Posted on 01/01/2003 5:13:54 AM PST by ninenot
<>It should be, while recognising at the same time such things as the Credo are not organic
Still, we do have Tertullian to deal with. No matter what reasons are adduced to explain or explain away the fact about standing, there is evidence that was a Rule.
We also have Canon 20 of Nicea for evidence. That is a Rule. The questions surrounding that Rule are legitimate. But, those questions, no matter whose polemical golden calf is being gored (to vaingloriously mix metaphors), do not render the standing rule nugatory.
We also have Jungmann saying that kneeling was imposed.
We have the Catholic Encyclopedia saying kneeling was imposed.
This conspiracy of facts is something some competent, professionally trained Liturgist ought to tease out so we can be better informed and form conclusions more dispassionately
Just speaking for myself, the more I learned about Liturgy, the less I was vexed about the Pauline Reform. In my flirtation with the schism, I was being influenced by tendentious morons. What they knew about the actual history of the Mass wouldn't fill a thimble. Once I started reading for myself- from many sources, Dom Gueranger, Gamber, Jungmann ect - the more easy it became to identify the ignorant polemical errors promoted by Davies et al.
I also admit I am Blessed. My Pastor is a brilliant man. Even were The Indult located close by, I would continue with the Missa Normitiva due to his preaching. He is incomparable and his sermons are enlightening, enspiriting, educational, funny, and startling. The Mass is reverent, we are adding back Latin Hymns (Agnus Dei always sung), the Tabernacle is back in the Sanctuary,we always say the Confetior... ect ect<>
LOL! I did a double take too. After reading the article again from the Adoremus website, I think the authors are using the term in it's original sense. Bishop Bruskewitz's answer for receivng Holy Communion is in line with what the GIRM has always stated. Communicants are free to choose between standing or kneeling. (If standing, they are supposed to make a reverential gesture - historically, at least, in the Latin Rite that has always meant a genuflection with the right knee).
From the GIRM of the Roman Missal, the controlling liturgical document for the Latin Rite of the Church, I think it is clear that people are to kneel during the Consecration, unless extenuating circumtances don't allow it (i.e. a Mass said in a stadium, etc.). As well as other places in the Liturgy. This all fits well in the organic development of the Latin Rite. It's all in the Roman Missal - which a new edition is coming out now, hence the overdrive in the agenda pushing business. To receive Holy Communion (the quote concerning Bishop Brukewitz), the Communicant (NOT the Priest) has the option of receiving either kneeling or standing. If standing, a sign of reverence is to be given. For the Latin Rite (tradition of the Western world), the sign of respect in front of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament has traditionally been a genuflection with the right knee. In the East, respect has traditionally been shown with a deep, profound bow - such that the head goes below the heart!
I agree with you whole-heartedly about the liturgistas not caring - they are too busy pushing agendas. Hopefully, it is the last gasp of the "Vatican II" generation, who are now bitter grey haired individuals who can't understand why young people are not joining them at their Call to Action conferences, but are either a) not practicing their Faith, or b) watching EWTN. You, of course, know better than me about how desperate the "last gasp" mentality can become. A certain Cathedral reconstructive wreckovation by a certain lame duck Archbishop ignoring the Vatican tells the whole story.
I dare not say this in person out in public, but I also agree that a certain perverted sexual orientation, namely the "gay" lifestyle, has a lot to do with it. I always wondered if that is why people who choose such a lifestyle are so prevalent in the fine arts. Think about it. You can abuse and "over do" the fine arts to the point where it becomes an escape from reality, indeed an attempt to redefine reality. Isn't their whole lifestyle an escape from the demands of reality - including the interior moral life directed to God?
Erudite psycologists have always noticed an arrested interior development of homosexuals, sort of a continual "adolencent" mentality. And aren't many of the problems we discuss concerning the Sacred Worship and Adoration of God, i.e. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, apparent when you see these "experts" treat the Mass as merely a fine arts performance, or worse, for the really immature, who take the mickey mouse approach and turn it into disneyland? These liturgistas NEVER talk about the demands of 'Sacrifice', which the Mass IS. Holiness? The sense of Mission coming from an Eternal perspective?
Their mixing and matching games are an attempt to come up with means to justify their already chosen end. Redefine the Liturgy to recreate God in the image that they will accept from Him. And of course it is occurring big time at this point in time since the new Roman Missal is coming out and they are trying to force their agendas by changing it to the extent that they can. H#ll, there is STILL problems with "inclusive language" and other translating gimmicks occurring. Another way of saying they are trying to pervert it.
You have the same idea, differently expressed, that E Michael Jones and I share.
In a nutshell, there IS such a thing as 'right order,' which includes such things as the natural moral law, the higher things (beauty, truth, etc.,) and the natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc., etc.
Now the Vatican has described the homosexual inclination as "a grave dis-order.
I do not think that the Vatican's terminology is accidental in the least, and opens a window to both the Vatican's thought and the REAL concern about the homosexual tendency.
To be fair, there is a BIG difference between the repentant and UN-repentant sinner, and in the end, ANY sin darkens the intellect.
But it would seem that the homosexual sin 'starts' in a worse place than, say, the heterosexual sin...
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.