Husband says NO is endangering his faith
#41
(08-11-2019, 04:56 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(08-11-2019, 08:03 AM)LionHippo Wrote: I have stated before that I prefer the EF.  If I was able to go all the time, I would.  I have also said that the NO could be greatly improved, and be performed more reverently

I'll try another approach. Now that you're put it that way, based on absolutely everything that has been revealed about God by God; do you want to be within brimstone range of something that purported to be proper worship that was less that sufficiently reverent? There are many indications throughout both Testaments that, even to His chosen people, God's expectations make no sense. At random, Cain and Abel; there was certainly an internal issue that God addressed but the worship Cain offered to God was unacceptable regardless of his internal disposition and we see that echoed in the journey of the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem and the destruction of the man who by any human understanding had the best of all possible motives in steadying the Ark. That the servants given the talents weren't rewarded "equitably" based on the return, beyond that, the price for not turning a profit was loss of everything. Wedding guests invited at the last second in the wrong clothes bound up and cast in darkness?


There are lots of both/and situations where you could walk through parables and OT accounts where multiple points are being made and the Judgment of God does not conform to what we think is fair or even "right". God plays favorites according to His own way, and He does play favorites. 

When you put it the way you've put it, I'd be excessively careful in participating in any liturgical action where one the areas open to great improvement is reverence.


Thank you for your important consideration, boredoftheworld. I thought that I would give the specific citation for the steadying of the ark history that you refer to for those who are a little rusty when it comes to some of the content of the Old Testament. 2 Kings 6:6-8 in the Douay Version (2 Samuel 6 in other versions):

Quote:And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God. And David was grieved because the Lord had struck Oza, and the name of that place was called: The striking of Oza, to this day.

I heard a priest bring up this very story involving Oza to warn us of how God might punish us if we were to receive Communion in the hand.
'If you succeed in bringing a single soul to heaven, what charity! what a gain! what glory to God!'

St. Paul of the Cross
Reply
#42
(08-11-2019, 04:24 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I am curious what you mean by "carry no weight" and "have no binding authority".

Of course private opinion (even of Popes) cannot "bind" us to believe something, but you seem to be opposing this evidence for the problems of the Novus Ordo Missæ and the conclusions from these against some magisterial authority, as if Rome has spoken and declared the Novus Ordo good, and therefore such arguments cannot overtake such an authority. As if we're bound to believe that the Novus Ordo is okay.

If permitted, but not obliged, then there is zero magisterial weight behind this. Even if it were imposed, that would be a disciplinary matter, not a magisterial matter. So when you suggest that arguments against the NO have no "binding authority"

By such arguments I am not trying to bind you to accept my conclusions. I am explaining why people come to said conclusions, and why they therefore would be morally obliged to omit attending the Novus Ordo.

I think we are arguing past each other here. I am saying there are reason for people to think there is a problem that has moral consequences. You admit problems, but then suggest that they won't get better unless people do not stay in the mainstream.

That is why earlier, I suggested the proper way to point out to myself and others why we are wrong is to address the concerns about the Novus Ordo as a danger to Faith, in itself (not in individual incidents). There maybe good arguments against the position I and BC and others advocate, but then the flaws in the argument ought to be addressed.

I sympathize with your practical position, but our position is one that affects morals, so it goes beyond practicals and particulars.

I omitted some of your response for brevity in responding, keeping the quote block to a smaller size.

Obviously now a Catholic is permitted to attend the EF or OF.  But there is also a "perception is reality" situation when the vast majority of Masses offered are OF.  In my diocese of 120 parishes, four offer the Latin Mass.  So I think that's where your argument falls short for me, by claiming things like "as if Rome has spoken and declared the Novus Ordo good" and "as if we're bound to believe the Novus Ordo is okay."  It seems like a big problem if the Church hasn't decided if it's ok yet.  I'd bet a large number of Catholics at the typical NO parish aren't even aware that Mass is still offered in Latin.  How will they know about it, do we hope they just find out for themselves?

