a thorough reform of the role of presbyters is necessary- just adding married people to their ranks but leaving everything else untouched wouldn't work. this video made some good points I thought:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix3N...
made the mistake of opening a Pillar comments section
a certain new assistant priest at a parish near where I live said in a talk about the mass recently that the vesting prayers "were not abolished" and that any priest who doesn't say them is doing it wrong. God forbid they say a prayer with the ministers instead.
yeah I don't think NovusOW is as bad as ISIL, not really how the meme format works anyway. I do think they are crazies so "acknowledging they got something right" is not needed IMO. they got it right but so did everyone else with a functioning brain, they're not special.
here I stand, I can do no other.
it seems they want to confirm, over and over again, that Francis was clear-eyed when he called the output of these networks "the work of the devil". they never stop beguiling, accusing, dividing and prosecuting
all are welcome is an all-timer
let us build a house where love is found
in water wine and wheat
a banquet hall on holy ground
where peace and justice meet
here the love of God through Jesus
is revealed in time and space
as we share in Christ the feast that frees us
all are welcome...
if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
the first one has its issues too though. "the Church has always held to inerrancy", meanwhile several early Christian writers believed that God intentionally inserted errors into the scripture to trip the reader up and make us move beyond the literal level.
don't forget the sword of damocles hanging over our heads in the second; misreading the scripture or not believing inerrancy has "dire consequences" which take on an "ultimate value".
inerrancy is a "mystery" (read: incomprehensible) to an even greater degree than the hierarchy's infallibility
no thank you, I'll stick with the gospel if Leo spouts off about nations having a right to protect their borders
yeah we do it in my country too, but that's probably because of Anglo-American cultural dominance, and the sprinkling ashes version is clearly better.
I can't think of a single change that didn't make the rite into "our lousy best" rather than the fake perfection of ornate, courtly ceremonies with angelic Latin chants.
it's like you always used to say.
bsky.app/profile/dixi...
it was a step along the way of liturgical reform but I don't see why you think it's better than the "final product".
yes, and pope francis was a larper too. he was just pretending to be catholic
old is false because it doesn't accord with the gospel of Jesus (religious coercion, condemnation of out-groups, obscurantist rite, patriarchal and clerical theology); new is true because it does (freedom to believe, openness to working of the spirit, vernacular message, horizontal equality)
yeah that guy basically has a social media career of dunking on people, but not even particularly good dunks. just self-satisfied smirking
sorry, I will try to stop
of course this shouldn't be reduced to "staying in touch with God", which sounds more like piously going to church rather than the real touch of God, which is touching his wounded flesh as you endure the shame of the cross for the sake of the joy set before you.
I think something like this paradox is a part of Jesus' teaching. "You will be betrayed, hated, and some of you will be killed... but not a hair on your head will be harmed." Because as you give yourself away amidst the scapegoating violence of this world, you will be enveloped in God's aliveness.
I don't think it's too much to say the Spirit should at least be mentioned, when other rites go into such depth (Liturgy of St. Cyril):
the law of prayer is the law of faith, it's worth asking whether a de-emphasis on the Spirit in liturgy corresponded to a de-emphasis on the Spirit in general.
but is it a good one, not to ask for the Spirit? liturgy, as with theology, grows and advances with time, and rites adopt fitting and praiseworthy features from other rites that can be adapted to their context.
if you look at the Eucharistic prayers of other rites, they are almost all follow a similar structure, as are the other ten or so Eucharistic prayers we have used in the Roman rite beginning after Vatican II. you might say it is a unique feature of the Roman canon that it does not have an epiclesis.
the bishop or priest, speaking for the community, asks the Father to send the Spirit to make the gifts into the body and blood of Christ, and to sanctify and gather the people of God into that same body. he or she speaks the words of Christ, which he directed us to say in memory of him.
likewise. I don't think there's a problem with my Trinitarian theology because appropriating certain acts to Father, Son or Holy Spirit is precisely what all liturgies do. I said the principal actor of the "making holy" of the gifts is the Spirit, which I think is not controversial.
I don't think it is required for the spirit to act. I just think it's liturgically and theologically correct to invoke her, whereas it is a problem or defect when she is not invoked. I don't think implicit is the right way to go.
I don't think the English-speaking Roman Catholic churches should (or will) adopt wholesale old English music (Catholic or Anglican) to replace what we have now. the 70s music fits the 70s rite, in language and temperament.
upon reflection, I was overzealous in my response. what I wanted to defend is that there is value and beauty in the Catholic and Christian music of that "era". I do not mean to demean older forms of Anglican music, which I don't have much experience with anyway. I do like Rutter for example.