical discipline.
"satan worship was around for a long time before Jesus submitted to incarnation. Does its age "give it immense value?"
No, but I suggest that its persistence means we should pay close attention to it and take it very, very seriously.
As you point out, the statements in the bishops letter are not in accord with the Church's official policy on the Latin Mass. He is in error here.
"... 'Does its age "give it immense value?'"
"No...."
If age does not give satan worship (or anything else) great value, then it should give nothing great value.
(Don't get me wrong. I'm not a satan worshipper. I picked that as one might choose Hitler to illustrate great evil.)
Knelling for Communion in the West developed as a result of greater devotion to the Eucharistic presence of our Lord. During the Reformation the Protestants returned to receiving while standing to show there rejection of the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation and to deny a distinction between the ordained clergy and the laity. It is within this historical context that Catholics react against standing for Communion. It is also because it takes place with other changes that would communicate a lessened belief in the Real Presence: Communion in the hand, illegal use of extraordinary ministers of Communion, removal of altar rails and the distinction between the sanctuary and the nave, removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary (and even from the body of the church itself), etc.
First, the Roman Catholic Church is not a "denomination." That would be part of the system you are now a part of, Protestantism.
It's amusing that you think that "hair splitting" only goes on in the Catholic Church. I do believe that hair splitting is what has caused so MANY denominations within Protestantism.
Since you are so happy in your generic Christian faith, why don't you go be happy and leave Catholic matters to Catholics to hash out?
"This was reaffirmed by Canon 90 of the Council of Trullo which was held in conjunction with the Sixth Ecumenical Council."
The Catholic Church never recognized the Council in Trullo (i.e Quintasext) as ecumenical.
. . . whenever I think of "smarmy", I always think of the egregious Rev. Obadiah Slope from Barchester Towers.
Brothers under the skin, sounds like.
"The Catholic Church never recognized the Council in Trullo (i.e Quintasext) as ecumenical."
True, but as gbcdoj pointed out, the Pope confirmed its holdings save for certain ones having to do with local Western customs.
But this confirmation was by the pope's own authority and is thus not binding upon him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.