Being Catholic

steve_bakr said:

In all fairness to Karl Rahner, he was very loyal to the Church. He respected the authority of the Church and even wrote about it. He is somewhat out of vogue right now, but he does have his supporters.

Rahner's desire was to have a theology which could engage with modern secular disciplines and the modern world in order to present the message of Jesus Christ in a credible way to a modern world. He did not agree with Catholic isolationism.

He made a lot of contributions and greatly influenced Vatican II. One of his contributions that I like is his concept of man as a transcendental being who has a kind of intrinsic experience of the infinite (God) which is mediated through our finite existence.

He argued that this experience was also mediated in and through history. With these and other concepts he made the case for Christianity, the Church, and the sacraments. His thought always came back around to orthodox Catholicism, but in a new way.

I was so interested by his thought that I wrote a short book about him. I am also doing further work on his 23-volume ,"Theological Investigations." He really had a powerful mind and I think of these polemicists--when someone's book is a "critical re-interpretation," that is theological code for a polemical work--I think of someone nibbling at the heels of a giant.

Click to expand...

And yet you use him as justification for not accepting the clear words of the Church on the matter of NO additons to the liturgy by ANYONE.

thereselittleflower said:

We don't know what Rome has said to the US Bishops on this or any other matter of additions and modifications to the liturgy. We aren't priviledged to such communications. The Vatican is dealing with many, many issues all the time, should we really think that the fact they haven't said anything specific mean the Church's previous words of instructions can be ignored?

The Vatican does not owe you or me any specific statement about this. It has already spoken in a very explicit all inclusive way forbidding any additions - are we in this country going to be like the Corinthians who needed to be rebuked for their many errors and fed milk again when they should have already progressed on to solid meat - and be taught the basic priniciples of obedience and that when the Church says "NO" She really means "NO" and not "only if you think so" ????

Everything that has to do with Mass falls under canon law and the published instructions given by the Vatican.

That this is not understood simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge. But the fact that defense of this practice persists in the face of the explicit words of the Church presented already in the thread, and the absence of such practice in the history of the Church before the Church in America began introducing one innovation to the mass after anothr after another after another, is concerning.

Click to expand...

I think that we have covered this topic thoroughly, Therese. I love talking about Catholicism. But I think that these conversations might be more productive in the absence of someone being accused of disobedience to the Church.

We should all seek to fully understand what it is to be Catholic, but we should not let that turn to gossip about the Catholicicity of others. There are, of course, times where it is appropriate to discuss the merits or demerits of another person's behavior, but all too often it is done in vain in regard to people we will never know or meet or be able to personally impact.

ivebeenshown said:

We should all seek to fully understand what it is to be Catholic, but we should not let that turn to gossip about the Catholicicity of others. There are, of course, times where it is appropriate to discuss the merits or demerits of another person's behavior, but all too often it is done in vain in regard to people we will never know or meet or be able to personally impact.

Click to expand...

No one is "gossipping" about the Catholicicity of others. We are talking about errors in understanding of what the Church requires of us.

steve_bakr said:

I think that we have covered this topic thoroughly, Therese. I love talking about Catholicism. But I think that these conversations might be more productive in the absence of someone being accused of disobedience to the Church.

Click to expand...

What is the definition of disobedience?
The Church states clearly no one may add anything to the mass.

The Church is in authority.








That is exactly the behavior the word "disobedience" refers to. There is nothing else to call it.

thereselittleflower said:

What is the definition of disobedience?
Failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.
Google
The Church states clearly no one may add anything to the mass.

The Church is in authority.
Only the Apostolic See has the authority to regulate the sacred liturgy and the Bishop in accordance with Law.
(Code of Canon Law Canon 838)
(VATICAN II Sacrosanctum Concilium #22)
Anything the Bishop does to regulate - supervise the sacred liturgy under the authority of the Pope must be according to law.
Only the Apostolic See has the authority to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church.
(Code of Canon Law Canon 838)
The Law of the Church states no one else may add to the liturgy.
(CCC 1125)
(VATICAN II Sacrosanctum Concilium #22)

When someone adds to the Liturgy, the someone is doing so either in

"failure or refusal to obey rules or someone (The Church, The Apostolic See) in authority."


That is exactly the behavior the word "disobedience" refers to. There is nothing else to call it.

Click to expand...

There is a way to discuss a current issue in the Catholic Church without turning it into a personal allegation regarding another person's relationship to the Church.

If we don't follow those guidelines here in OBOB, the discussions here may deteriorate into accusations and counter-accusations about another person's Catholicity rather than the merits or demerits of the issue we may be discussing. That is why the forum guidelines are such that we don't turn the conversation into a personal judgment about another person's relationship with God and the Church.

