Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Apr 3rd 2013 new
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: A good example of what you're saying is Our Lord speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. At that ti...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

A good example of what you're saying is Our Lord speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. At that time, men didn't speak casually with women who weren't in their families...and certainly Jewish men did not speak to Samaritan women. This was an example of a man-made custom that Our Lord did not favor, and so did not abide by.

--hide--


Very good point Chelsea!
Apr 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Pat-5351 said: Paul, as you point out, Cardinal O'Malley asked to do it. Pope Francis didn't have to ...
(Quote) Pat-5351 said:

Paul, as you point out, Cardinal O'Malley asked to do it.

Pope Francis didn't have to ask anyone; he is the pope, and as the Bishop of Rome, he doesn't have to ask any permission.

Yes, the practice is permissible. That requires an "ask" and permission to be granted.

I am absolutely certain that in many of the parishes where this has been done they never got permission from the bishop, nor has the bishop asked for permission from Rome.

I am just saying in that in liturgical matters, all kinds of "doing whatever we want" is going on, and will continue to go on, and may go on more, in part ude to this one event.

--hide--

As the UCCCB article states, it is permissablein the US. But you are correct. A priest cannot properly take it upon himself to do it unless His Bishop has allowed it in Public liturgy in His diocese.

You are also correct, all, kinds of improper variations will be indulged in by individual priests. Just as they have existed since time immerorial and will until the end of time, whether it is whose feet are washed or some other facit.

For example, despite strict rules stating that only a Priest or Deacon can address the Congregation during the Homily of the Mass, my pastor, who is pretty well othodox, allows it for various purposes usuaslly for special collections, because so many attendess receive Communion and directly walk out of Church. That means they would never hear these special appeals. His reasoning is undertstandable, but nevertheless it is wrong.

Another example: I don't know how many other doceses have also adopted this. But years ago, the USCCB considered whether to allow the people to assume to Orant position (Arms raised and open, during the "Our Father." The USCCB said NO. But then Archishop Burnett here in Seattle directed it be used here and our New Archbishop has continued it.

By the way is it just something with my computere or has everyone else noticed that the spell check feature on this site is no longer working properly?

Apr 3rd 2013 new

(Quote) Pat-5351 said: This is interesting; didn't know about the new translation changes: The rubric found in th...
(Quote) Pat-5351 said:

This is interesting; didn't know about the new translation changes:

The rubric found in the Sacrementary used to read:

"Depending on pastoral circumstance, the washing of feet follows the homily. The men who have been chosen (viri selecti) are led by the ministers to chairs prepared at a suitable place. Then the priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each man. With the help of the ministers he pours water over each one's feet and dries them." The new translation of the Roman Missal contain the same directive:

"The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to seats prepared in a suitable place. Then the Priest (removing his chasuble if necessary) goes to each one, and, with the help of the ministers, pours water over each one’s feet and then dries them." The Latin for "the men who have been chosen" is "viri selecti." It is important to note that while "men" can be read in English as mankind, the Latin word viri cannot be similarly generalized. Its meaning means unambiguously male persons. The Latin word homo could have been used to indicate a gender-neutral "mankind," but it was not. The rubric is clear; only men should have their feet washed by the priest so as to give the faithful. Source: causafinitaest.blogspot.com

--hide--

And that is the same wording used in the Liturgy for Holy Thursday prior to 1955, when the washing of feet was supposedly introduced by Pius XII.

The difference between that liturgy and the current practice is that the washing of the feet took place after the Mass, after the removal of the Eucharist to Altar of rest and the stripping of the main altar. Pius XII made it part of the Mass itself and it continued that way in the Novus Ordo. It has always been part of the Holy Thursday Liturgy for many centuries.

Apr 4th 2013 new

Apparently from response and discussions on these blog the Pharisee and Sadducees still still exist in our times. Interesting.

Apr 4th 2013 new

I think Pope Francis is interested in rebuilding the Church in the manner of of his namesake, which is by visible signs of great love and humilty.


