Sunday, April 05, 2020
Two Responses by Peter Kwasniewski to Bishop Christensen's (Boise) Directive
LSN: US bishop’s memo forbidding priests to say Mass ad orientem contains two serious errors
It is a matter of moral integrity that we make our cases based on what authoritative texts actually say, not on the 'Spirit of Vatican II.'
Remnant: AD ORIENTEM BANNED: Bishop of Boise Makes Revolution Official
It is a matter of moral integrity that we make our cases based on what authoritative texts actually say, not on the 'Spirit of Vatican II.'
Remnant: AD ORIENTEM BANNED: Bishop of Boise Makes Revolution Official
Organic Development and Its Reception by the Faithful
Does organic development of doctrine or of the liturgical rite require that it must be accepted and received by the faithful? If so, then the faithful must understand what is being given to them, should they not? If they do not understand it, how can they possibly judge and decide whether to receive it or not? The Latin answer might be they just need to submit and obey, but is that doing an injustice to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian faithful?
Those who create liturgical texts and prayers in Latin use monasteries for the use of the monasteries may not have a problem, provided that the simple monks understand Latin or come to understand Latin through their formation. (A similar point can be made with religious orders, but one can ask whether religious orders have the authority to modify or shape their own liturgical rites.) But what of the non-Latin-speaking faithful?
Regardless of whether the rejection by many Latins of the Pauline Missal and its implementation was objectively correct or not, could we not say that there were acting in accordance with their sensus fidelium, and rejecting what they viewed as not being orthodox (not in the sense of merely right belief but encompassing orthopraxy, right practice, right living or the correct giving or glory to God)?
(Similar points could be made not only with respect to liturgical reform, but Latin dogmatizing in their supposed "ecumenical councils" during the second millenium, to a populace that was ignorant of Latin and mostly ignorant of Scripture and the sources of the faith, if not the Christian faith.)
Those who create liturgical texts and prayers in Latin use monasteries for the use of the monasteries may not have a problem, provided that the simple monks understand Latin or come to understand Latin through their formation. (A similar point can be made with religious orders, but one can ask whether religious orders have the authority to modify or shape their own liturgical rites.) But what of the non-Latin-speaking faithful?
Regardless of whether the rejection by many Latins of the Pauline Missal and its implementation was objectively correct or not, could we not say that there were acting in accordance with their sensus fidelium, and rejecting what they viewed as not being orthodox (not in the sense of merely right belief but encompassing orthopraxy, right practice, right living or the correct giving or glory to God)?
(Similar points could be made not only with respect to liturgical reform, but Latin dogmatizing in their supposed "ecumenical councils" during the second millenium, to a populace that was ignorant of Latin and mostly ignorant of Scripture and the sources of the faith, if not the Christian faith.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)