We were discussing the practice of the priests giving a blessing to non-Catholics or Catholics during Communion. One OBOB member made a post expressing that Jesus would have opted for the welcoming practice of giving a blessing.

You have expressed the opinion that the practice is not in accordance with the rubrics of the Mass and have pasted in references to certain Church documents. You have said that the practice of giving a blessing is an illicit innovation in the American Church.

But the discussion got derailed into such personal issues as alleging that another person is being disobedient to the Church's teaching. Such allegations are not really within the guidelines of our community here in OBOB.

Saying, for example, that another person is using his studies of Karl Rahner as an excuse to disobey Church teaching is a personal judgment that shifts the conversation away from the topic and onto the other person's motives and relationship to the Church.

I personally think that you and I have covered this topic and should turn a listening ear to what others have said or might say about it.

While I think that the blessings seem to be beneficial to the people and therefore the Church, the disposition of this practice is not in my hands. Its disposition rests in the hands of the bishops and priests who are giving such blessings as a sign of Christ's acceptance and love.

TheOtherHockeyMom said:

But how would a priest know for sure what sins were on a person's soul when seeing them in the Communion line?

Click to expand...

He wouldn't barring a direct revelation from God or it is something publically known.

mark1 said:

I have no intention to argue on the merits of Catholic liturgy that I have experienced it for decades. However, I would like some to better understand.

I must say that I don't understand all these personal opinions with regard to proper liturgy. This practice has been common in English speaking countries for decades. See below for several who have discussed the issue.

Blessings for Non-communicants

I also don't understand the form of argument. If there is dispute, should we not look to our bishops and to the Holy See, rather than to our own interpretation of Catholic documents?

Click to expand...

This is the personal response of someone at the Vatican which is old, and has been supeceeded by the Vatican's direct response to an inquiry - labled Protocol No. 930/08/L.

It is a response directly from the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship.


In that newer post, the author of the post in the link you provided says this about his own words in that post:
This goes back to the issue of obedience:
Again, they should not even APPROACH Holy Communion and neither should they receive a blessing.

We are bound in obedience to the Church and Her Laws. This is from the Vatican.

Those who advocate going forward for a blessing in the communion line advocate that those who are not to receive Holy Commuion do exactly what the Vatican says the law of the Church forbids, and so they advocate disobedience to the Church in fact if not in intention.

If any one wants to continue to argue against this, then it is the Vatican and the Church they are arguing against, not me (as I have already said before in this thread).

The practice in question is not unique to the Americas, so does anyone know how globally widespread it is?

The article I cited indicated that the practice hAs been prevalent in English speaking countries for at least a couple of decades. From personal expericne has been prevalent in the US for longer than that, certainly in the Renewal churches.

ebia said:

The practice in question is not unique to the Americas, so does anyone know how globally widespread it is?

Click to expand...

mark1 said:

The article I cited indicated that the practice hAs been prevalent in English speaking countries for at least a couple of decades. From personal expericne has been prevalent in the US for longer than that, certainly in the Renewal churches.

Click to expand...

Which is where I understand the practice started adding to the Mass, and a practice the laws of the Church actually forbid according to the Vatican.

With respect, I think that the answer to your question is "yes".

If indeed the English speaking world is using a practice within the Mass that is prevalent and unacceptable, then it is indeed the job of someone at the Vatican to act clearly.

I'm sure this has happened before, perhaps in the case of female alter servers.

In any case, why is it inappropriate for the Vatican to contact our bishops on this issue?

If the Vatican wishes to tell us that we cannot hold hands during the Our Father, raise hands, clap, use instruments other than organ and piano, the Vatican is free to do so. If these are the excesses of Vatican II than we must clearly be told so by the Vatican. Until then, the churches of Renewal will continue.

thereselittleflower said:

The Vatican does not owe you or me any specific statement about this. It has already spoken in a very explicit all inclusive way forbidding any additions - are we in this country going to be like the Corinthians who needed to be rebuked for their many errors and fed milk again when they should have already progressed on to solid meat - and be taught the basic priniciples of obedience and that when the Church says "NO" She really means "NO" and not "only if you think so" ????

Everything that has to do with Mass falls under canon law and the published instructions given by the Vatican.

Click to expand...

mark1 said:

With respect, I think that the answer to your question is "yes".

If indeed the English speaking world is using a practice within the Mass that is prevalent and unacceptable, then it is indeed the job of someone at the Vatican to act clearly.

I'm sure this has happened before, perhaps in the case of female alter servers.

In any case, why is it inappropriate for the Vatican to contact our bishops on this issue?

Click to expand...

