If 3-8 sites would put it up, it would REALLY help me! E-mail: sacred_cd@hotmail.com if you need the coding. (I hope this is the right forum: I've never used these ping thingies before...Apologies in advance if I got it wrong...)
Posted on 08/15/2004 11:42:32 AM PDT by ninenot
he Eucharist belongs to the entire church, universal as well as local. The dynamics of its structure are deeply rooted in the theology of God's grace and in the reality of human religious experience. The Eucharist, rooted in Scripture and Jewish prayer, has been shaped by centuries of tradition, and then reshaped as it was handed over from one culture to another.
As if to signal that its elements were not subject to the whim of individual congregations or presiders, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated changes could only be made by those authorized to do so (§ 22). Thus, the liturgy, belonging to the whole church, should not be arbitrarily changed. Preserving its integrity is the duty of the individual presider.
At the same time, the Council decreed the guiding goal of full, conscious and active participation for all the baptized faithful (§14), each in his/her respective role. That means every effort should be made to tailor the celebration to the mentality, culture and needs of any given community. One sign of that obligation is the explicit exhortation regularly found in the rituals themselves that presiders say something "in these or similar words." Thus, in another sense, the church's liturgy belongs in a unique manner to the local gathering of faithful and must be adapted accordingly. This is also the duty of the individual presider.
Historically the official missals and rituals of the church have been published with directions on how the sacraments should be celebrated in small red print, called "rubrics" (from the Latin word, ruber meaning "red"), and the actual words to be said by presider or congregation printed in larger black type. Thus, the word "rubrics" has come to signal attentiveness to the directions in fine print which should be followed in any sacramental celebration.
Rubrics, as I indicated above, are important because they give direction, structure and purpose to the flow of the liturgical celebration. They help prevent serious lapses or deficiencies in the sacramental sign itself. The rubrics can protect the sanctity of the ritual. They serve to keep the individual celebration of each parish's liturgy in communion with the larger church, diocesan and universal.
When I use the word "rubricism," however, I mean such an obsessive and driven preoccupation with the directives in red print as to risk losing sight of the Eucharist's main purpose. The primary goal of sacraments, especially the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the church's life (§ 10), is sharing in the death and resurrection of the Lord and in Christ's praise of the Father which accomplished the new creation of God's people by divine grace and mercy.
While rubrics are important, they can also become obstacles to God's grace if taken out of context or given exclusive attention. For that reason the Council also included a solemn warning: "Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and licit celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part knowingly, actively and fruitfully" (§ 11).
Now to the other part of my title for this column. Heresy is the deliberate and knowing denial of a divinely revealed truth. Like serious sin, formal heresy required full knowledge and a deliberate act of the human will.
There is also the type of heresy called "material," namely a de facto denial of God's truth which is not fully understood nor freely made. Such an act can be a denial of God's truth without the individual realizing it. Good and holy people can have seriously erroneous (namely, heretical) opinions. This latter sense is the notion I'm addressing, and that’s the reason for the title's use of the word in quotation marks.
There are two reasons for suggesting that total and narrowly exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics of the Eucharist might be heretical, that is, embodying a serious denial of a fundamental truth of our Catholic faith.
First of all, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the directives governing the human actions of our Eucharistic worship could be heretical because it suggests that our salvation depends upon our own actions alone, not God's grace and mercy. The error of acting as if we can achieve our own salvation by our works, howsoever holy and attentive, is a serious one, called "Pelagianism" after its fourth century proponent.
Secondly, excessive and exclusive preoccupation with the rubrics might be heretical because it totters on the brink of indulging in magic. Whenever anyone thinks the blind recitation of certain words or the performance of physical actions themselves causes the effect, that is magic; hardly consistent with our faith or with our Christian recognition of God's sovereign power.
In Catholic tradition there is an historical recognition that an action can have its own immediate effect " ex opere operato " but that is by the promise of God, not the action of any human being as such.
These are things I as a bishop worry about, given today's increasing focus on correct rubrics as if they were the means to salvation, rather than an occasion for God's loving mercy. Keep an eye on the mystery, not merely the pathway to it.
First time I ever saw obedience classified as a potential heresy.
For those of you who are of the ultra-trad persuasion, I post this so that you know what kind of crap we have to put up with here in Milwaukee.
Of course, a response has been formulated. Next post.
Editor,
We are told that ‘pride goeth before the fall,’ and it’s a saying played out large in Biblical history. The saying, even if not quite accurate, is worth remembering, but the Biblical story of pride, and the sin immediately subsequent to pride, makes such remembrance imperative.
