Just because something like this might be well-received by particular Catholic congregations, does the logic follow that this is good for the Church and her liturgy? I say emphatically, "NO!" The fallacy of this logic which so many progressive liturgists have embraced is that if people like it and it keeps them in the Church then why not do this.
As well, there is little or no outrage today when these things are done compared to the 1960's and 70's when experimentation of this sort was met with skepticism by a large number of Catholics until they eventually were crock pot cooked in the toxic stew of liturgical nonsensicalness and came to accept whatever was done if it was done for good motives.
So, do you like this and if you do, I'm concerned about your Catholics spirituality and identity, your liturgical awareness and the loss of all that is of our tradition.
(Just as aside, and I know that may seem ironic to some, I actually like the design of this Cathedral and have seen it many, many years ago. I particularly like the sanctuary and the fact that in one sense it is quite traditional. there is a spaciousness in front of the altar and around it and yet the altar and ambo are elevated in the traditional manner of the pre-Vatican II rubrics and the altar does have the "Benedictine Altar Arrangment!"
ps the church is quite disgusting in itself. another concrete monster that, no doubt, cost too much for its lack of artistic merit. it is a cathedral, not a Carthusian monastery.
I have a friend who did a video several years ago and it speaks directly to your points in this post. Please take the time to watch the two parts. I think that Steve's view will change your mind. Please keep an open mind through watching.
When a weekly banquet is suddenly changed to a weekly kool-aid party, is it any surprise that many banquet lovers quit coming, and many of those who remain are kool-aid lovers? So who would conclude from this that kool-aid and cookies is better for you than a banquet dinner?
Yes, we should be.
The questions are whether, and when, the hierarchy will take firm actions against such things.
PI will take me to task for making a legal analogy, but a "law" that isn't enforced is not actually a law. As long as the hierarchy permits this, all the talk in the world from the Vatican is pointless.
All this stuff plays 24/7 on Purgatory TV.
"PI will take me to task for making a legal analogy, but a "law" that isn't enforced is not actually a law. As long as the hierarchy permits this, all the talk in the world from the Vatican is pointless."
You are absolutely correct. This line of reasoning is a major reason why I think that the Holy Father must start thinking as a monarch again. As a spiritual leader he cannot enforce law. However, as the monarch that he is, Catholic will be more apt to follow his legal statements and assertions.
One of the most damaging things done in the last 50 years was when Paul VI laid aside the tiara. When he did that, he laid aside his legal authority.
Liverpool Met, aka "Paddy's wigwam" or the "Mersey Funnel" was opened in 1967. The architect, Gibberd (a non-Catholic) decided on the church-in-the-round style which was in vogue at the time. The only positive thing you can say about this style of architecture is that the priest must perforce have his back to someone!
They have a decent choir but it is restricted in that those who run the place want a trendy liturgy. So Vespers is called Evening Prayer and is mostly in the vernacular with Anglican chant.
Now for the good news. The building has 'concrete cancer' and will not last for the rest of the century. They will then have the opportunity to rebuild it using Sir Edwin Lutyens's magnificent original plan. By this time the Church's liturgy will have been restored and these absurd goings-on will be a distant and shameful memory. Sadly I won't live to see it, but ytc undoubtedly will.
I really must take you to account on Paul's tiara relinquishing ceremony. I think it was a terrible symbol to make, but Paul did not give away his legal authority when he did it. Wimpy man or not, he was a Pope who ruled with laws, regardless of how vague they were. Let us remember that the new CIC is largely His doing, and I don't hear many complaints about that new legal system.
PS: it seems our current Holy Father has recently exercised his rights as the Living Law. Have a look at the nutty over at NCReporter about the letter Father, I mean Mister, Bourgeois received. Talk about We's and wherefore's and Lords. They call Mr. B "Dominus" for some reason; I thought "Reverendus" was proper. It is a very dignified document, almost royal in character.
"I really must take you to account on Paul's tiara relinquishing ceremony. I think it was a terrible symbol to make, but Paul did not give away his legal authority when he did it. Wimpy man or not, he was a Pope who ruled with laws, regardless of how vague they were. Let us remember that the new CIC is largely His doing, and I don't hear many complaints about that new legal system."
I disagree. He did give away his legal authority. Do you think that if he had not relinquished the tiara, that Humanae Vitae would have gone the way it did? I don't. While he still retains juridical power, he has no juridical control. So, he can make as many pronouncements as he likes, but the authority behind them has been compromised. Which is my point.
As for the 1983 CIC, it is one of the most ambiguous drafts that the Church has ever allowed. There is very little in it which is authoritative and it is a perfect example of what happens when there is no authority behind the words on paper. It is full of suggestion and innuendo, but there is very little by way of direct admonition or legality. When compared to the 1917 CIC, it pales in comparison. It was a compromise and it is clear in it's intent.
This code is utterly unenforceable, for a myriad of reasons, but not least of which is the fact that there is no ramification to stand on, which is another reason why I think that both the 1917 and the 1983 CIC were unnecessary. Do remember prior to 1917, there was nothing codified.
The Church ruled on legality based upon sound judgment prior to that and through 1917 years of historical precedence. To codify the CIC did nothing but hamstring the Church's legal system into parameters. The Church, through most of her history wasn't bound by a CIC, but by Divine Providence.
Finally, if you don't hear many complaints about the 1983 CIC, you're not listening closely enough.
Post a Comment