Funny? Sad?
#11
(11-18-2015, 05:37 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:35 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:34 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:27 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Now, here's an interesting question: what if instead of Eastern monk it was pope Francis who committed this "faux pas"?

I bet we would see some different--and rather apocalyptic--answers  :grin:
Funny how our priorities work, eh. More charitable assumptions for the old monk than for the pope.  :LOL:

This man was a priest talking in private to a parishoner, not the Pope. There's a world of difference.

I knew it!  :LOL:

So you don't think there ought to be a difference?

I think some people are just plain ol' toxic trad when it comes to the pope
Reply
#12
(11-18-2015, 05:49 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:37 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:35 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:34 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(11-18-2015, 05:27 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Now, here's an interesting question: what if instead of Eastern monk it was pope Francis who committed this "faux pas"?

I bet we would see some different--and rather apocalyptic--answers  :grin:
Funny how our priorities work, eh. More charitable assumptions for the old monk than for the pope.  :LOL:

This man was a priest talking in private to a parishoner, not the Pope. There's a world of difference.

I knew it!  :LOL:

So you don't think there ought to be a difference?

I think some people are just plain ol' toxic trad when it comes to the pope


That's undoubtedly true.  I can only speak for myself but these days I try not to pay much attention to the pope. To get into all the papal stuff is toxic to me. I just can't handle it without getting angry. Sometimes closing ones eyes and escaping is the best way depending on ones temperament.
Reply
#13
Joseph Ratzinger Wrote:In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word.

It seems obvious to me that we ought to hold those entrusted with positions of great responsibility and authority to a higher standard.
Reply
#14
(11-18-2015, 06:13 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
Joseph Ratzinger Wrote:In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word.

It seems obvious to me that we ought to hold those entrusted with positions of great responsibility and authority to a higher standard.

Ultimately that's what I was trying to say. The Pope is a very important  figure, the very public face of Christs Church on earth. There is a lot more at stake when the pope speaks about doctrinal, dogmatic or theological topics than when a Hieromonk or parish priest says something to a parishoner in private. The credibility of the Church itself is often at stake when the pope speaks and acts in ways contrary to the Faith. Right or wrong that's how it is.
Reply
#15
I've been trying to figure out the actual answer to the original question and have been having trouble!

One relevant thing is from an encyclical of Leo XIII, talking about why there is no liturgical feast dedicated to the Father--I'm thinking the reasoning would be the similar for naming churches:

Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus Wrote:Whosoever then writes or speaks of the Trinity must keep before His eyes the prudent warning of the Angelic Doctor: "When we speak of the Trinity, we must do so with caution and modesty, for, as St. Augustine saith, nowhere else are more dangerous errors made, or is research more difficult, or discovery more fruitful" (Summ. Th. la., q. xxxi. De Trin. 1 1., c. 3). The danger that arises is lest the Divine Persons be confounded one with the other in faith or worship, or lest the one Nature in them be separated: for "This is the Catholic Faith, that we should adore one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity." Therefore Our predecessor Innocent XII, absolutely refused the petition of those who desired a special festival in honour of God the Father. For, although the separate mysteries connected with the Incarnate Word are celebrated on certain fixed days, yet there is no special feast on which the Word is honoured according to His Divine Nature alone. And even the Feast of Pentecost was instituted in the earliest times, not simply to honour the Holy Ghost in Himself, but to commemorate His coming, or His external mission. And all this has been wisely ordained, lest from distinguishing the Persons men should be led to distinguish the Divine Essence. Moreover the Church, in order to preserve in her children the purity of faith, instituted the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity, which John XXII afterwards extended to the Universal Church. He also permitted altars and churches to be dedicated to the Blessed Trinity, and, with the divine approval, sanctioned the Order for the Ransom of Captives, which is specially devoted to the Blessed Trinity and bears Its name.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en...munus.html

Here are the current rules, at least for the Roman Rite, for dedicating churches:

Rite for Dedication of a Church Wrote:Every church to be dedicated must a have a titular. This may be: the Blessed Trinity; our Lord Jesus Christ invoked according to a mystery of his life or a title already accepted in the liturgy; the Holy Spirit; the Blessed Virgin Mary, likewise invoked according to some appellation already accepted in the liturgy; one of the angels; or, finally, a saint inscribed in the Roman Martyrology or in a duly approved Appendix. A blessed may not be the titular without an indult of the Apostolic See. A church should have one titular only, unless it is a question of saints who are listed together in the Calendar.
http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resource...s/RDCA.pdf

For the Second Person of the Trinity, the rules line up with what Pope Leo was saying about feasts. It can be some mystery of His life or a title, like "Christ the King Church" or "Most Holy Redeemer Church," but you can't have "Jesus Church."

So now we have a new question: why can we have churches named for the Holy Spirit?

Reply
#16
There's "Christ Cathedral" in The Diocese of Orange, right?

This might explain why that name has always felt somewhat "off" despite the fact that it would seem like naming it after Christ is a good thing.
Reply
#17
(11-19-2015, 03:09 PM)Optatus Cleary Wrote: There's "Christ Cathedral" in The Diocese of Orange, right?

This might explain why that name has always felt somewhat "off" despite the fact that it would seem like naming it after Christ is a good thing.

Interesting, although I guess you could argue the word "Christ" is a "mystery of His life or a title already accepted in the liturgy."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)