The lesson is first taught in Genesis, with Eve’s succumbing to the temptation. Adam and Eve had only to obey one small rule, and all would be well. God wrote the rule for the good of Adam and Eve, because He loved them. But using the lever of pride, Satan was able to persuade both Adam and Eve to disobey. The consequences of disobedience to that one rule were a disaster, not only for Adam and Eve, but for all of mankind.
The lesson, unfortunately, was not learned very well. The Old Testament repeatedly tells us of the pride-disobedience-punishment connection. In some cases, the kings of Israel succumbed, and many times, it was not only the king who was punished, but also the whole people of Israel. It’s hard to figure out God’s intent in making some of the rules—for example, the rules about cleaning one’s kitchen. All we know with certainty is that God made the rules because he loved Israel. We also know that when rules were broken, there were consequences, not only for those who broke the rules, but often for their subjects as well.
It is not by accident that these stories are written; they show us that kings, just like their subjects, have a responsibility to do what is right in the eyes of God-- to follow the rules--not only for their own personal benefit, but for the well-being of those they rule.
There’s another relationship which is made clear in these Biblical stories, and that is the relationship between parents and rulers. Adam and Eve were parents, and their disobedience had consequences for all their children. In like fashion, kings who disobeyed sometimes passed the consequences to all their subjects. In this way, parenthood is ‘rulership’ and ‘rulership’ is parenthood.
In our own lives, if we are parents, we can draw some conclusions. We make rules. We do not expect our children to know precisely why the rules are made, but we do make them for the good of our children, simply because we love them. Sometimes parents enforce rules made by others with legitimate authority—and we do that despite the fact that we do not know why these rules were made—but we enforce them, nonetheless. We also learn from these stories that we owe to our children our own obedience of the rules, for their good as well as for ours. This is one of the facets of the social contract to which we subscribe as members of particular societies, and it is also a general outline of authority.
Parents and kings share a burden in conscience, then: making certain that their children follow the rules, including those rules made by others with legitimate authority. The rules are written for a reason, even if we cannot discern what that reason may be. Moreover, we too must follow ‘the rules,’ for disobedience has consequences not only for ourselves, but also (possibly) for those who are subject to us.
In the Church, authoritative legislators have written rules which concern the celebration of the Eucharist. Often it is hard for us to discern the “why” of the rules, even if we have extensively studied liturgical practices, history, and theories. But it is not our understanding which matters; it is the understanding of the legislator which matters. The rules are written by legitimate and loving authority; as such, so long as we wish to maintain membership in the particular society of the Church, they are to be followed. Satan will follow his successful formula, of course. He will suggest to us that our study and knowledge makes us superior, and that we can disobey the rules. Disobedience to legitimate authority is bad enough, but worse, should those who choose to disobey the rules be ‘rulers,’ the consequences may also fall on their subjects. This is a burden in conscience which is very significant.
It should also be understood that heresy and disobedience are two sides of the same coin. Each of them begins with pride. In each, someone decides to make their own ‘rules;’ the distinction lies only in whether they are rules of belief or practice. Each is both serious and foolish, and both could well lead to disaster—not only for the individual, but for those whom they rule.
Sincerely,
Why did Abp. Dolan let this trash be printed?
Dolan refuses to take control. Of course, Sklba IS his auxiliary Bishop, and I presume Rome has no vacancies in Siberia, Iran, or Afghanistan to which this fine Bishop can be sent...
So if Abp. Dolan refuses to take control, what will he do then? I suppose he could take the Cdl. George approach and support the more orthodox parishes(and protect them from the chancery), but does he have any plan? At the very least, will he try to recruit more orthodox seminarians? Pretty soon if not allready, many potential vocations will make their way to the St. Louis archdiocese.
I don't find a single thing in it that I would object to.
He doesn't advocate not following rubrics. He does, however, caution those who make following rubrics the end-all-and-be-all of the Eucharist or any other celebration.
Sklba's creation of a straw man is precisely what I disagree with. It is virtually impossible for an ordinary-in-the-pew Catholic to be a "rubricist" by his definition; believing that it's "magic," my kiester...
What he's doing, Sinky, is playing civil lawyer. You know, fire all the battleship's guns at once, hoping to scare the living bejabbers out of the complainant. Here, he raises the spectre of "heresy" as though it were realistically possible.
He's covering the jacks around here who take FAR more liberty with the Mass and the rubrics which YOU ever would--to the extent where not only is it very noticeable, but where someone actually complains.
That's why the response talks about the nature of authority and the obligations which are incumbent on those who have authority....
You were doing OK until you concocted this absurdity.