About 10 years ago I was making a road trip with a friend of mine to Saint Louis which is where I had gone to college, and we went to mass at the Basilica. One of my college priest friends was stationed there so we attended the mass he was presiding at. The basilica is magnificent, and it was definitely his setting (he was a huge ratzinger fan prior to entering seminary and loved liturgy, church history, etc) After mass I introduced the two, and Fr. asked my oher friend "what did you think." My friend (a recent convert but extremely well knowledgable and enthusiastic about the faith ) remarked that the church building was incredble, and the singing amazing and mentioned all the other beautiful things about the liturgy, but then added "but if it were a weekday mass in the basement of some rural church it would be just as glorious, because Jesus would be present in the Eucharist!" Fr. looked thoughtful for a second, then replied somewhat curtly (although completely politely) "nah, this is better."

My point is that I think both are right. We can't let the beauty of "good" liturgy hide the reality that it's all from God; conversely we are called to be as great as possible- "the Glory of God is man fully alive." (St. Ireneaus) Based on everything I've seen vocations to the priesthood and religious life are rising; i've seen an increase in respect for and execution of good liturgy. While the number of people who choose to leave the church is greater than those who enter, those who enter are far more thoughtful, convicted and articulate in our faith than those who have left. The crisis is one of image among those who are outside of the Church, who falsely claim the church has no concern for the poor. I have seen dozens of non Catholic facebook friends post how awesome this pope is and how they just might listen to him. Is that not the point of evangelism?

The only complaint that I have is that priests with unorthodox tendencies would be more likely to do more unorthodox stuff, which I am guessing they would have done had the Pope still been B16. The argument that "the pope did it!" is quickly answered with "did you have your bishops permission?" That answer is yes or no. Pretty simple.

There is this horrible heresy that the Vatican II mass is responsible for the evils the Church has suffered, that if we had stuck with the Tridentine Rite that all would be well. The truth is Vatican II was a pre-emptive move in light of the changing of the way the world interacts due to technology (a point addressed in the VII doc's.) Trent reformed the Church and Liturgy to serve a laity that was composed largely uneducated, illiterate European farmers. The liturgy and roles of the laity reflected that reality. VII realized that the laity was now educated, literate and cosmopolitan regarding trade and nationality. The Vatican II mass recognizes that, as well as the role of the laity . Since we can't run two experiments in history that can never be proven, but I am convinced that while the Church had some labor pains in integrating the practices of the Council into her daily life, it would be far worse without the council. I am also very much convinced with beauty and the mystery of the VII liturgy, and that it's the appropriate liturgy for our time.


So really, relax. Chill. The Church will be just fine! The Pope has done nothing illicit or unorthodox.

Apr 4th 2013 new

(Quote) Matt-61677 said: I think Pope Francis is interested in rebuilding the Church in the manner of of his namesake, which...
(Quote) Matt-61677 said:

I think Pope Francis is interested in rebuilding the Church in the manner of of his namesake, which is by visible signs of great love and humilty.


About 10 years ago I was making a road trip with a friend of mine to Saint Louis which is where I had gone to college, and we went to mass at the Basilica. One of my college priest friends was stationed there so we attended the mass he was presiding at. The basilica is magnificent, and it was definitely his setting (he was a huge ratzinger fan prior to entering seminary and loved liturgy, church history, etc) After mass I introduced the two, and Fr. asked my oher friend "what did you think." My friend (a recent convert but extremely well knowledgable and enthusiastic about the faith ) remarked that the church building was incredble, and the singing amazing and mentioned all the other beautiful things about the liturgy, but then added "but if it were a weekday mass in the basement of some rural church it would be just as glorious, because Jesus would be present in the Eucharist!" Fr. looked thoughtful for a second, then replied somewhat curtly (although completely politely) "nah, this is better."

My point is that I think both are right. We can't let the beauty of "good" liturgy hide the reality that it's all from God; conversely we are called to be as great as possible- "the Glory of God is man fully alive." (St. Ireneaus) Based on everything I've seen vocations to the priesthood and religious life are rising; i've seen an increase in respect for and execution of good liturgy. While the number of people who choose to leave the church is greater than those who enter, those who enter are far more thoughtful, convicted and articulate in our faith than those who have left. The crisis is one of image among those who are outside of the Church, who falsely claim the church has no concern for the poor. I have seen dozens of non Catholic facebook friends post how awesome this pope is and how they just might listen to him. Is that not the point of evangelism?