I'm not really sold on the whole "moral consequences" argument either.  The moral crisis seems to be more a lack of teaching than a lack of EF Mass.  Conservative non-denominational Protestants have nothing close to any of our liturgies, yet to use one measure of morality they poll higher in responses to questions about abortion, homosexual relations, etc.  Not a perfect example, but the difference is they understand basic Christian morality because their pastors talk about it.  Admittedly, many NO priests do not.  But that is a teaching and mindset problem, not necessarily a liturgical problem.  That is, at least as I am trying to present it, the mechanics of a particular liturgy do not necessarily make one more moral.  To me, the teaching and understanding comes first, i.e., unless one understands the importance of liturgy and the sacraments, they will not feel a need to be more reverent or consider attending the EF.
Reply
#43
(08-11-2019, 07:27 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I heard a priest bring up this very story involving Oza to warn us of how God might punish us if we were to receive Communion in the hand.

Did Jesus feed the bread directly into the mouths of the Apostles at the Last Supper?
Reply
#44
(08-11-2019, 10:06 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I omitted some of your response for brevity in responding, keeping the quote block to a smaller size.

Fair enough. I usually retain only what is relevant to a reply.

(08-11-2019, 10:06 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Obviously now a Catholic is permitted to attend the EF or OF.  But there is also a "perception is reality" situation when the vast majority of Masses offered are OF.  In my diocese of 120 parishes, four offer the Latin Mass.  So I think that's where your argument falls short for me, by claiming things like "as if Rome has spoken and declared the Novus Ordo good" and "as if we're bound to believe the Novus Ordo is okay."  It seems like a big problem if the Church hasn't decided if it's ok yet.  I'd bet a large number of Catholics at the typical NO parish aren't even aware that Mass is still offered in Latin.  How will they know about it, do we hope they just find out for themselves?

We're again conflating principles and practicals.

Clearly permission does not mean what is permitted is necessarily good in itself. Look at the recent papacy and what has been "permitted". Just because a Pope allows something does not make it good, even when that is widespread. Communion in the hand in another example (which started as an abuse, and then the violation of what the Pope specifically said, then eventual allowance of it).

It's not as if I'm saying that those who go to the Novus Ordo and don't know about the problems with it are sinning. Many of them may be better Catholics that traddies. They may be good Catholics despite the deficit that afflicts them.

The principle still holds, though. Permission does not make a think inherently good. So the argument that the Novus Ordo is permitted, is hardly a proof of its orthodoxy or that it is not a possible harm to the Faith for some.

(08-11-2019, 10:06 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I'm not really sold on the whole "moral consequences" argument either.  The moral crisis seems to be more a lack of teaching than a lack of EF Mass.

But no one has claimed that the lack of the traditional Mass has led to the moral crisis. Again, you are throwing out a red herring. No one mentioned anything about abortion, homosexuality.

The Novus Ordo by purposefully omitting elements which are Catholic harms the Faith not merely by undermining the belief itself, but also undermining the second part of Faith (as St Thomas describes it) : the profession of Faith.

Certain elements do reduce the Faith in the ordained priesthood, the Mass as Sacrifice and the Real Presence. They are designed to do this. There is also the omission of actions and ceremonies that help one to not merely understand this but also explicitly or implicitly profess this in the traditional Mass.

That can affect one's Faith. If it does present a danger to one's Faith, then one is morally obliged to avoid what causes this danger. Thus avoid Mass. This is what I principally mean by moral consequences.

Again, we're speaking past each other because you're speaking of practicals, and I'm dealing with principles and their conclusions.

I'm happy if you would address my concerns, but on that level of principles. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but the refrain questioning how people will ever improve is not an argument which actually addresses those concerns.

Again, I see your points and sympathize with your concerns, but those things simply miss the point.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#45
(08-11-2019, 10:11 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(08-11-2019, 07:27 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I heard a priest bring up this very story involving Oza to warn us of how God might punish us if we were to receive Communion in the hand.

Did Jesus feed the bread directly into the mouths of the Apostles at the Last Supper?

