Posted on 10/17/2007 10:20:21 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
What particularly interested you about this article, Alex?
Catholic ping!
btw, Wissman just LOOKS like a hippie-dippie loon. I hope the fallout from this stupid parish letter is immediate, salutary, and decisive.
I have his Catholicism for Dummies, and while that really IS a dumb title, it's a great book!
Oh the horror!!
LOL! Yeah, but he's famous now -- at least in the Catholic blogosphere. They're all picking this up! :)
I think the bringing up of Nazis was aimed at Pope Benedict . . . he just didn't quite have the nerve to call the Pope a Nazi.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that seminarians are still supposed to be taking Latin -- not again. Granted, many seminaries dropped it post-Vatican II -- had to make room for all the sappy social science stuff (getting rid of that would be a blessing in itself!).
Undoubtedly saving it for the next installment. BTW, Fr. Z has a later installment of "Fr. Pat's" piece that I hadn't seen in previous postings (wonder how long he intends to keep this up!):
Continuing with reflections on the Motu Proprio on the use of Latin.11. I fear that one of the reasons the church has done so poorly in Europe is because the renewal of the Liturgy never took place. It did here, though! It has been one of the reasons that the American Church has thrived and even now grows greatly by new members joining from other Christian churches. When exposed to the liturgy and sacraments of the Church, they are overjoyed at the theology, the content and faith they portray and feel they have found their true home. Latin would make even the Holy Spirit stumble.
12. Latin is not a "sacred" language (as would be Hebrew or Greek (and Aramaic), the languages the bible was originally written in. But even they would be a hindrance to true worship and sacrament. Can it be that the people who want Latin really dont want to be challenged by the gospel and be called to be thoughtful of others and be willing to sacrifice an external like Latin for the sake of the whole?
13. The choice to do a Latin Mass or sacraments according to the Popes document would rest with the priest, not with the people and not with the Bishop.
14. There is an insinuation in the Motu Proprio and certainly with the people who want Latin, that the changes of Vatican II were unnecessary, that the liturgy was in a good state and returning to some of the ancient practices of a better time were wrong. They would suggest there was no need for a renewal or an awakening of the faithful to the liturgy of Mass and sacraments. This attitude is unacceptable. The liturgy was in deplorable state, not only the language was unintelligible but the accretions of meaningless practices and legalistic attitudes of rubricism were a hindrance to meaningful celebration. In those days Catholic spirituality was in a bad state. Holy Communion was rarely taken by the faithful (a law had to be made to force them to take communion at least once a year) and Mass was viewed as something magical and superstitious. The true understanding of the theology of Mass and sacrament was rare.
15. The Gregorian chant although beautiful when sung correctly was almost never done with skill and beauty outside monasteries. Singing in the Catholic world of the United States was a poor at best and monotonous - with a few hymns making up the entire parish repertory, the exception being at Christmas where there were plenty of English language songs to be sung.
16. The unity of our rite or worship would be seriously jeopardized. If we are going to develop a variety of rites that a catechumen or candidate would choose from, we would confront them with confusion.
We can perhaps reflect on the wonderful gifts from God that we call Sacraments!
Why is everyone always ribbing on Alex? LOL
Is there some posting “conspiracy” uncovered I have not been informed about?
:-o
Sorry for the double post... it might just push some of you past the gag reflex ;-)
This pic is taken from the parish’s website and is on the priest’s bio page. Lovely.
He likes us. One of these days he’s going to up and become Catholic ;-P
All he needs is some gold chains - he's got the soft focus and the unbuttoned shirt. "Hey, babeeeee!"
At least he didn't have sideburns.
I think AmChurch has finally come together with a plan, especially considering the fact Ecclesia Dei is putting together a new document to deal with resistant bishops.
Steinbock in Fresno recently issued an announcement on the local TV channel stating that due to the priest shortage (paraphrasing here) the priests are much too busy so don’t bother asking for the Old Mass. He claims the Pope’s MP was intended for Europe where church attendance is declining, not the U.S. where churches are full. The icing on the cake? He topped it off by saying many parishes would no longer have priests but parish life coordinators so get used to it.
I remember Archbishop Borders, then head of the BishopsDoctrine committee and Archbishop of Baltimore,stating to the press that Pope Pauls order to put first confession back to its traditional place before first holy communion was meant only for the Italians. . . . . When Ex Corde Ecclesiae was issued the bishops said that it was for Europe. When the review of religious orders of women was had, they said it was meant for Europe. When the Popes condemned slavery, the American bishops wrote President VanBuren and told him that the pope was not talking about us but Europe! Cardinal OMalley was the first to state in his meeting with the pope and afterwards to his diocese that the motu proprio was intended primarily for Europe.
Is there a pattern emerging here? ;-)
Luther
Calvin
Edwards
Machen
Schaeffer
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.