Ecumenism!?!?!!?
- Thread starter Metanoia02
- Start date
- Status
Write your Bishop and ask him how he interpretes these very important words from the Holy Father concerning the EucharistKennySe said:
52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against formalism has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the forms chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.
I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality.
Upvote
0
Aaron-Aggie
Legend
This seems like a big big no no.
/me makes a note if he moves to d area to stay far far away from the Dieocese of Richmond
/me makes a note if he moves to d area to stay far far away from the Dieocese of Richmond
Upvote
0
boughtwithaprice
Legend
I see what your saying Aaron, but I think the church tries to get around it by having seperate altars. I still think the practice is appalling, but I believe that would be the reasoning used to get around the Canon Law sited. I really hope the bishop can stop this practice and bring our whole diocese into line with Pope John Paul II's Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
Jerome
Jerome
Upvote
0
geocajun
Priest of the holy smackrament
I wonder how they ensure that anglicans do not get into the Catholic communion line, and visa versa. I wonder if they even care really...
I wonder if this church hears confessions, and if the two pastors trade off on who is hearing them... How could this work, if only one of them has valid Holy Orders?
I wonder if this church hears confessions, and if the two pastors trade off on who is hearing them... How could this work, if only one of them has valid Holy Orders?
Upvote
0
That is frankly a mockery of ecumenicism.
But I'm even sadder to see the responses of Christians here. Every member (except Lambslove) has condemned the attendance of non-Catholics at the service. Not a single person has suggested a positive alternative.
This isn't an ideal situation. My only thought to reach towards true unity would be that non-Catholics are made very welcome at the Mass / service, and perhaps catechesis arranged if they wish to participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Having two altars, and basing the decision of who gets which eucharist on denomination is a blatant display of segregation between Christians, within the church.
My experience is that non-Catholic Christians who receive wise teaching and instruction, convert to Catholicism when the historical and societal taboos of the faith have been accurately dispelled.
for true unity
But I'm even sadder to see the responses of Christians here. Every member (except Lambslove) has condemned the attendance of non-Catholics at the service. Not a single person has suggested a positive alternative.
This isn't an ideal situation. My only thought to reach towards true unity would be that non-Catholics are made very welcome at the Mass / service, and perhaps catechesis arranged if they wish to participate in the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Having two altars, and basing the decision of who gets which eucharist on denomination is a blatant display of segregation between Christians, within the church.
My experience is that non-Catholic Christians who receive wise teaching and instruction, convert to Catholicism when the historical and societal taboos of the faith have been accurately dispelled.
for true unity
Upvote
0
ukok
Freaked out, insecure, neurotic and Emotional
No need to be sorry, your initial suggestions of making non Catholics welcome and providing the opportunity for catechesis were perfectly good ideas in my HO, I was more thinking of the OP and how that particular situation might be resolved. I don't think i made myself clear, i apologise.karen_UK said:
I do think that one point that you made was incorrect though, i don't agree that the general feeling of respondents here 'condemned' the non Catholic attendance, rather that the gathering in itself is not in line with Catholic teaching, concerning the reverence of the Eucharist.
Upvote
0
karen_UK said:
That's not what we are "bashing" at all. What we are mad about is how is making a mockery of the Holy Eucharist.
karen_UK said:
Of course we want non-Catholics at Mass, but we are not the ones out of union with Rome, they are! If they want to have communion with us, they must be just that... in communion with the Holy See. They must accept the Holy Eucharist for what it is: The Body, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. If they can't say "amen" when the priest says "Body of Christ," they have no business receiving communion.
We cannot compromise this for any reason, even for the sake of ecumenicism.
karen_UK said:Having two altars, and basing the decision of who gets which eucharist on denomination is a blatant display of segregation between Christians, within the church.
The Holy Eucharist is the highest sign of unity within our church. I know, I waited three months during RCIA for it. I remember wanting it so bad, but I knew I couldnt have it until after the Easter Vigil and until I was Catholic.
It is segregation because they left the Catholic Church! If they want the Body of Christ, the correct thing to do is join the RCIA and come back in communion with Christs Church.
karen_UK said:My experience is that non-Catholic Christians who receive wise teaching and instruction, convert to Catholicism when the historical and societal taboos of the faith have been accurately dispelled.
I agree and I pray for unity all the time. But not at the sake of the truth.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
This thread amuses me on so many levels.
