Posted on 08/18/2004 7:43:12 AM PDT by Stubborn
The following list of words and phrases are typically used by modernist theologians and lay people, in reference to Catholic theology/practice/attitude/concepts. Most of them are inherently vague and for that very reason are used by the modernists -- it is not clear just what they mean or when their meaning applies.
(Excerpt) Read more at cathinsight.com ...
"Eucharist" was used exclusively for the Presence of Christ in the Body and Blood in the Early Church. "Holy Communion" is a much later term.
But, it doesn't matter. Both are acceptable, and to judge one's orthodoxy on the usage of terminology is, well, silly.
Hey, lurker. Try reading the entirety of the thread previous to this one. You have no clue about what you're talking about (as usual) as you jump from thread to thread. Your brain is only half empty or full (whichever you prefer) with the information necessary on this thread to make an informed comment.
Why don't you have some "compassion?" You are so "angry" and filled with "hate." Perhaps you should try the sacrament of "reconciliation" in the "worship space" of the "gathered assembly." It will probably make you "feel" better. You "feel" the Holy Spirit/Ghost, don't you? Does the Holy Ghost make you scared at night so you can't sleep? Boo!
Well, I went to an indult mass that needed the Bishop's approval - but all it was, was the novus ordo in latin. Why did they need the Bishop's permission if it was not required?
Certainly not. I prefer "Catholic." Do you prefer "Catholic", or do you insist on separating yourself from Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo?
I prefer Catholic, but with today's confusion, "Traditionalist" serves a purpose, same as novus ordo does, no?
I mean its obvious anyway, for instance, if I were to say, "Benediction was just awsome tonight", or were you to say, "my hand is killing me because someone squeezed it too tight at mass today" - one should know of what Catholic persuasion we are, but could be confused.
I'm not affiliated with Dallas, but a priest contended that's the reason he was moved.
The bishop disagreed. The priest (whose name escapes me) had reached the end of his six year tenure.
Canonically, they are NOT the same. The correct term, for instance, is "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" not "Eucharist." Only a priest or bishop can confect the Eucharist. When the laity receive it, it is Holy Communion.
For the most part, IMHO, Trads feel the same way about being labeld as novus ordo's (or insert prefered label) do.....IMHO
Leave the humor to professionals. You don't know how to do it.
If it was Novus Ordo, it wasn't indult. Do YOU know the difference between the two?
I mean its obvious anyway, for instance, if I were to say, "Benediction was just awsome tonight", or were you to say, "my hand is killing me because someone squeezed it too tight at mass today" - one should know of what Catholic persuasion we are, but could be confused.
You're going to fit right in with the other weirdos in the trad community around here.
From SACRED MUSIC
Volume 117, Number 3, Fall 1990
ARCHBISHOP ANNIBALE BUGNINI
Basic to the conflict between the liturgists and the musicians is a failure to understand clearly the meaning of "actuosa participatio populi" that the council called for. If indeed singing of pieces by everyone constitutes the epitome of participation, then the art of music in the
service of the liturgy is destined for extinction.
In 1965, the Fifth International Church Music Congress, meeting in Chicago and Milwaukee, considered the meaning of that concept. A paper by Father Colman E.O'Neill, O.P., ("Sacred Music and Liturgy Reform after Vatican II," Rome,
1969 p. 89-108) clearly distinguishes between internal and external participation, and indicates that singing is only one of many means of external participation, not to mention listening.
Just as basic to the struggle between the liturgists and the musicians was a false sense of ecumenism, a problem that surfaced not only in the liturgical discussions but in many other areas considered by the council fathers. Efforts made to restructure the Catholic liturgy into Protestant-
like services grew out of this error and met with opposition from many Catholic sources.
Even Bugnini takes up this criticism with reference to the activity of the Protestant monks of Taize whose influence in preparing the reforms remains a mystery.
The conflicts that began in the council commissions and continued in the years following are not dead. Church music lies in a shambles not only in this country but throughout the world, largely as a result of the work of Bugnini. The church musicians have withdrawn from the fray; as a result
hardly anything of any value has been forthcoming in the last twenty-five years in composition or performance. The liturgists for their part have produced nothing but an on-going series of vaudeville acts, experiments and novelties; liturgy has become associated with entertainment (dancing,
combos, even costuming), so each week must be different, a new act.
Do you only deal with Catholics in your daily life?
Sorry, sink. The statement is inconsistent with Catholic theology.
Two simple questions. Why don't you answer them?
In that case you're mixing psychological terms in with theological terms in your list as well as your answer.
The point I am trying to make is to non-theologians, so I am mixing terms. "Separated brethren" is perceived as more "positive" than "heretic." The Sacrament of "reconciliation" is more positive than "penance."
Also, please clarify what you mean by "It is also misleading to be overly positive, as it is not objective nor realistic"?
We are to strive toward the object (which is God and how HE views things). God is the object. We are the subjects. The purpose of our spiritual life is to unify us with God as best as possible. We should show "hope" (and faith and charity), but to be overly "positive" when being realistic calls for a different response is merely delusionary. For example, if I saw a car headed for my 2-year-old son in the road, I could say, "Oh, I'll just be positive and calmly let him know he is about to die," then when he gets hit and killed, perhaps I would have wished I might have SCREAMED "LOOK OUT" at the top of my lungs so he would have moved.
Which one is "positive"? Screaming at my son. Get it?
"You're going to fit right in with the other weirdos in the trad community around here."
Wow! That is not offensive at all. Not at all.
Ad hominem. Look it up. Oops, you're not required to take logic or philosophy or Latin in diaconate training, are you?
Certainly silly. The church paper's add said that the "latin indult mass was being offered by special permission of the Bishop" - so I went. So why did the Bishop need to give his permission for the NO Mass in latin if it wasn't required?
You're going to fit right in with the other weirdos in the trad community around here.
You liked that hey? LOL - sorry......seriously though, we have labels for a reason. You or I had nothing to do with the fabrication of said labels - heck, I never knew what a "Traditionalist" was till the revolution, then I found out I was one of them. Same as you probably never heard of being a "novus ordo" until you found out there were suddenly these group of folks who are called "Traditionalists". By default, you are one or the other and you aren't a trad. We might both be Catholic, but ya cannot deny that there are essential differences in our "lex orandi" which plainly differentiate our different "lex credendi's."
He won't ever answer them. They make him feel "uncomfortable," just like Cardinal McCarrick was a few weeks ago.
Kumbaya, my Lord... Kumbaya... Kumbaya, my Lord... Kumbaya.
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.