|
1 members (KostaC),
362
guests, and
122
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,526
Posts417,646
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 18 |
I apologize ahead of time as I am probably not corresponding correctly. I have many questions and concerns about the revised Divine Liturgy. Am I in the right place? thank you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
This part of the forum is probably a good place to start, but you might want to start a new topic thread.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 18
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 18 |
how do I start a new topic thread?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
If you select the 'Revised Divine Liturgy' forum (or any of the other fora), there is a button labelled 'New Topic'. Just click on that, enter your subject and text, and click 'Submit.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Deacon John: You wrote: when it comes to the question of liturgical translations, the Holy Father (whoever he may be) admits in the CCEO that the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, in their respective leadership, have the compentance to promulgate translations of liturgical books.
Liturgiam Authenticam was not not formed in a vacuum. The ideas expressed therein were certainly around before the approval of the new translation.
The real question is this, "who is properly interpreting the mind of the Church?" Is it the hierarchs who have been selected by the Pope of Rome or you?
Unless the Holy Father says otherwise, I am willing to admit that our hierarchs and Fr Robert Taft, SJ have followed the proper guidelines and the mind of the Church in this current translation. The Holy Father also admits in the CCEO: Canon 14
All the Christian faithful have the right and the obligation of working so that the divine message of salvation may increasingly reach all peoples in every age and in every land. Canon 15
1. The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the pastors of the Church, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church. 2. The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.
3. In accord with the knowledge, competence and position which
they possess, they have the right and even at times a duty to
manifest to the pastors of the Church 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
for the same pastors, and with consideration for the common good
and the dignity of persons. Under canon law, I, and all the faithful, may have a duty to write the Bishops and Rome, and thoughtfully consider and weigh matters regarding the the RDL, the new Creed, and the circumstances surrounding their promulgation and the arguments made in favor of them. It would seem strange that the Liturgy is supposed to be for people of today, but then not expect people of today, like myself, express whether the RDL is in fact meeting my and my families' needs. Certainly we are to be obedient to what the Bishops determine, but obviously, since the matter of obedience is set forth in the same Canon as the other duties we have, they can't necessarily conflict with one another. I suppose we could have lots of good conversation about what it means about making sure these discussions serve the common good. First it would require a proper understanding of what the common good is. I will suggest this one given by J. M. Cardinal Villeneuve, O.M.I.: the greatest good of the singular, not by being a collection of singular goods, but best for each of the particular individuals who participate in it precisely on account of its being common. The highest common good will be God Himself. So in all things men must be ordered to Him. This would be most particularly true in Liturgy. To the extent that the Divine Liturgy has been altered to comport with idealogical fashions of modern American academia, or to help make Christianity a viable lifestyle for modern men and women, it is to that extent, not ordered to the common good in its fullness. Luke
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
John Paul II's "Fides et Ratio" here considers how eternal truths can be expressed in human language which is bound by history: The word of God is not addressed to any one people or to any one period of history. Similarly, dogmatic statements, while reflecting at times the culture of the period in which they were defined, formulate an unchanging and ultimate truth. This prompts the question of how one can reconcile the absoluteness and the universality of truth with the unavoidable historical and cultural conditioning of the formulas which express that truth. The claims of historicism, I noted earlier, are untenable; but the use of a hermeneutic open to the appeal of metaphysics can show how it is possible to move from the historical and contingent circumstances in which the texts developed to the truth which they express, a truth transcending those circumstances.
Human language may be conditioned by history and constricted in other ways, but the human being can still express truths which surpass the phenomenon of language. Truth can never be confined to time and culture; in history it is known, but it also reaches beyond history.
96. To see this is to glimpse the solution of another problem: the problem of the enduring validity of the conceptual language used in Conciliar definitions. This is a question which my revered predecessor Pius XII addressed in his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis. (112)
This is a complex theme to ponder, since one must reckon seriously with the meaning which words assume in different times and cultures. Nonetheless, the history of thought shows that across the range of cultures and their development certain basic concepts retain their universal epistemological value and thus retain the truth of the propositions in which they are expressed. (113) Were this not the case, philosophy and the sciences could not communicate with each other, nor could they find a place in cultures different from those in which they were conceived and developed. The hermeneutical problem exists, to be sure; but it is not insoluble. Moreover, the objective value of many concepts does not exclude that their meaning is often imperfect. This is where philosophical speculation can be very helpful. We may hope, then, that philosophy will be especially concerned to deepen the understanding of the relationship between conceptual language and truth, and to propose ways which will lead to a right understanding of that relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Here is a fascinating quote from Father Paul Quay, S.J. in the book, "The Mystery Hidden for Ages in God." There is a tight correlation...between the academy and the loss of manhood. Visibile enough in Athens and in Alexandria, as among Moslems in their more opulent days, this is not so much caused by the entry of women into the university, as it is witnessed by this. The ineffectiveness of the university for true building up of the Christian life has been a matter of concern and general awareness since at least 1350....The childish captiousness of many a professor, the growing unwillingness to hold students rightly accountable for learning and understanding, the triviality of much research, all point to a relationship that has lost most aspects of fatherhood that is rightly sought in any teacher of young adults...
At the very least, the six centuries or so of "sexual revolution" -- of the unsexing of the West--were contemperaneous with the loss, first of proper understanding and then even of awareness of the spiritual sense of the Scriptures. This loss of the spiritual sense was, as indicated by Vitz [a Catholic author and psychologist], a breaking of the communal bonds of the religious tradition of the West in favor of the autonomous ego and concomitant loss of manhood. Early in the same chapter he writes Western intellectuals have been fascinated, for well over 500 years now, first with the diversity, then with the internal structure and history of particular cultures, and most recently with the laws governing the rise and fall of any culture whatever. New disciplines resulted, especially philosophy of history and cultural anthropology, which grew vigorously and came gradually to take themselves the task of adequately explaining man to himself, of saying what can be said about the meaning of human existence, a task formerly reserved to divine revelation.
This was no accident. The passion to develop a philosophy of history, to weigh and balance cultures, and to understand the causes at work in their development --a passion that is itself a highly specific and characteristic trait of our modern Western culture--seems to have arisen largely from the efforts of the academic establishment to mediate, transcend, and eventually to relativize the conflicting claims of the Church and the torn-off members of the Body of Christ. This process gradually became, with the Enlightenment, an effort to escape from an understanding of the world rooted in divine revelation. Thence arose the philosophy of history. As a philosophical movement, it was seeking a substitute for the Christian view.... I think the historical-critical method arises out of this philosophy of history, which when not subservient to divine revelation, will replace it. At the heart of the argument for inclusive language is that the ancients and Fathers were, because of the times they lived in, "sexists," while we who live on the cusp of the historical moment, are wiser. The revealed fact, however, remains that God is the Father from whom all fatherhood takes its name. The real problem, in the modern world, maybe the lack of proper understanding and living of true fatherhood. "Inclusive language" does not correct that problem, but only obscures the real solution which is found in God the Father and His Son.
|
|
|
|
|