Don't get upset folks, I'm trying to be light hearted, but-
a) It's funny to see conservative Catholics gripe about such incidents yet overlook the practices of the Holy Father at Assisi, in India, and other places and various other ecumenical activites, where he indulged in allowing Bhuddas on the altar, was blessed and anointed by Hindu admirers of Shiva, or was partaking in indigenous Australian ceremonies and so forth. The funny thing is that some people think the heirarchy will bend to complaints regarding ecumenical practice. I wouldn't be so sure, since the worst kind of ecumenism started from the top.
b) What if the Roman altar only offered communion in one kind? Would the Catholics desiring the full sacrament sneak over to the Anglican altar for the wine? What would be worse, is if the Anglicans ruined their own communion by copying the Roman practice of communion in one kind.
c) To see people get upset about a parish they have no first hand experience of is somewhat reactionary I would say. I put it to them that perhaps the people who attend such services are learning to live among differences and grow towards real reconciliation, and to shut that down or oppose it in the name of legalism would be a shame. I understand to some there may be theological issues at hand, but not to others. It seems like the idea of having two altars was an attempt to appease certain factions within both communions. Certainly in our tradition this would be considered heterodox, but because there are so many more liberal minded Catholics and Anglicans out there, especially in the US, what do you expect?
So, what would the members of that parish say about this?
d) There are a lot of diverse opinions regarding the Mass and the correct way to celebrate it in Rome these days, you gotta expect confusion and controversy. For example, my hyper-conservative Roman friends say that the mass celebrated here may not be a mass anyway, because it isn't in the Tridentine Latin, the Novus Ordo being false,or ambiguous at best. Others say the Novus Ordo is valid, but having female altar servers ("serviettes") is not. Others say altar rails are wrong and communion should only be taken on the tongue etc etc etc...get the picture?
So, while we all argue about what is right and wrong, the people of this parish may be learning the real lessons needed for future ecumenism and laying the groundwork for a genuine Christian agenda of unity. I know we all have questions as to whether or not this is the right way to go about it, but at least these people put their money where their mouth is, while we type away on the internet and judge whether or not we agree, as if our opinion really matters to them in any concrete way.
I'll be an interested observer until then. I wish them all the best, but pray that truth may be preserved above all.
Don't get upset folks, I'm trying to be light hearted, but-
a) It's funny to see conservative Catholics gripe about such incidents yet overlook the practices of the Holy Father at Assisi, in India, and other places and various other ecumenical activites, where he indulged in allowing Bhuddas on the altar, was blessed and anointed by Hindu admirers of Shiva, or was partaking in indigenous Australian ceremonies and so forth. The funny thing is that some people think the heirarchy will bend to complaints regarding ecumenical practice. I wouldn't be so sure, since the worst kind of ecumenism started from the top.
b) What if the Roman altar only offered communion in one kind? Would the Catholics desiring the full sacrament sneak over to the Anglican altar for the wine? What would be worse, is if the Anglicans ruined their own communion by copying the Roman practice of communion in one kind.
c) To see people get upset about a parish they have no first hand experience of is somewhat reactionary I would say. I put it to them that perhaps the people who attend such services are learning to live among differences and grow towards real reconciliation, and to shut that down or oppose it in the name of legalism would be a shame. I understand to some there may be theological issues at hand, but not to others. It seems like the idea of having two altars was an attempt to appease certain factions within both communions. Certainly in our tradition this would be considered heterodox, but because there are so many more liberal minded Catholics and Anglicans out there, especially in the US, what do you expect?
So, what would the members of that parish say about this?
d) There are a lot of diverse opinions regarding the Mass and the correct way to celebrate it in Rome these days, you gotta expect confusion and controversy. For example, my hyper-conservative Roman friends say that the mass celebrated here may not be a mass anyway, because it isn't in the Tridentine Latin, the Novus Ordo being false,or ambiguous at best. Others say the Novus Ordo is valid, but having female altar servers ("serviettes") is not. Others say altar rails are wrong and communion should only be taken on the tongue etc etc etc...get the picture?
So, while we all argue about what is right and wrong, the people of this parish may be learning the real lessons needed for future ecumenism and laying the groundwork for a genuine Christian agenda of unity. I know we all have questions as to whether or not this is the right way to go about it, but at least these people put their money where their mouth is, while we type away on the internet and judge whether or not we agree, as if our opinion really matters to them in any concrete way.
I'll be an interested observer until then. I wish them all the best, but pray that truth may be preserved above all.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry Jefferey, I don't like that sort of attitude, and I can understand how the accusatory nature of it causes you to come up against a brick wall with non-Catholics.
Today's people were not around at the time of the Reformation. They have not 'left the Catholic Church' but happened to be born into Protestant families, and never had the means or incentive to study the history and make an informed choice.
I totally agree that Protestantism has 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' and I studied Catechism for years. I know that the Catholic church cannot partake of the eucharist with any other church except the Eastern Churches.
I'm just suggesting that rather than jump to the defence of Catholic Tradition, and view all Protestants as the protege of Luther, we might work at this positively. 3 months is not a long time to wait.
As in my previous post, I suggest that an open welcome, combined with an active education programme be the best way ahead here.
Peace be with you.
Today's people were not around at the time of the Reformation. They have not 'left the Catholic Church' but happened to be born into Protestant families, and never had the means or incentive to study the history and make an informed choice.
I totally agree that Protestantism has 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' and I studied Catechism for years. I know that the Catholic church cannot partake of the eucharist with any other church except the Eastern Churches.
