here
CNA/CWR: ‘If we are spiritually sterile, we will have no future,’ bishop tells Ruthenian eparchy
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
"Mystery"
That's why we need Latin as a sacred language, to preserve the "sense of mystery." But it's ok for people to use hand missals to follow the Mass, if they wish to do so. But even for some traditionalists, having the priest break the silence is too much -- let the people just meditate during the Eucharist! (See the combox.)
(NLM)
Fr. Augustine Thompson:
(NLM)
Fr. Augustine Thompson:
Having celebrated (with permission under the 1969 indult and those following) the Dominican Rite Mass since my ordination in 1985, as well as the Mass of Paul VI, and, having watched the business that goes on at John XXIII Roman Masses, especially those with the bishop, I am ever more convinced that the supposed comment of a father (not a Dominican) at Vatican II that all the reform of the liturgy needed was for the Church to adopt the Dominican Rite WAS CORRECT.
Okay, do you prefer the age of Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, and Innocent III, and their liturgical tastes? That is the Dominican Rite. Or do we need to resurrect the court rigmarole of 18th-century absolutist princelings, promoted by Jesuits, as our style of liturgy? That is essentially the style of the “Tridentine Mass.” And many of its promoters are happy to say YAH!
Yes, the Mass of John XXIII is now the “traditionalist” norm, but Fr. Z’s urge for “mutual enrichment” is right. Nevertheless, the mutual enrichment should not mean a compromise between 18th-century absolutist Rococo liturgy and the post-1960s hippy perversions of that liturgy. Let’s think about alternatives, that are just as authentically traditional, like our actual thirteenth-century liturgy, still alive (in many places and ever more so) today.
Change Must Start Locally and by Small Steps
OSV: Could a proper implementation of synodality help save the Church? by Adam A.J. DeVille
First, does the patriarch of Rome have this right by divine institution? And should he have the right to veto for his patriarchate? Or should his patriarchate be broken up?
Secondly, how can there be such lay involvement in the "governance" of the local Church if there is first not stability of communities and mutual accountability of the Christian people (including the clergy)?
Such reforms must be implemented first, but the local Churches, at least in the urban areas, must recognize that they are in combat with a socioeconomic system which works against communal stability. And if they cannot be reformed then perhaps an alternative solution must be found for those areas.
Properly constituted synods elect their bishops, meet at least annually under his presidency to pass legislation for the diocese, and vote the bishop’s budget up or down. In many synods, the bishop presents an annual report on his conduct and specifies his priorities for the upcoming year, and the people (composed of elected lay and clerical delegates from every parish) have a chance to challenge him on both his priorities but especially his failings. The great Ukrainian Catholic metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky (declared “venerable” by Pope Francis in 2015) in September 1899 immediately following his episcopal consecration, noted with singular humility that “the people are completely right to demand certain things from a bishop, and it is absolutely correct to censure him if he shirks the task that he has to perform on behalf of the Church and his people.”
A bishop’s shirking or incompetence could, under carefully considered canons, trigger his indictment and trial in a properly constituted tribunal, which would include his peers in the episcopate. If found guilty, he could be disciplined or even deposed from office. He would have the right to appeal this to a regional appellate court, and finally to Rome, whose decision would be final. (Scholars agree that Rome as an appellate tribunal for bishops dates back to the Council of Serdica in 343/4.) These latter two processes are safeguards against the risk of a synod refusing to obey a bishop who is “imparting the word of truth without deviation” (2 Tim 2:15). Safeguards are necessary so that no bishop would be run out of town by a people who “will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth …” (2 Tim 4:3-4). On this point it is important to note that a diocesan synod never votes on doctrine or changes to, e.g., a catechism or creed.
Under this system, then, when it would be time to elect a successor of a bishop, the people of the diocese would have the right to propose the names of local clergy they know well and trust. Neighboring bishops could also propose names. And Rome would have the right both to propose its own set of names or to veto — for manifest and grave reasons — those proposed at the local and regional levels. The synod would then investigate each candidate thoroughly before electing a new bishop.
First, does the patriarch of Rome have this right by divine institution? And should he have the right to veto for his patriarchate? Or should his patriarchate be broken up?
Secondly, how can there be such lay involvement in the "governance" of the local Church if there is first not stability of communities and mutual accountability of the Christian people (including the clergy)?
Such reforms must be implemented first, but the local Churches, at least in the urban areas, must recognize that they are in combat with a socioeconomic system which works against communal stability. And if they cannot be reformed then perhaps an alternative solution must be found for those areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)