This makes me wonder if you're being serious at all. Do you mean the same Apostles who were the first bishops, or is there some other group of Apostles with whom I am unfamiliar? Because it seems to me that bishops have consecrated hands.
[-] The following 1 user Likes boredoftheworld's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#46
(08-11-2019, 10:11 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(08-11-2019, 07:27 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I heard a priest bring up this very story involving Oza to warn us of how God might punish us if we were to receive Communion in the hand.

Did Jesus feed the bread directly into the mouths of the Apostles at the Last Supper?

It's possible he did. I recall reading somewhere that there was a Jewish custom where the host would put bread directly into the mouth of the guests. The Apostles were priests so it doesn't matter either way.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#47
(08-12-2019, 05:54 AM)boredoftheworld Wrote:
(08-11-2019, 10:11 PM)LionHippo Wrote:
(08-11-2019, 07:27 PM)St. Camillus Wrote: I heard a priest bring up this very story involving Oza to warn us of how God might punish us if we were to receive Communion in the hand.

Did Jesus feed the bread directly into the mouths of the Apostles at the Last Supper?

This makes me wonder if you're being serious at all. Do you mean the same Apostles who were the first bishops, or is there some other group of Apostles with whom I am unfamiliar? Because it seems to me that bishops have consecrated hands.

It is not "consecrated hands" that makes one capable or makes it proper that a person handle the Blessed Sacrament.

Deacons hands are not blessed or consecrated, and yet they are permitted to handle the Blessed Sacrament and give communion (in the traditional rite, as well).

Subdeacons hands are not consecrated, yet they can wash the linens which may contain particles of the Blessed Sacrament (like the corporal).

Simple clerics can touch those linens and the chalice and paten without permission (like a lay sacristan needs—and gloves are silly, if one has an office or duty, he does not need gloves and they look silly in the liturgy).

Priests' hands, according to the traditional Roman rite of ordination are consecrated with the Oil of Catechumens and the bishop does this while saying that he is blessing the new priest's hands in order to give him the power to bless other things. Similarly in the rite of degretation, the cleric's hands are scraped with a knife or shard of glass, or are rubbed with ground glass while the bishop doing so tells the man from him is being removed the power to bless.

So it's not consecrated hands that we need to worry about here, and I've always been curious to know where this idea that only "consecrated hands" should touch the Blessed Sacrament.
Reply
#48
(08-12-2019, 02:27 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That can affect one's Faith. If it does present a danger to one's Faith, then one is morally obliged to avoid what causes this danger. Thus avoid Mass. This is what I principally mean by moral consequences.

Again, we're speaking past each other because you're speaking of practicals, and I'm dealing with principles and their conclusions.

I'm happy if you would address my concerns, but on that level of principles. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but the refrain questioning how people will ever improve is not an argument which actually addresses those concerns.

Again, I see your points and sympathize with your concerns, but those things simply miss the point.

Well I agree at this point that in many ways we are talking past each other, and most likely because of what you point out, that I am addressing practicals and you are addressing principles. 

I did not intend to intentionally throw out red herrings, but I used examples that didn't directly apply to your argument apparently.  The "moral" examples I used were to try to make a point about teaching being a bigger influence over liturgical format. 

I see what you're saying about the moral danger to one's faith.  But I would say that has more again to do with the lack of teaching, and lack of reverence, the novelties used at some parishes.  I'm not sure the average Catholic would grasp the particular mechanics and format of the EF and OF compared side-by-side on paper.  Obviously they would see differences, but as to the meaning behind them I don't think it would register.  To someone well-versed like you it does, but I don't think the format itself would make the average Catholic declare that one is more reverent than the other.  The attitude between a lot of (not all) NO parishes is obviously much different than that at a TLM parish.   I certainly agree there.  But that has more do to with the way the vast majority of pastors were trained.

Perhaps I would agree a bit that the principles would apply more to the priest saying the Mass, and perhaps the difference in principles would flow from the priest to the parish in a positive way.  But then again, the clergy who gave us the NO were brought up and trained in the Traditional Mass, so there was a fracture in principle somewhere.

Obviously we both are praying for a holier Church (as hopefully all Catholics are) but our approaches are different as to how that can be accomplished.  We're sadly at the point where a lot of ideas need to be utilized.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)