|
0 members (),
470
guests, and
81
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 109 |
Having the POWER to do a thing, and the RIGHT to do it are very distinct things, one from the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,189 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,189 Likes: 3 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
Dear Carson,
You write: "djs and Father David are correct when they remind us that the bishops have a right to do this. They have a right to close Churches. They have a right to do all sorts of things. But will excercising that right serve the purpose of growth or will it be an excercise in destruction."
However, according to quite orthodox, classic Roman Catholic theology, [b]even the Pope is required always to act in aedificationem ecclesiae. Never may the Pope act in destructionem ecclesiae.
Should a Pope so much as attempt to act in a fashion toward the destruction of the Church, he would be abusing his authority and subject to correction from the source of that authority - Almighty God, Who is perfectly free to choose the instruments of that correction. There are examples in point (the history of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is one).
Well, if even the Pope cannot do such a thing, still less can a diocesan bishop do it.
Fr. Serge Keleher [/b] I agree with both you and Star. Our mistake was to seek a blessing if at least not permission. We got what we deserved. We thought it fair to invite a member of the commission. Now we are faced with...nevermind. Suffice it to say, you are correct. CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Fr. Serge wrote: ... according to quite orthodox, classic Roman Catholic theology, even the Pope is required always to act in aedificationem ecclesiae. Never may the Pope act in destructionem ecclesiae.
Should a Pope so much as attempt to act in a fashion toward the destruction of the Church, he would be abusing his authority and subject to correction from the source of that authority - Almighty God, Who is perfectly free to choose the instruments of that correction. Of course, Father. But what relevance, if any, are you suggesting that this comment has to situation under discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
djs,
Do you believe it is possible for a bishop to mean to act aedificationem ecclesiae but in reality act destructionem ecclesiae?
Why or why not?
How do you believe this all fits into sensus fidelium?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
A very interesting question, acting for the "building up" of the Church, or for its harm?
Even this terrible revision of the Liturgy has some good to it.
It is curious how it seems to have united many people, would not otherwise agree about much at all. I spoke to my pastor, who says he has spoken to many priests, who have spoken to many other priests. It seems that everyone is united in hatred for this revision.
Granted everyone seems to hate it for different reasons. Some hate it because of the abbreviations, some hate it because of inclusive language, some hate it because of the new music, some hate it because of the expense involved. But every priest seems to hate it. They can't think of a single priest in the Metropolia who is behind this revision. (Except for Fr. David, of course, who is the only priest to speak here in its defense).
So I would say, this Liturgy revision has done more to unite the clergy than anything in recent memory. It is just a shame they are united in opposition to what the Liturgy commission is proposing.
Hasn't the Archbishop considered how difficult it is going to be to force this issue on the Church, which seems to hate the idea? How is he going to do this without the priests? If the Archbishop doesn't have the priests with him on this, I don't know how he will accomplish it.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by nicholas:
[QB] A very interesting question, acting for the "building up" of the Church, or for its harm?
Even this terrible revision of the Liturgy has some good to it.
It is curious how it seems to have united many people, would not otherwise agree about much at all. I spoke to my pastor, who says he has spoken to many priests, who have spoken to many other priests. It seems that everyone is united in hatred for this revision. Clearly there is resistance from any of the priests that I know in the Metropolia, and they say the same for others as well, but more than that there is a profound distrust, and I believe rightfully so, of that which has been kept hidden from them for so long. It is not as though we are a huge Church with unmanageable numbers. How does this square with the claim that all knew, or all know, or that there has been no secrecy? That part of it is still very disturbing to me. The priests and pastors of the Metropolia have been given no part at all in the process. Nothing. Of course all of our new priests, since 2004 or so [?], are going to be acclimated to the new ways. I guess the old guard can follow suit or leave. That's how they do it in the Latin rite. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Nicholas,
"They can't think of a single priest in the Metropolia who is behind this revision. (Except for Fr. David, of course, who is the only priest to speak here in its defense)."
To be fair there are already parish priests (at least here in Pittsburgh) who use the revised rubrics, I can think of 6 offhand I have served with that do. Of course this doesn't mean they are for the new translation, inclusive language, or new music.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
Of course this doesn't mean they are for the new translation, inclusive language, or new music. Then why did you bring it up?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Do you believe it is possible for a bishop to mean to act aedificationem ecclesiae but in reality act destructionem ecclesiae? If by destruction, you mean - oh, this didn't work out as well as intended - then yes. But if you really mean destruction, I would say probably not. I am comfortable that the church, ultimately, is in good hands. How do you believe this all fits into sensus fidelium Well, I guess we will all get a sense of who is faithful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
"Then why did you bring it up?"
To refute the idea that every single priest is vehemently opposed to every part of the revision and to show some parts of the revision are in use and the sky hasn't fallen.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by djs: Do you believe it is possible for a bishop to mean to act aedificationem ecclesiae but in reality act destructionem ecclesiae? Why are you concluding that those who disagree with this liturgical revision must also believe that the church is not in good hands? Originally posted by djs: How do you believe this all fits into sensus fidelium What do you mean by this? Are you saying that those who oppose things like abbreviations, missing litanies, inclusive language, new music and unneeded financial expenditures are unfaithful?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,189 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,189 Likes: 3 |
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
"Then why did you bring it up?"
To refute the idea that every single priest is vehemently opposed to every part of the revision and to show some parts of the revision are in use and the sky hasn't fallen.
Fr. Deacon Lance I guess some were hoping for better from the new litugy than it didn't cause the sky to fall. I suppose it is alright just to stumble along. But it would have been nice to leep forward particularly given our decline and the potential for growth. CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Are you saying that those who oppose things like abbreviations, missing litanies, inclusive language, new music and unneeded financial expenditures are unfaithful? No.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
[QB] Dear Carson,
You write: "djs and Father David are correct when they remind us that the bishops have a right to do this. They have a right to close Churches. They have a right to do all sorts of things. But will excercising that right serve the purpose of growth or will it be an excercise in destruction."
However, according to quite orthodox, classic Roman Catholic theology, even the Pope is required always to act in aedificationem ecclesiae. Never may the Pope act in destructionem ecclesiae.
Should a Pope so much as attempt to act in a fashion toward the destruction of the Church, he would be abusing his authority and subject to correction from the source of that authority - Almighty God, Who is perfectly free to choose the instruments of that correction. There are examples in point (the history of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate is one).
Well, if even the Pope cannot do such a thing, still less can a diocesan bishop do it.
Fr. Serge Keleher If, by law, it is the very bishop in question who gets to decide if his actions are in the best interest or not, or gets to choose those who will make that determination, what practical meaning does "destructionem ecclesiae" have at that point. Also I think you've overstated the magnitude of the real power of papal supremacy, but that is for another lifetime's discussion. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Dan,
Well the parishes that are using the new rubrics are also installing icon screens, communing infants, have deacons and/or candidates and are restoring other traditions and generally doing better than they were previously. So I consider it a step forward rather than simply stumbling.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
