Posted on 10/06/2017 5:45:48 PM PDT by marshmallow
The former pontiff said liturgy had become too centred on man's 'activity and creativity'
God has become “obscured” in the liturgy, resulting in a crisis for the Church, Benedict XVI has said.
In a foreword to the Russian edition of his book Theology of the Liturgy, reproduced in La Stampa, the former pontiff said a misunderstanding of the nature of liturgy has led to man putting “his own activity and creativity” at the heart of worship.
“Nothing precedes divine worship,” he says. “With these words, St Benedict, in his Rule (43.3), established the absolute priority of divine worship over any other task of monastic life.”
Even though agricultural and academic work were heavily time-consuming, St Benedict made sure the liturgy received maximum attention, emphasising “the priority of God Himself in our lives”.
Today, however, “the things of God and thus the liturgy do not appear urgent at all”.
The Church “lives from proper celebration of the liturgy” and is in danger when “the primacy of God no longer appears in the liturgy nor consequently in life”.
“The deepest cause of the crisis that has upset the Church lies in the obscuring of the priority of God in the liturgy,” he says.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
>> “The deepest cause of the crisis that has upset the Church lies in the obscuring of the priority of God in the liturgy,” he says.
Not the Climate hoax, not LGBT, not Socialism? Better notify Francis.
Jesus is the answer.
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Perhaps you aren’t aware of it, but Pope Benedict would hold that Jesus is God, and also hold that properly celebrated, Jesus is given a rather prominent place in Catholic Liturgy. Obscuring that place, perhaps because one doesn’t believe that Jesus is all that important, leads to crisis.
Perhaps you are also unaware that he wrote a three volume life of Christ?
Somebody doesn’t have enough familiarity with the facts of the case to know what is going on, and it isn’t Benedict.
I am very familiar with the Catholic Liturgy. I was a practicing Catholic until my 30s.
The problem is the Liturgy. Signs, symbols, and "the mystery of faith."
It isn't a mystery.
We are all sinners separated from God and bound for Hell.
If we confess we are sinners, acknowledge Jesus is the only way to salvation by Grace through faith, and accept Him as the Lord of our life, we are redemmed, and do not go to Hell. Our salvation depends on nothing else, but Christ.
Doesn’t surprise me at all that you were raised Catholic.
It isn’t a mystery.
Thanks for clarifying that there isn’t any mystery involved. Matthew 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10; Romans 11:25 and 16:25; I Corinthians 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19; Colossians 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; II Thessalonians 2:7; I Timothy 3:9 and 16; Revelation 1:20; 10:7; and 17:5 and 7 all gave me the impression that there just might be something I might not completely understand and using the word mystery might be appropriate, but I will consider taking your word over Sacred Scripture.
Of course, you were raised Catholic. I come from a long line of Baptists and Lutherans.
I’m surprised that you find the proclamation “We proclaim your death O Lord, and confess your resurrection, until you return”: to be a problem (this is the traditional response to the “Mysterim fideum’). Or perhaps you are merely serving as a lesson that Benedict is in fact right that as the liturgy is commonly celebrated, crucial things that should be prominent are obscured. You may have been more familiar with the “We are called, we are chosen, we are Christ for one another” crowd. That obscures stuff fairly quickly.
His face fell, he starred at his shoes, and after awhile he stammered out: “Well.....errr....that is a Great Mystery.”
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach assurance of salvation.
It doesn’t even teach the Biblical principles of how to be saved.
Ask your average Catholic if they are going to heaven when they die and you will get answers from they “hope so”, they’re “not sure”, or “I hope I lived a good life and my good deed’s outweigh my bad deeds and I’ve also had all of the sacraments.”
None of that is remotely what the Bible teaches.
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach assurance of salvation.
That’s good, because neither does the Bible. Try meditating on Ezekiel chapters 3, 18, and 33.
If the priest really new his stuff, he would answer that you can’t be sure. I wouldn’t count on a priest necessarily knowing his stuff.
I am hoping is actually the perfect answer, but most people actually have only a very vague idea of what hope is, theologically speaking.
1 John 5:12:
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
I learned a long time ago that those who refuse to obey God’s plain word in opposition to God.
I John 5:12 doesn’t;t teach that.
Yes, God dwells with those who are united to Him. They have the life outside of time—the Divine Life— within them—that is what the eternal means.
It doesn’t mean that we aren’t capable of throwing it all away. The chapters from Ezekiel still stand. In fact, try skipping down a handful of verses to John 5:16-17 and John makes it quite clear that he and Ezekiel have the same perspective.
And your final sentence is at least one clause short of being comprehensible.
Reminds me of the words of Christ:
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in."
Matthrew 23: 13
Oh my apologies. I forgot the word "are." IPhones are not typing friendly sometimes.
I John 5:12 doesn’t;t teach that.
Assurance of Salvation?
Of course it does.
You simply don't believe what God says.
You can spin that all you want, but you make your own web that traps you.