Frankly, our Archbishop has had two years here. He's brought in a new VocDir at the Seminary, fired TWO editors of the Catholic Herald, cut staff at the Puzzle Palace (Chancery), and did an excellent job of handling the criminal assault pervert priests (published the names of those who had 'credible charges'/pulled them out of service/referred their case to Rome for laicization.) In addition, he forced a priest to retract an invitation to the local FutureChurch/CallToAction bunch to hold a wimmins ordination rally at a church.
OTOH, the Seminary is still full of teachers who have expressed questionable (or flat-out wrong) teachings; many Parishes still have PoofterWonk Mass "celebrations" pushed down their throats--and by this I do not mean that the priest/celebrant forgot to say the Creed on one given 0730 Sunday Mass--I mean that the priest "forgets" to say the Creed EVERY SUNDAY--or worse.
It's getting a bit frustrating.
Worst, in my mind, he's failed to follow the lead of Bps. Burke, Sherman, Bruskewitz (et al) in smacking the CINO politicians out of the Communion line.
Actually, Seamole, your last paragraph could be played out right here in Milwaukee.
I certainly hope that the 'retreat' of Fr. Charisma does him some good...
Say what's in red, and do what's in black. Heresy is more likely to result from an arrogant priest thinking that the liturgy of the Church is his own personal plaything to alter as hee sees fit. Long live rubricism!
That should be: Say what's in black, and do what's in red.
It is too bad he wont entirely close down the seminary in your diocese. One thing that I have seen in my present diocese and the one I used to live in, is that the rich suburban parishes usually have the most liberal priests and the worst liturgical abuses, the older inner city parishes is where the more traditional priests are often stuck.
Local custom and language were intentionally absent. Holy Mass was offered in the official language of His Church - Latin.
Calling for the True Presence of the Blessed Trinity through the transformation of bread and wine into His Body and Blood was the most supreme and venerated moment of a Roman Catholic Holy Mass.
Throughout the Roman Catholic world, there was no departure from the tradition in which we paid reverence to Him. Half-naked native dress and/or tank-top and revealing hip-hugging shorts were naturally thought to be unacceptable by the faithful as disrespectful of His presence at Holy Mass.
Bishops appointed to shepard the local faithful, enforced a universal standard of decency, when in the presence of the Holy Tabernacle, and a state of sin was the driving standard which rightfully denied anyone the Body of the Risen Christ.
The presence of God in a Roman Catholic Church hasn't changed. The lack of presence of a Holy Tabernacle, and the all to common presence of unholy priests is the problem.
And who has a duty to oversee the correct instruction of seminarians in their quest for a life as a holy priests?
Before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders, Holy Vows are recited in the presence of a local bishop. Local Bishops receive appointment to that holy office by the will of God after repeating Holy Vows in the presence of God's Vicar on Earth. It is the duty of God's Vicar on Earth to instruct and as necessary admonish, reprimand, or finally cast out any member of His Church for willful disregard and or disobedience of divinely inspired laws governing His Church. In turn no Roman Catholic is required to obey the direction from a pope when that direction is in conflict with sacred teachings made part of the Sacred Dogma of His Church prior to the tenure of an errant pope.
One need only follow the chain of authority to know who has been appointing the anti-Sacred Dogma anti-Sacred Tradition blaspheming and heretic bishops who act in contradiction of Sacred Dogma for the purpose of confusing and making meaningless the truth of Roman Catholicism as the One True Faith.
With the blessing of Karol Wojtyla,'Interfaith Commissions' composed primarily by protestant clergy are destroying Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition in the vile name of ecumenicalism - replacing the same with protestant practices planned for and executed by the greatest threat to Roman Catholicism - the worshipers of Mao and Lenin.
At one time it was said 'all roads lead to Rome'. Moral decadence and spiritual decay in the Roman Catholic Church was given form through the spiritual usurpers controlling the outcome of Vatican II with Karol Wojtyla leading the coup. Should the atheists, pagan idolators, blasphemers,heretics, and those in perpetual sin mocking His Holy Sacraments have their way, Rome will of necessity cease to be the spiritual center of The One True Church.
St. Pius X, pray for us.
If 3-8 sites would put it up, it would REALLY help me! E-mail: sacred_cd@hotmail.com if you need the coding. (I hope this is the right forum: I've never used these ping thingies before...Apologies in advance if I got it wrong...)
Same here--in Milwaukee, the cushy rich parishes were doled out to Rembert's friends before he was yanked.
As to closing the Sem--that actually may happen.
Banner looks fine to me. Good luck with the CD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.