My comments first:
I think we should all expect that anything a Curial Cardinal of a Vatican Congregation issues officially should have the backing or “okay” of the Pope because these congregations are at the service of the Pope not in spite of His Holiness.
But this brings me to my new kind of rant, the “masculine” ethos of the Church versus the “feminine” ethos of the Church. I have said before that the pre-Vatican II Church was more “militant” as in the Church Militant, and more masculine with more muscle in being direct, clear, regimented and unafraid to issues anathemas and condemnations. That is not feminine, that is masculine.
The post-Vatican II Feminized Church is into “troppe chiacchiere” the Italian words for aimless too much talking or talk as noise or gossip. Loosely translated into English, chiacchiere could be “dialogue” in my most humble opinion. The Church is unwilling to condemn, judge or issue anathemas. And in a feminine Church that acts in a feminine way, we see bishops, priests, religious and laity confused by the magnanimous acceptance or ongoing discussion (chiacchiere) of what otherwise would be condemned in the masculine Church as wrong and deserving of an anathema. And everyone who knew anything about the catechism of the Church would know it.
But here we have a Cardinal having to tell brother bishops in a kind, soft, unintrusive way, with no muscle whatsoever the following feminine ethos: Sarah argues that although the Catholic Church should cooperate with civil authorities and adopt protocols to protect the safety of the faithful, “liturgical norms are not matters on which civil authorities can legislate, but only the competent ecclesiastical authorities.”
With pope’s okay, cardinal says return to public Mass ‘necessary and urgent’
- Inés San MartínSep 12, 2020
Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, arrives for the presentation of Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke's book Divine Love Made Flesh, in Rome, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015. The Vatican said Saturday it was “necessary and urgent” to return to in-person Masses as soon as coronavirus lockdowns permit. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini.)
ARGENTINA – Calling it “necessary and urgent” to return to public Masses as soon as anti-COVID 19 measures permit, the Vatican’s top official for liturgy has urged Catholic bishops around the world not to let religious worship be relegated to a priority level below “recreational activities” or treated as just another public gathering.
Signed by Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, the letter came with the approval of Pope Francis.
Sarah argues that although the Catholic Church should cooperate with civil authorities and adopt protocols to protect the safety of the faithful, “liturgical norms are not matters on which civil authorities can legislate, but only the competent ecclesiastical authorities.”
14 comments:
"...and more masculine with more muscle in being direct, clear, regimented and unafraid to issues anathemas and condemnations. That is not feminine, that is masculine."
You have an interesting - actually I'd say bizarre - understanding of masculinity and femininity.
You still haven't realized that the conditioning you received as a child was just that - conditioning.
Card. Sarah can bloviate all he wants. He's not above civil law, nor, in any jusridiction, is the Church with her liturgical norms. He wants special treatment for Catholics. Does he demand the same for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and other world religions? What about their "liturgical norms?"
Your comment can't be taken seriously and is a straw man. Cardinal Sarah doesn't represent other religions of the world nor his he their nanny or whatever the masculine word for that is. He is speaking about Catholicism, his area of expertise.
In terms of masculine and feminine ethos, you seem to have given into the cultural dysfunction of gender ideology and as Pope Francis has describe it, you have been colonized by it.
Male and female, (God) created them and in a complimentary manner inscribed with natural law which God also created. No getting around that with your gender ideology.
"Cardinal Sarah doesn't represent other religions of the world..."
Never said he did, never suggested he did. That is YOUR straw man.
I asked, "Does he advocate the same for them?"
You're the one with a gender ideology: "Men are this way; women are that way."
Bunk - Tell it to the men who are nurturing and caring and gentle and emotional and to the women who are tough and direct and highly disciplined and strong.
I left out of my original remark, that other religions of the world are quite capable of being their own advocates thus they don't need a mommy to advocate for them, a feminine approach to say the least, or is it maternalistic?
I see you confirm that you have been colonized by the gender ideology of the day. All I can do is pray for you which of course, is the most I can do and certainly in the masculine form of the Mass, the Extraordinary Form.
