Posted on 07/30/2002 10:54:47 AM PDT by Polycarp
Can I suggest "Guidelines" for our Catholic Caucus regarding Liturgy and ask for imput?
1) Popes have authority over discipline. The Liturgy is a matter of discipline. As such, changes in discipline are prudential judgements, and not necessarily protected by the Holy Spirit from error. However, since Liturgy is the primary means of catechesis in Faith and Morals, such changes are grave matters. And criticism of these prudential decisions is valid BUT can only be undertaken knowing that such criticism itself is a grave matter and should only be undertaken by those with a deep enough understanding of these issues that their criticism itself does not cause scandal or lead the innocent into schism or disobedience where obedience is due.
2) Since Popes have authority over discipline, any Eucharistic Liturgy they promulgate ---if it has the proper matter and form--- is by its very nature Valid and Licit. No Pope is bound in disciplinary matters by previous Popes.
3) These are difficult times. Simply questioning and searching, honestly, does not make one a schismatic. Questioning the link between the current grave scandals and the changes in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo mass does not make one a schismatic, though some conclusions drawn may clearly and onjectively be incorrect.
5)Denying Papal authority over the discipline of the Liturgy does make one schismatic.
6) Denying the Novus Ordo is valid and licit or that Pope Paul VI had the authority to promulgate it does make one schismatic.
7) Questioning the fruits of the Novus Ordo, the quality and quantity of its catechesis, and pointing out where and when it becomes illicit or invalid is not schismatic.
8) Questioning the prudential judgement of the Pope can be done charitably in some circumstances but most often lately such questioning has itself been imprudent.
Can all non-schismatic orthodox Catholics here agree with these points?
This is much better than the verbal assaults handed out during the last couple of days. Although I don't think any were directed solely at me, I felt obligated to defend the person about which inflamatory remarks were being made.
And then, we always have prayer and mercy.
The tenth century, the saddest, perhaps, in Christian annals, is characterized by the vivid remark of Baronius that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the Church. At the time of Leo IX's election in 1049, according to the testimony of St. Bruno, Bishop of Sengi, the whole world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had perished and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to luxury and fornication" (Vita S. Leonis PP. IX in Watterich, Pont. Roman, Vitae, I, 96). St. Peter Damian, the fiercest censor of his age, unrolls a frightful picture of the decay of clerical morality in the lurid pages of his "Liber Gomorrhianus" (Book of Gomorrha). Though allowance must no doubt be made for the writer's exaggerated and rhetorical style--a style common to all moral censors-- yet the evidence derived from other sources justifies us in believing that the corruption was widespread. In writing to his venerated friend, Abbot Hugh of Cluny (Jan., 1075), Gregory himself laments the unhappy state of the Church in the following terms: "The Eastern Church has fallen away from the Faith and is now assailed on every side by infidels. Wherever I turn my eyes--to the west, to the north, or to the south--I find everywhere bishops who have obtained their office in an irregular way, whose lives and conversation are strangely at variance with their sacred calling; who go through their duties not for the love of Christ but from motives of worldly gain. There are no longer princes who set God's honour before their own selfish ends, or who allow justice to stand in the way of their ambition.
Our scandal today pales by comparision (and note that the time of Pope Gregory VII was clearly pre-Vatican II). Yet we focus our energy arguing with ourselves over who is schismatic and whether Vatican II had anything to do about it. Frankly, if our princes of the Church had done a better job educating the faithful this would probably not be the problem it is today and I believe this is the true problem we face. I, for one, fall into the gray area mentioned by patent several posts back - not because I want to but because I am ignorant of the truth. I welcome lurking on these posts as a means of discovery. I un-lurk when debate turns into name calling.
I recall a priest telling me it was ALWAYS wrong to criticize the Church or those in the religous life, even when they are wrong, because that brings scandal upon the Church. I disagreed. I feel that "Father" Shanley brought on the scandal and that those who were willing to expose him were doing God's work. It isn't a comfortable thing, to criticize ANY member of the Church. There have been times in the last year when I have wanted to scream -- editorial cartoons, unkind comments, a terrible sense of betrayal. And yet I cannot believe that the right thing to do is to NOT criticize the Church. Especially those that are seriously questionable, such as Abp. Weakland or Mahony's Wreckovation, Bp. Adamec and the issues there, the terrible issues in Florida and on and on.
No, that wasn't the argument. It was that the "Novus Ordo" itself is heretical, though valid.
sitetest
My view here, and take this as merely my personal opinion, which you are entirely free to reject, despise, fold, bend, spindle or mutilate, is that the original posting did not give glory to God, and I would not have posted it here.
Do you think that Robert Sungenis wrote that piece intending to deny God His due? Do you think Robert Sungenis intended to act against God with that article? Was he wrong in his interpretation of Canon Law when he said:
According to Canon Law: "The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church. In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons" (Can 212-2, 3).
As the character of Thomas More said in "A Man for All Seasons,"
Man serves God in the tangle of his mind
Debate, discussion, back-and-forth, all done respectfully but indulging the occasional display of fireworks, is tangling of the best kind.
I temper myself by walking away from the need to have the final word with someone who simply insists on "one-upping."
Just walking away counters pride and diffuses immediately.
I appreciate everything you have posted,by the way.
I will say that although I see both sides of most arguments,I have begun to see how much damage can be done to one's position when it is presented in an arrogant or mean spirited or nasty manner.One thing is clear,I know Jesus would not have argued in the manner that some of us go at it.
1) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should have a clear focus on fostering the Culture of Life vis-a-vis the political, governmental, and legal order in the United States. (This should be our principal effort on this forum.)
2) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should be absolutely loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium. Areas of concern (such as the confab in Assisi) should be discussed first with an eye to understanding the Holy Father's actions and teaching and second to look to the relevant Vatican congregation which prepared the event or issue of concern.
3) A Catholic Caucus on Free Republic should establish its own kind of "Neverending Story" Thread where Catholics, SSPXers, assorted sedevacantists and others can duke it out to their hearts content.
4) A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should engage in direct Catholic action to oppose the lavendar mafia, Catholics for a Free Choice, Dignity, Call to Action, We Are Church, and any other AmChurch efforts or enterprises hellbent on destroying the Church.
5)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should respond to any issue or crisis facing the Church from the viewpoint of "building up the Church" and exposing sin, canonical violations, apostasy, and sheer evil.
6)A Catholic Caucus on FreeRepublic should post threads which build up our spiritual and devotional lives as Catholics and threads that educate us about the suffering, persecuted Church abroad.
As I said at the top, IMHO only.
Au revoir.
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.