Being Catholic

mark1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to disagree, but I stand by my words. We are seeing repeat of the Corinthian Church today in the renewal churches.

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.

Click to expand...

The only reason the Vatican needed to say anything is the same reason the letter to the Corinthian Church was written . .to correct error and abuses. And Paul rebukes them for being so spiritually immature that they need to be fed spiritual milk again instead of meat. Obedience is a simple issue. I posted from the words of the Church making it clear what obedience entailed, the scope of the prohibition of adding anything to the Mass. Those words were simply, clear, explicit.

Mature faith is a faith obedient to the Church and when the Church says "No" understands the Church really means "no" and does not need to have the Church expressly forbid any particular thing that falls under the umbrella of the "No" already pronounced. It is with the immaturity of a child that one feels the need to test the boundries and try things then wait to see if the parent notices or will say "I said No and I meant No."

As far as the letter, it is not a matter of those words pending review as if they may somehow be changed in the future. This is not going to be changed. These words are simply as far as they would go at this point to state while it is still under the attentive study of the Vatican. But this was released to give clarity to what we should expect a more fully stated response will be.

steve_bakr said:

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

Click to expand...

Then Rahner cannot be used to support the practice of giving blessings in the communion line which is what was originally offered in this thread.

thereselittleflower said:

Then Rahner cannot be used to support the practice of giving blessings in the communion line which is what was originally offered in this thread.

Click to expand...

Which happened before we all knew there was a definitive word on the matter from the Vatican's agency with competency over the Mass.

If you'll reread, the post said that Rahner went for leeway where the Vatican had not spoken.

Needing_Grace said:

Which happened before we all knew there was a definitive word on the matter from the Vatican's agency with competency over the Mass.

If you'll reread, the post said that Rahner went for leeway where the Vatican had not spoken.

Click to expand...

We already had the definitive word. The Vatican had already spoken. I provided the words of the Vatican and Church in this thread. No one may add to the Mass.


Those words were argued against, rejected, somehow the Church doesn't really mean what the Church has said.

That the Vatican needed to say anything more is only because the difinitive word was being ignored and people were using writings such as Rahner's to justify finding wriggle room on the Church's clear statements, which I had previously provided, that no one may add to the Mass.

thereselittleflower said:

We already had the definitive word.

That the Vatican needed to say anything more is only because the difinitive word was being ignored and people were using writings such as Rahner's to justify finding wriggle room on the Church's clear statements, which I had previously provided, that no one may add to the Mass.

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting Rahner, and the matter of the blessings has been definitively decided.

steve_bakr said:

You are misrepresenting Rahner.

Click to expand...

No lol - I'm not the one who brought up Rahner as a reason to think that the practice of receiving a blessing was alright. I'm speaking against using Rahner to do this.

Maybe you need to read my post again.

As you now know, the citations that you quoted were NOT so definitive. As you posted,

Protocol No. 930/08/L from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship
"this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation,"

"for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations":

I agree that the Vatican has prohibited the practice, PENDING THEIR INVESTIGATION. Of course, the Vatican does not have any time table with regard to such issues.

thereselittleflower said:

We already had the definitive word. The Vatican had already spoken. I provided the words of the Vatican and Church in this thread. No one may add to the Mass.

[.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

No lol - I'm not the one who brought up Rahner as a reason to think that the practice of receiving a blessing was alright. I'm speaking against using Rahner to do this.

Maybe you need to read my post again.

Click to expand...

Rahner was always open to exploring possibilities, and whenever an order was given from Rome, he abided by it.

Apparently, though, there is still room for converstion, since it is under investigation.

steve_bakr said:

You are misrepresenting Rahner, and the matter of the blessings has been definitively decided.

Click to expand...

The matter was definitively decided by the Vatican and the Church before the letter I posted. That various churches failed to understand this and allowed themselves to be swayed by a desire to do good does not change the definitive nature of the Church's previous words or their all inclusive nature.

Apparently, though, there is still room for converstion, since it is under investigation.

Click to expand...

You claimed that the matter was definitively decided, now you claim the matter is open to conversation.

Again, the words of the Vatican:

The Vatican is saying there is no question as to what the Church has already made clear.

If there is no question what the Church has already made clear, then there is no question to have a conversation on.

All that is left is our obedience which, if we refuse to give, places us against the Vatican and the Magesterium.

steve_bakr said:

Rahner was always open to exploring possibilities, and whenever an order was given from Rome, he abided by it.

Click to expand...

Then that means using him as a basis for which to question the words of the Church which stated that no one may add anything to the Mass is unjustified when the definitive order had already been given by the Church - years ago - that no one may add anything to the Mass.

thereselittleflower said:

We already had the definitive word. The Vatican had already spoken. I provided the words of the Vatican and Church in this thread. No one may add to the Mass.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1125 For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority of the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy


VATICAN II
Sacrosanctum Concilium #22:
(1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

(3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.




Code of Canon Law
Canon 838

1. The supervision (moderatio) of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, in accord with the law, the diocesan bishop.

2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the entire Church (universa ecclesia), to publish (edere) the liturgical books, to review their translations into the vernacular languages and to see that liturgical ordinances are faithfully observed everywhere.
​

Those words were argued against, rejected, somehow the Church doesn't really mean what the Church has said.

That the Vatican needed to say anything more is only because the difinitive word was being ignored and people were using writings such as Rahner's to justify finding wriggle room on the Church's clear statements, which I had previously provided, that no one may add to the Mass.

Click to expand...

You're arguing from the general principle to a specific question.

