Showing posts with label apostolic succession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apostolic succession. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Monday, August 03, 2015
Mere Apostolic Christianity
Patristic and taking into consideration all of the apostolic traditions of the Church? Reconciling East and West cannot be complete until all are one, and not just the separated Byzantine churches.
The Relevance and Future of the Second Vatican Council by Marc Cardinal Ouellet
Maybe there is a copy at one of the local bookstores; not sure I would want to buy this book without a longer preview.
The Relevance and Future of the Second Vatican Council by Marc Cardinal Ouellet
Maybe there is a copy at one of the local bookstores; not sure I would want to buy this book without a longer preview.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
10 Questions with Archimandrite Robert Taft
At Pray Tell
Fr. Taft doesn't think Latin traditionalists are traditional but maybe he should try to see things from their perspective, even if their understanding of liturgical participation may be erroneous? I have no idea what his position on "ad orientem" worship may be given his comments below.
He has a forthcoming book: Beyond East and West 2: Problems in Ecumenical Understanding
Something interesting comments on the episcopacy and apostolic succession:
Some books to get, based on Fr. Taft's recommendations:
Liturgy: Model of Prayer — Icon of Life (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications 2008)."
Alan Bouley’s From Freedom to Formula. The Evolution of the Eucharistic Prayer from Oral Improvisation to Written Texts
Fr. Taft doesn't think Latin traditionalists are traditional but maybe he should try to see things from their perspective, even if their understanding of liturgical participation may be erroneous? I have no idea what his position on "ad orientem" worship may be given his comments below.
He has a forthcoming book: Beyond East and West 2: Problems in Ecumenical Understanding
Pope Francis good for liturgical renewal or not?
Papa Francesco is good for everything, including liturgical renewal. When he first celebrated Mass in the Sistine Chapel he had them toss out the altar facing away from the congregation that his predecessor had installed, and thereby gave the signal indicating how he rated the reformed Vatican II liturgy vis-à-vis the restored pre-Vatican II Summorum Pontificum “extraordinary form.”
Is the Vatican II liturgical renewal secure or endangered?
I think it is secure, because I believe the vast majority of Catholic people throughout the world confirm it by voting with their feet and going to Mass in the reformed rite, showing thereby that despite the right-wing neo-con wackos (hereafter NCW’s), most Catholics prefer the reformed rite.
But that does not mean that the NCW’s are not a threat, since it is said that large numbers of them now control the terrain in our seminaries. As Professor Massimo Faggioli, the Catholic point-man on these issues has shown, the Vatican II Liturgical Constitution was the fundamental document that led the way to the rest of Vatican II, so an attack against that key document is an attack against the guiding spirit of the Vatican II Council.
Anything good coming out of Summorum Pontificum?
Nope, unless creating unnecessary divisions in the Church and driving crazy our harried bishops who have too few priests to start with and now have to try and accommodate the NCW’s is considered “good.”
Something interesting comments on the episcopacy and apostolic succession:
This question also involves a cluster of other issues that I believe need to be reconsidered:
[a] the whole question of conceiving apostolic succession via the “relay race pass the baton model” is questionable, since it is probably not provable with historical verisimilitude for any Church on earth, including that of Rome. It is not clear that Rome originally had a monarchical episcopate rather than some sort of collegial governing body, possibly presbyteral, in the earliest post-apostolic era.
Some books to get, based on Fr. Taft's recommendations:
Liturgy: Model of Prayer — Icon of Life (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications 2008)."
Alan Bouley’s From Freedom to Formula. The Evolution of the Eucharistic Prayer from Oral Improvisation to Written Texts
Thursday, January 03, 2013
On Behalf of All: The Eucharistic Liturgy in Ancient House Churches
Labels:
apostolic succession,
Eucharist,
liturgy,
the early Church
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Last week, in a post at another blog I asked the question of why it was necessary for the head of a religious order to be ordained, or receive the sacrament of holy orders. (I believe this is true of abbots as well? I really need to learn the terminology for different associations of religious.)
It is true that bishops, as the successors to the Apostles, have been given the care of our souls; that is to say they have authority with respect to that supernatural good to which we have been called.
There are some distinctions that need to be remembered: Our objective beatitude is God Himself. Our subjective beatitude is our attainment of that God, our (supernatural) union with Him. Similarly, the extrinsic common good of the universe is God, while the intrinsic common good is the order of the universe which reflects His goodness and wisdom.
The bishops have the authority to teach us God's laws, and provide additional laws for our spiritual welfare. Laws are a means to attaining some common good; in this case the common good is God Himself. If the good of an religious order or monastery is not different from the supernatural good of Christians, taken individually or as a whole people, but is a participation in that good (or a certain manifestation of it), then it makes sense that the superior of an order should have some sort of participation in holy orders and Apostolic succession. It is not necessary for the superior of an order to be a bishop, but he must have holy orders.
(Who is the superior in a third order?)
But: How is this rationale reconciled with the lack of a direct, ordained superior for women's orders and congregations?
Code of Canon Law
Started on 8/25.
It is true that bishops, as the successors to the Apostles, have been given the care of our souls; that is to say they have authority with respect to that supernatural good to which we have been called.
There are some distinctions that need to be remembered: Our objective beatitude is God Himself. Our subjective beatitude is our attainment of that God, our (supernatural) union with Him. Similarly, the extrinsic common good of the universe is God, while the intrinsic common good is the order of the universe which reflects His goodness and wisdom.
The bishops have the authority to teach us God's laws, and provide additional laws for our spiritual welfare. Laws are a means to attaining some common good; in this case the common good is God Himself. If the good of an religious order or monastery is not different from the supernatural good of Christians, taken individually or as a whole people, but is a participation in that good (or a certain manifestation of it), then it makes sense that the superior of an order should have some sort of participation in holy orders and Apostolic succession. It is not necessary for the superior of an order to be a bishop, but he must have holy orders.
(Who is the superior in a third order?)
But: How is this rationale reconciled with the lack of a direct, ordained superior for women's orders and congregations?
Code of Canon Law
Started on 8/25.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)