Posted on 08/31/2002 5:03:15 AM PDT by NYer
I am the one who calls this pope evil, and in a recent exchange here on FR, Ultima replied to me and said he could not go that far - to use the word evil.
One problem you may eventually discover, a problem that has plagued the Protestants and orthodox who have gone before you, is that not everyone is likely to agree with your estimation of what constitutes “going astray.” They, of course, would then be duty-bound to mitigate your temporal and eternal punishment by not following your lead.
The Church is indefectable, ultima. It cannot teach falsely, so I am not concerned about it going astray in its teachings. But the Church does have authority in some areas in which it is not infallible. In those areas, it can screw up. Personally, I think the decision to allow “altar girls” was a bad move. I disagree with it strongly. However, the Church is not obligated to follow my judgment in pastoral matters, and I am obligated to at least accept the Church’s judgment in those areas. So I do so, and yes, I think that’s a virtuous thing. It’s certainly much harder than simply insisting on getting my own way all the time.
Comparing the Novus Ordo to a Black Mass is the same as proclaiming it evil.
Just what do you think was the origin of this kind of mess? The RC church has always been innovative and made things up as it went along. Fast on Fridays, no never mind. The list is endless, beginning with the filioque.
After all homosexuality is only one more fad to follow.
You must lack faith in the Holy Spirit's guidance of His Church through thick and thin. The Church has always had problems, but we must take a long view of history. Modernism will not be defeated in a day. But it will be defeated.
I find it extremely humorous and ironic that you accuse us of being modernist for simply defending the pope's supreme and preeminent authority. And those who you admire on this forum who undermine it by cafeteria-like selectivity and an imprudent appeal to conscience a la Luther are supposedly the true Guardians of Catholic Tradition! LOL. Papal supremacy dies the death of a thousand qualifications at the hands of people like ultima and HDMZ. What better way to undermine papal authority than this? Incrementalism is Satan's ploy.
Modernism and innovation have nearly ruined what was once a holy house. My 14 year old daughter attended her first mass last week while staying with my parents, and she was horrified. She said it is absolutely nothing like our liturgy and she did not feel the presence of God. Which kind of depressed me, because in second grade I had to attend mass every morning before school and I know God was there in those days.
In regard to our troubles, I site Chesterton:
"I suspect that we should find several occasions when Christendom was thus to all appearance hollowed out from within by doubt and indifference, so that only the old Christian shell stood as the pagan shell had stood so long. But the difference is that in every such case, the sons were fanatical for the faith where the fathers had been slack about it. This is obvious in the case of the transition from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation. It is obvious in the case of a transition from the eighteenth century to the many Catholic revivals of our own time . . . Just as some might have thought the Church simply a part of the Roman Empire, so others later might have thought the Church only a part of the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages ended as the Empire had ended; and the Church should have departed with them, if she had been also one of the shades of night."
(The Everlasting Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1925, 250-252)
"At least five times, . . . with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died."
(The Everlasting Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1925, 254)
What this kind of behavior has to do with God or holiness is beyond me. In our church our leaders strive to show humility by example and of course, face the altar along with the rest of us, and btw, come and say to the parish "Forgive me, my brothers and sisters" and bow, before they partake. They see their role as being the servants of Christ, rather than some glorified above-the-rest-of-humanity role. And in this I would in turn caution you to restrict your worship and thanksgiving to the proper direction. LOL, if you need help with the direction let me know.
I guess I am used to leaders who admit to being human. rather than who thrive on becoming celebrities.
The celebrity lifestyle is one which produces idolatry.
1. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against kneeling? It is a posture indicating adoration. Why do they have an interest in eliminating it? Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?
At its meeting in November, 1969, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted that in general, the directives of the «Roman Missal» concerning the posture of the congregation at Mass should be left unchanged, but that no. 21 of the «General Instruction» should be adapted so that the people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic prayer, that is, before the Lord's Prayer. They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people present, or some other good reason.
2. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion on the tongue? It is far more reverent than touching the sacred species with unconsecrated hands. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?
On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:
a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.
b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant's personal choice.
3. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against communion rails? The rails allowed the faithful to kneel easily while receiving communion--a posture of reverence and adoration. Can it be they don't believe in the Real Presence?
Due to the increase in numbers of catholics AND reception of communion under both species, standing is more expedient. A proper gesture of reverence is expected, such as making the sign of the cross after placing the host in ones mouth. Since communicants are not kneeling, there is no need for a communion rail. I have been to catholic churches where the communion rails remain intact. Removal is optional.
4. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against tabernacles being given pride of place at the center of churches?
The Vatican II document which addresses this issue is "Sacrosanctum Concilium" (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Issued December 4th 1963, it emphasizes the nobility of the tabernacle in determining its place in a church.
7. An issue closely linked to that of the altar is the tabernacle. We can hardly give here prescriptions of a general and uniform character. An attentive study needs to be made in each case, with due attention to the material and spiritual circumstances proper to each place.
Artists will little by little suggest the best solution. But it is the business of priests to advise them and call attention to the principles that must safeguard the respect and honor due to the Eucharist. It is important to contribute to the development of Eucharistic worship, which should continue under all those genuine forms recognized by the Church as embodying true Christian piety.
Particularly in larger churches, a chapel specially set aside for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist is advisable and might well be used for the Eucharistic celebration during the week, when there are fewer of the faithful participating.
Whatever the solution chosen .... the greatest care should be devoted to the dignity of the tabernacle. If the local Ordinary agrees to its location away from the altar, the place should be truly worthy and prominent, so that the tabernacle is readily visible and is not hidden by the priest during the celebration of the Mass. In a word, the location should make it possible for the tabernacle to serve unmistakably as a sign and to give a sense of the savior's presence in the midst of his people. (my emphasis) [Letter of Cardinal Lecaro to the Bishops, 30 June 1965, Concilium for Implementing the Decree on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council)
In 1969, revised in 1975, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) said the following:
276. It is highly recommended that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a chapel suitable for private adoration and prayer. If this is impossible because of the structure of the church or local custom, it should be kept on an altar or some other place in the church that is prominent and properly decorated.
277. The Eucharist is to be kept in a solid, unbreakable tabernacle, and ordinarily there should be only one tabernacle in a church. <> The Code of Canon Law codified these developments in 1983.
Canon 938
º1. The Most Holy Eucharist is to be reserved regularly in only one tabernacle of a church or oratory.
º2. The tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved should be placed in a part of the church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer.
º3. The tabernacle in which the Eucharist is regularly reserved is to be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked so that the danger of profanation may be entirely avoided.
º4. For a grave cause, it is licit to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in another safer and becoming place especially during the night.
º5. The person who has charge of the church or oratory is to see to it that the key of the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved is safeguarded most diligently.
Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
1183 The tabernacle is to be situated "in churches in a most worthy place with the greatest honor." The dignity, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle should foster adoration before the Lord really present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
5. What have the Novus Ordo liturgists got against ringing bells before the Consecration at Mass.
I've attended several masses where bells were rung; perhaps it's optional.
Now, please stop belly aching and apologize to the posters on this thread for your insensitive comments against the liturgy faithfully followed by them. You have yet to raise a valid complaint.
He's cheap Hollywood in a robe and beneath it is a vast emptiness.
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.