To the Catholic church, the Bible isn't really true and inerrant. We need a bunch of fancy Latin thigies, un-Biblical dogma, and incoherent teaching thrown in to blind people to the truth.
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
Matthrew 23: 13
Encouraging people to go in is shutting them out? How odd.
If you go exactly one chapter later, to Mt. 24:13, you will note that “He who perseveres to the end will be saved” That perseverance thing seems to be kind of important.
You were a practicing Catholic until your 30s, and you don't know the technical definition of the word "mystery"? Seriously? You may have been "practicing" but you didn't have much understanding of what you were "practicing".
Here it is: "Mystery: A revealed truth of the faith which cannot be fully grasped by created intellect".
Given that definition, are you trying to say that you fully understand and comprehend God? Of course you don't. If we confess we are sinners, acknowledge Jesus is the only way to salvation by Grace through faith, and accept Him as the Lord of our life, we are redemmed, and do not go to Hell. Our salvation depends on nothing else, but Christ.
No doubt. I can agree with that completely.
Who is this "Christ" of whom you speak? If you say "The God-man, second person of the Blessed Trinity, born in the flesh of the Virgin Mary, a divine person hypostatically united to a human nature" you're correct, but you've barely begun to plumb the mystery. Barely even scratched the surface. If you think "it isn't a mystery" you simply haven't explored it at more than a superficial level.
1 John 1:6 says that if we claim to have fellowship with Jesus, and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. So, yes, those who "believe in the name of the Son of God" may know that they have eternal life.
Not those who merely think or say that they believe in the name of the Son of God, and yet walk in the darkness, not those who seem to walk in the light and then return to the darkness like a dog returning to his vomit, but only those who remain in God's light.
As a catch all answer to thrust and parry uncomfortable inqueriers into what they heck they are doing, they throw out the "mystery" breadcrumbs. And then, when called on it, they do just what you do:
...are you trying to say that you fully understand and comprehend God? Of course you don't.
Nice tactic. The Catholic church has been playing that devilish hand for centuries. Question them, and they accuse you of trying to checkmate God Himself.
And so, the church plays its games, with its Synods, Amoris laetitia, declarations (ex cathedra) from twisted mind of Francis, and all the rest.
Don't you know what Christ said about knowing the truth? How it can be known plainly? His words are right in your Bible, if you have one sitting around.
Grace to a Christian is not the same as what you and the Catholic church call it.
Charles Ryrie wrote that: "The question of the means of grace has been called 'the watershed that divides Catholicism from Protestantism.'"
Grace is the most important and core concept of the Gospel. Grace is the opposite of Karma. It is undeserved. It is a gift, not merit. There is nothing we can do to "earn" grace. God gives us grace when we accept Christ into our hearts. On the cross, Jesus took the punishment for our sins. We are saved by grace, through faith.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Ephesians 2: 8-9
Once someone believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord, repents, and accepts Christ, that person is a new creature, saved by Grace alone.
To the Catholic church, grace is very, very different from this Biblical concept.
The "state of grace" to a Catholic means that is in a "current" state of friendship to God, and they are free from "mortal sin" (at the time, this can change of course). Catholic grace is help given to follow the Catholic way. The "Fruits of the Sacred Mysteries" are dependent on "depend on the disposition of the one who receives them" (that is from the Roman Catholic Cathehcism).
In other words - God's grace is dependent on the individuals works, deeds, and disposition! That is the complete opposite of Biblical grace.
So if I asked you are you 100% sure that you are going to heaven, and you, as a Catholic, told me "yes, 100%", you would be in violation of your own Catholic faith. The council of Trent rejected assurance of salvation, and it is currently rejected by the Cathehcism of the Catholic Church:
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting damnation. (CCC §1022)
When I accepted Christ, it was the most profound experience I had ever had. I knew all the mechanics of who and what Jesus was. I was the "best" Catholic in my family. I did all that the church required, and more. I said the rosary, went to mass, went to confession, went on retreats, worked for the church, and did as much as I could do. Still, I knew I was going to Hell. I knew it.
Romans 8:1
"Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
When I finally realized I was no longer condemned, and that no one could snatch me from His hand, (John 10:28), I wept with joy. God had given me grace, and I knew it.
I pray the same for you my friend.
This is just some more modernist crocodile tears. If he was so upset with this man-centered, God-obscured liturgy, why didn't he get rid of it when he had the power to do so?
As far as I’m concerned, Benedict 16 is STILL the Pope.
He was duly elected by the Cardinals as directed by the Holy Spirit.
Did the Holy Spirit direct him to resign? Did a conclave of Cardinals meet to accept his resignation, same as when they installed him, based on the Holy Spirit endorsing the resignation through the conclave?
If no, then Francis is an usurper, and has no right to be the Pope, when the man previously installed yet lives.
Consider Peter. He was often weary, but didn’t quit until he was crucified and called home. He did not abandon his flock to others, nor did someone or someones take it from 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.