AC quotes the Bishop on the CDF documemt "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" which clarified the expression of "subsistit in" in the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.
The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a "strictly theological" way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ it cannot recognize as "church" those communities who do not have them.He also quotes the Bishop in a letter to his clergy saying:
Bishop Koch also said the document and reactions to it underline a clear difference in the Catholic and Orthodox ecumenical goal and the ecumenical goal of the Protestants.
Many people have signed a petition for the unqualified acceptance of the council. Right from the start, the expression "unqualified acceptance" irritates me because I don’t know anyone — myself included — to whom it would apply. A few arbitrarily chosen examples will suffice:Thanks to Luke Coppen
– The council did not abolish Latin in the liturgy. On the contrary, it emphasized that in the Roman Rite, apart from exceptional cases, the use of the Latin language must be maintained. Who among the vocal defenders of the council wishes "unqualified acceptance" of that?
– The council declared that the Church regards Gregorian Chant as the "music proper to the Roman Rite," and that it must therefore "be given primary place." In how many parishes is this implemented "without qualification?"
– The council expressly requested that governmental authorities voluntarily give up those rights to participation in the selection of bishops, that had arisen over the course of time. Which defender of the council advocates "without qualification" for that?
– The council described the fundamental nature of the liturgy as the celebration the paschal mystery and the eucharistic sacrifice as "the completion of the work of our salvation." How can that be reconciled with my experience, made in many different parishes, that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?" In what way can one justify this profound change by reference to the council?
7 comments:
Amen to that
Clarity like this will do more for Christian unity than sentimental obfuscation.
Finally a Catholic is appointed!
However he seemed a bit wet when it came to the opposition of minarets being built purposely higher than church towers. Perhaps he may change his opinion, when he sees the real face of Islam in his new job.
I like this bishop!
Quote: "....that the sacrificial understanding of the Mass has been completely eliminated from the liturgical language and the Mass is now understood only as a meal or "the breaking of bread?"
Some time last year I heard a teacher inform a class being prepared for their first Holy Communion to think of it as a family barbecue or picnic where the family came together for a special meal.
About two months ago my elder granddaughter (aged 11) told me that the priest "had broken some white stuff and dropped into the wine and it tasted awful." I presume she was referring to the fragmentation of the Host being dropped into the precious Blood.
Just two weeks ago I was at my other granddaughter's first Holy Communion and when the children had sipped from the chalice they all returned to their seats pulling grimaces at the quite awful taste, to them, of Holy Communion. Why are childern of 8 years of age forced to take from the chalice when it obviously is not good for their spiritual development and adverseely affects what should be a great day in their lives.
I await the announcement of his appointment with expectant hope!
Post a Comment