Who are the people duly appointed and authorised to interpret and apply Canon Law? The Vatican officials and local bishops, or individual Catholics on Internet forums?

mark1 said:

With respect, I think that the answer to your question is "yes".

If indeed the English speaking world is using a practice within the Mass that is prevalent and unacceptable, then it is indeed the job of someone at the Vatican to act clearly.

I'm sure this has happened before, perhaps in the case of female alter servers.

In any case, why is it inappropriate for the Vatican to contact our bishops on this issue?

If the Vatican wishes to tell us that we cannot hold hands during the Our Father, raise hands, clap, use instruments other than organ and piano, the Vatican is free to do so. If these are the excesses of Vatican II than we must clearly be told so by the Vatican. Until then, the churches of Renewal will continue.

Click to expand...

It is unfortunate the Church's children seem to think they can do things until the Church says "When We said no one can add anything to the Mass, this means this addition and that addition, and that addition, etc, etc."

This only shows the immaturity of the children of the Church who believe this is how things should opperate. This is not a spiritually mature way of approaching what the Church gives us to guide us.

As far as the Vatican needing to address the matter, it most obviously has. And not only that, but has even responded to a private request for clarification. I posted it above. The "church of renewal" is obviously a source of many innovations and additions to the Mass. That is not good track record. It is truly unforunate that in this we see a repeat of the Corinthian Church today, one needing rebuke and the foundations of the faith laid again, needing to be taught "no" really means "no" and to be fed by milk instead of with spiritual meat.

thereselittleflower said:

It is unfortunate the Church's children seem to think they can do things until the Church says "When We said no one can add anything to the Mass, this means this addition and that addition, and that addition, etc, etc."

This only shows the immaturity of the children of the Church who believe this is how things should opperate. This is not a spiritually mature way of approaching what the Church gives us to guide us.

Click to expand...

Eh? Are you calling an awful lot of Catholic bishops "immature"?

thereselittleflower said:

A quote refering to Rahner to support promoting this addition to the mass:

Originally Posted by steve_bakr http://www.christianforums.com/t7724436-9/#post62480587
As a student of Karl Rahner, who was a genius at finding and exploring where there may be leeway on a certain subject and discussing it as freely as the Church permits, I suppose I must have been looking at the matter from that perspective.
Karl Rahner was used in that post to justify trying to find a way around - "leeway on" - the explicit words of the Church. I simply pointed that fact out.

Yes, Lord have mercy.

Click to expand...

As my Deacon has said, sometimes there is some leeway. That is sometimes the space where theologians are most creative in exploring possibilities. Rahner did that, but he was always loyal to the Church. I think that is a good model to follow.

A) I disagree with your opinions regarding the immaturity of your brothers and sisters in the English churches. And yes, I do understand that many here have disagreements with the changes in Church practice as a result of Vatican II.

B) You are correct on the issue at hand. I apologize. I suggested that the Vatican might directly address this matter since the regulations were either being misinterpreted or being violated.

The Vatican did exactly what I would have thought that they might do. The private letter is clear. This practice is prohibited, pending review.

thereselittleflower said:

It is unfortunate the Church's children seem to think they can do things until the Church says "When We said no one can add anything to the Mass, this means this addition and that addition, and that addition, etc, etc."

This only shows the immaturity of the children of the Church who believe this is how things should opperate. This is not a spiritually mature way of approaching what the Church gives us to guide us.

As far as the Vatican needing to address the matter, it most obviously has. And not only that, but has even responded to a private request for clarification. I posted it above. The "church of renewal" is obviously a source of many innovations and additions to the Mass. That is not good track record. It is truly unforunate that we see a repeat of the Corinthian Church today, one needing rebuke and the foundations of the faith laid again, to be fed by milk instead of with spiritual meat, in this movement.

Click to expand...

steve_bakr said:

As my Deacon has said, sometimes there is some leeway. That is sometimes the space where theologians are most creative in exploring possibilities. Rahner did that, but he was always loyal to the Church. I think that is a good model to follow.

Click to expand...

And now we have the words of the Vatican on the matter which the words of your deacon go contrary to, and to which using Rahner to somehow suggest that the Vatican does not really mean:
either means Rahner was in error or his words are being misused to support disregarding the laws of the Church.

thereselittleflower said:

And now we have the words of the Vatican on the matter which the words of your deacon go contrary to, and to which using Rahner to somehow suggest that the Vatican does not really mean:
"for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing."

either means Rahner was in error or his words are being misused to support disregarding the laws of the Church.

Click to expand...

Rome has spoken. As for Rahner, he did not address this topic in particular, as far as I know. I was speaking in general as a principle. Whenever there was a definitive word on a subject from Rome, Rahner always respected it.

The principle of theologians exploring possibilities is still valid.

dp