I'm just suggesting that rather than jump to the defence of Catholic Tradition, and view all Protestants as the protege of Luther, we might work at this positively. 3 months is not a long time to wait.
As in my previous post, I suggest that an open welcome, combined with an active education programme be the best way ahead here.
Peace be with you.
Upvote
0
Besides which, are we obeying Jesus' example here?
Sure, Jesus threw merchants out of the temple, but does anyone think he would (theoretically of course) throw a person out of the temple who claimed to have difficulty believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
I imagine he would have offered both welcome and teaching. Lets not lose our priorities here.
Sure, Jesus threw merchants out of the temple, but does anyone think he would (theoretically of course) throw a person out of the temple who claimed to have difficulty believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
I imagine he would have offered both welcome and teaching. Lets not lose our priorities here.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
Not to change the direction of the thread but this is why we have a pope to lose what the bishops bind and to bind what they lose, to protect us from error.
The Vatican has to speak out and has the liaison to the Vatican even been notified?
The evangelization of the Church needs to be spruced up in that diocese so the faithful can vote with their feet. They cant vote with their feet if they do not know their own beliefs.
See what not educating Catholics correctly in the faith can do? We have a duty to raise our kids to know the truth inside and out so they would never stand for a mass like this.
Political correctness in our society is the cause of this, it is even on this board, us not being able to tell anyone anymore that the Catholic Church IS the true Church because we are offending them, we are bashing them. Give me a break.
The Vatican has to speak out and has the liaison to the Vatican even been notified?
The evangelization of the Church needs to be spruced up in that diocese so the faithful can vote with their feet. They cant vote with their feet if they do not know their own beliefs.
See what not educating Catholics correctly in the faith can do? We have a duty to raise our kids to know the truth inside and out so they would never stand for a mass like this.
Political correctness in our society is the cause of this, it is even on this board, us not being able to tell anyone anymore that the Catholic Church IS the true Church because we are offending them, we are bashing them. Give me a break.
Upvote
0
Fiskare said:
But they are just that diverse opinions. We know what the truth is, because the church has told us:
1) the Novus Ordo Mass is valid.
2) female altar servers is fine
3) Alter rails are okay
4) and the Eucharist can be on the tongue or in the hand.
Upvote
0
Fiskare said:This thread amuses me on so many levels.
Don't get upset folks, I'm trying to be light hearted, but-
a) It's funny to see conservative Catholics gripe about such incidents yet overlook the practices of the Holy Father at Assisi, in India, and other places and various other ecumenical activites, where he indulged in allowing Bhuddas on the altar, was blessed and anointed by Hindu admirers of Shiva, or was partaking in indigenous Australian ceremonies and so forth. The funny thing is that some people think the heirarchy will bend to complaints regarding ecumenical practice. I wouldn't be so sure, since the worst kind of ecumenism started from the top.
No one here has a problem with Ecumenism. We would all like to see unity . The Pope did not carry out his ecumenical activity within the context of the celebration of the Eucharist. There is a gigantic diference between a inter-religious prayer service and a Eucharistic celebration. This is the problem we have. No one here would deny any person regardless of belief the ablitiy to attend Mass.
b) What if the Roman altar only offered communion in one kind? Would the Catholics desiring the full sacrament sneak over to the Anglican altar for the wine? What would be worse, is if the Anglicans ruined their own communion by copying the Roman practice of communion in one kind.
The Mass I attended Thursday evening offered both the Body and Blood of Christ. So I am not sure what you are refering to here. Since when did the Anglican Church have a problem copying the Catholic Church
Upvote
0
Herein lies the crisis. Those in teaching authority may or may not agree with you in your understanding of the matter anyway, so you may or may not get what you want out of the Church. It reminds of the SSPX crowd, theologically they are very well informed Catholics, and before Vatican II, they would have been the "real" Catholics, but now that the magisterium has moved forward, they are left behind, and are now the outcasts.Shelb5 said:
What would happen if the teaching authorities decided that the conservative angle taken by some on this issue was in fact the incorrect one? Would that not make those people "protestant" if they did not conform to the new line? It's happened before.
I agree. It's very important to teach kids. I have a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness for decades and he said that the easiest people to convert were Catholics who didn't know their faith, even easier than agnostics and atheists. I'm glad that seems to be changing.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I know nothing of the Buddahist statues, however the lady anointing the Holy Father on the head was CATHOLIC, not Hindu as many anti-Catholic sources suggest. It was a traditional welcome which had no religious intent. And the dancers were performing a native dance. Who cares if they were topless? He was in their territory. Not everyone has the European concept of sexuality.
Given that the Anglican Sacrament isn't valid, the point is moot, but even if it were, the Lord is wholly present in the host, Body (including blood), Soul, Divinity. I agreee there is a loss of symbolism, however it is theologically sound to give Communion under one kind.
Yep, there are a lot of people who are not listening to the Holy See.
God Bless,
Neal
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