There are questions on the question. That's where is "leeway" lies. Is an individual blessing even considered an "addition to the Mass?" I think that's the question where leeway exists. Now that the Vatican agency with competency has spoken, we have an answer to the specific question at hand.

thereselittleflower said:

Then that means using him as a basis for which to question the words of the Church which stated that no one may add anything to the Mass is unjustified when the definitive order had already been given by the Church - years ago - that no one may add anything to the Mass.

Click to expand...

I'm curious. Do you have any devotional prayers you say during certain parts of the mass?

Do you cross yourself when the priest says, "May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us..." during the penitential rite?

Do you say, "My Lord and my God" when the host is elevated, even silently to yourself?

Do you say a little prayer before Holy Communion?

Do you say a little prayer after Holy Communion?

Are you "adding to the Mass" by doing so?

I wonder if conferring a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion was considered to be such a devotional practice before the Church ruled on it.

If what you say is true, then the letter would NOT have said that the matter was under review, and indicate what to do in the interim, while the matter is studied further.

thereselittleflower said:

The matter was definitively decided by the Vatican and the Church before the letter I posted. That various churches failed to understand this and allowed themselves to be swayed by a desire to do good does not change the definitive nature of the Church's previous words or their all inclusive nature.

Click to expand...

mark1 said:

As you now know, the citations that you quoted were NOT so definitive. As you posted,

Protocol No. 930/08/L from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship
"this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation,"

"for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations":

I agree that the Vatican has prohibited the practice, PENDING THEIR INVESTIGATION. Of course, the Vatican does not have any time table with regard to such issues.

Click to expand...

Mark, you are simply reading into these words what you want to find. You are also misapplying my words.

The post you quoted and responded to above was not about the letter from the Vatican but about the definitive words of the Church from Vatican II, from the Code of Canon Law and as incorporarted into the CCC.


As far as the quotes from the letter from the Vatican are concerned, they are consistant with all the words of the Vatican on the subject in years past and explicitly refer to Church law. That isn't changing.

The Vatican, before it makes a fuller statement, of course is going to "study" the issue. This is what the Vatican always does. It is prudent. They want to have every important cite, their ducks in a row so to speak, before they make a fuller statement.

But what has been stated is definitive for it is a reaffirmation of the definitive words from the Vatican and Church in years past.

mark1 said:

If what you say is true, then the letter would NOT have said that the matter was under review, and indicate what to do in the interim, while the matter is studied further.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what that means. It did not say it was "under review" - that is your interpolation. It said it is "under attentive study" which does not mean "review" as if the Church may go in a different direction, as I described in my post above.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7724436-14/#post62488491

Needing_Grace said:

I'm curious. Do you have any devotional prayers you say during certain parts of the mass?

Do you cross yourself when the priest says, "May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us..." during the penitential rite?

Do you say, "My Lord and my God" when the host is elevated, even silently to yourself?

Do you say a little prayer before Holy Communion?

Do you say a little prayer after Holy Communion?

Are you "adding to the Mass" by doing so?

I wonder if conferring a blessing in lieu of Holy Communion was considered to be such a devotional practice before the Church ruled on it.

Click to expand...

If we think about it for a moment it becomes obvious, that private devotions are not in any way the same thing as public acts by a Priest incorporated into the Mass.

Private devotions do not add anything to what a priest does in the Mass.

Private devotions in Mass are not the same thing as a Priest giving a blessing during communion.

You are talking about two completely different things, and no . a blessing by a priest is not a private devotion. Blessing yourself is a private devotion.

In addition, private devotions inproperly engaged in during the Mass are not allowed either - such as saying the rosary during Mass is not permitted.

I agree. Private devotions are very different than any act by the priest.

thereselittleflower said:

If we think about it for a moment it becomes obvious, that private devotions are not in any way the same thing as public acts by a Priest incorporated into the Mass.

Private devotions do not add anything to what a priest does in the Mass.

Private devotions in Mass are not these same thing as a Priest giving a blessing during communion.

You are talking about two completely different things, and no . a blessing by a priest is not a private devotion. Blessing yourself is a private devotion.

In addition, private devotions inproperly engaged in during the Mass are not allowed either - such as saying the rosary during Mass is not permitted.

Click to expand...

thereselittleflower said:

Then that means using him as a basis for which to question the words of the Church which stated that no one may add anything to the Mass is unjustified when the definitive order had already been given by the Church - years ago - that no one may add anything to the Mass.

Click to expand...

You are putting your own spin on it. I was referring to a general principle. If a definitive word comes out, it doesn't make the previous discussion culpable. What definitive word would make you stop arguing?

Needing_Grace said:

You're arguing from the general principle to a specific question.

There are questions on the question. That's where is "leeway" lies. Is an individual blessing even considered an "addition to the Mass?" I think that's the question where leeway exists. Now that the Vatican agency with competency has spoken, we have an answer to the specific question at hand.

Click to expand...

Again, the words of the Vatican:
The Vatican is saying there is no question as to what the Church has already made clear.

If there is no question what the Church has already made clear, then there is no question to have a conversation on, there is no room for leeway.

It has ALREADY been made clear.

To argue that it wasn't clear before is to argue against the Vatican.

All that is left is our obedience which, if we refuse to give, places us against the Vatican and the Magesterium.

steve_bakr said:

You are putting your own spin on it. I was referring to a general principle. If a definitive word comes out, it doesn't make the previous discussion culpable. What definitive word would make you stop arguing?

Click to expand...

Steve, the definitive word was always out.


This idea that we don't have to take the Church at Her word until She says something explicitly about a detail that is covered already under the umbrella of previous statements by the Church gives rise to the idea that it's ok to look for loopholes.

And I am speaking out against that philosphy.


The Vatican said it was ALREADY clear BEFORE the letter was issued.
How much clearer does the Vatican have to be to show the approach you advocate to use is flawed?