Fatti maschii, parole femine. The wise combination of feminine and masculine characteristics in our collective actions advances our cause with greater benefit. The ecclesiastical authorities have signaled a weakness in both by their retreat from public Mass. there is no conflict whatsoever between public safety and public Mass. it is all in the ‘how’. The Catholic Church is blessed with great minds in medicine and science who can find a way to have a reasonably safe Mass and educate the parishioners to the risks. In Charity I will say that the bishops probably expected the plague to have ended several months ago so have put minimal effort into ritualising the attendance. But they have since squandered the time for creating one. I agree with Cardinal Sarah.
The concept of natural law is ill defined and a theologic mess!
In the past the Vatican through church teachings has condemned electric lights and trains as being against natural law. Last time I checked the Vatican has both electric street lighting and a functioning train station.
Peter P - The Church also condemned blood transfusions and autopsies...
Our church presently has only every third pew open, with two pews blocked in front and behind. Thus, maximum capacity is 1/3 normal; overflow must go to parish hall for livestream. We elderly are mostly trying to stay home to accommodate families, particularly those with children, who really need the consistency of church attendance is to remain important in their lives. So every Sunday, 1/3 of the church is full, and here we 2/3 are, live-streaming at home (if reception is good—today it wasn’t, so had to go to EWTN), praying for better times.
God help us all as we try to do the next right thing.
Peter Pence,
The concept of natural is not ill defined and a theological mess. The concept, in one's mind, might be ill defined and a theological mess, but that doesn't make it so.
By definition, the natural law is that which is not ill defined or a theological mess, but rather those laws which logically follow from our experience of nature. These laws become ill defined or a theological mess when sin obscures our view of nature or we become inordinately obsessed with something that is not natural.
You might read up here. I hope this helps:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
Father,
Anonymous is obviously a troll. His self-defined "enlightenment" will bring him into conflict with most of the orthodox or traditional positions you and others who blog here hold. Probably best to just ignore him, as he's obviously just trying to push a few buttons. He knows what crowd he's dealing with and he ought to have enough sense to know he isn't going to persuade anyone with his smug assertions. In that respect, he rather reminds me of the "protesters" who believe they are effecting change by destroying property, & harassing and assaulting people. In the end, no one's mind is changed, but it makes them feel good.
Note - I'm not hopeless as you seem to be. I don't think people are unpersuadable at all.
You, Fr. McDonald, and others here do have the capacity to reason, to reflect, and to recognize the need for adjusting or changing long-held views of the world in matters large and small.
Those who deny the possibility for or the need for change are moribund. They sit like rocks, unmoving, unchanging, in the middle of a field as they are being worn away by the elements over time. Ultimately . . . they are gone.
To grow is to change; to mature is to have changed often.
No one here denies that change is the one constant of life. However, change does not always signify or automatically mean growth or improvement. The changes that came to Russia in 1917 certainly didn't improve anything. The changes wrought by Johnson's "Great Society" program have not eliminated poverty, but have, arguably, created a permanent cycle of it. And the changes imposed upon the Church by postconciliar zealots have brought the Church the absolute OPPOSITE of growth, with the free-fall of vocations, female religious, and parish closings, as well as the lack of belief in the Real Presence (unless one considers that progress).
Change can be good, but to presume that it is always so is dangerous. The Church is supposed to reflect God, who is the same, yesterday, today and forever. In that respect, change for its own sake or presuming all changes are "growth" or "maturing" for us, runs contrary to the ideals of the Church. St. Pius X had a lot to say on that topic and he stated it far more eloquently than I possibly could.
I never said that people could not be persuaded. I would say, however, that most of the means being used by protesters and people who ridicule others for their views usually end up having the opposite effect.
"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion, still."
-Benjamin Franklin
'In the past the Vatican through Church teachings has condemned electric lights and trains as being against natural law.'
Absolute rubbish. Gregory XVI (1831-1846) opposed the construction of railways in the Papal States for political reasons and as a temporal ruler. Nothing to do with Church teaching or natural law. Reactionary he might have been, but no more so than the Duke of Wellington who
feared the railways would encourage the lower orders to move about, or the Anglican establishment of Oxford University which opposed the extension of the Great Western Railway since undergraduates would have easier access to the fleshpots of London.
Gregory also opposed gas street lighting in Rome, for reasons unconnected with natural law. Electric light only became available at the end of the 19th century and I can find no evidence that Leo XIII condemned it. One of the first buildings in London to be lit by electricity was the Oratory church which opened in 1884.
Post a Comment