The only complaint that I have is that priests with unorthodox tendencies would be more likely to do more unorthodox stuff, which I am guessing they would have done had the Pope still been B16. The argument that "the pope did it!" is quickly answered with "did you have your bishops permission?" That answer is yes or no. Pretty simple.

There is this horrible heresy that the Vatican II mass is responsible for the evils the Church has suffered, that if we had stuck with the Tridentine Rite that all would be well. The truth is Vatican II was a pre-emptive move in light of the changing of the way the world interacts due to technology (a point addressed in the VII doc's.) Trent reformed the Church and Liturgy to serve a laity that was composed largely uneducated, illiterate European farmers. The liturgy and roles of the laity reflected that reality. VII realized that the laity was now educated, literate and cosmopolitan regarding trade and nationality. The Vatican II mass recognizes that, as well as the role of the laity . Since we can't run two experiments in history that can never be proven, but I am convinced that while the Church had some labor pains in integrating the practices of the Council into her daily life, it would be far worse without the council. I am also very much convinced with beauty and the mystery of the VII liturgy, and that it's the appropriate liturgy for our time.


So really, relax. Chill. The Church will be just fine! The Pope has done nothing illicit or unorthodox.

--hide--

The Novus Ordo, or Vatican II Mass as you call it, is not reponsibel for any heresies. To make such a claim is reaching. There is no heresy in the Mass itself, it does not promulgate or teach anything against doctrine.

Any heresy arises from the mind of an individual.

Apr 5th 2013 new

The topic reminds me so much of some Bible verses in the Acts of the Apostles.


Acts 15:5 - “But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law’.”


…and they were right. According to the Mosaic Law, the Gentiles who believed and were now following Paul and Barnabus and wanted to be baptized HAD to be circumcised first, had to follow Jewish laws first. This created a disturbance between the Jews and the Gentiles. They took the matter to Peter, the Vicar of Christ, who would receive instruction from the Holy Spirit and exercise his authority over the matter. Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, made the decision that they did not have to be circumcised but that, “you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they (not through circumcision). The whole assembly fell silent...” Acts 15:8-12

First we must make one thing extremely clear. It is the firm teaching of the Catholic Church and always has been that we must believe that the Pope is the supreme pontiff and sole visible authority of the Catholic Church or we cannot claim to be Catholic. He is the Shepherd that makes us “One...” as we profess to believe at every mass in our Creed. This belief is fundamentally what separates us from Lutheran, Episcopalian and Anglican churches as well as included in what separates us from all other Christian “Protestant” churches. They “protest” his authority, always have. It’s the reason they exist at all.

Some simple questions. Did Peter break the Mosaic law of baptizing uncircumcised Gentiles? Did Pope Francis break the Canon Law by washing the feet of women, a Muslim woman at that? Wasn't Pope Francis’ example similar to that of Peter with the uncircumcised Gentiles in a modern day setting? Do we now require circumcision before baptism? Do we accept circumcised and uncircumcised men into the church? Did not Jesus dine with prostitutes and tax collectors and talk to a Samaritan woman at a well despite forbidden by the Mosaic Laws (which were divine doctrines given to Moses by God)? Does Pope Francis have the very same Holy Spirit and Authority, the Keys to the Kingdom, which Jesus gave to Peter, our first Pope? Were the Pharisees wrong in questioning the authority of Paul and Barnabus in the first place? Isn’t it time the whole assembly fell silent?

Pray first for humility, or the Prayer of St. Francis, and then marinate on your yes and no answers. We all must circumcise our hearts in order to see Christ in others.



Wash my feet....please. theheart Dove



Apr 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Rosemarie-744159 said: The topic reminds me so much of some Bible verses in the Acts of the Apostles.
(Quote) Rosemarie-744159 said:

The topic reminds me so much of some Bible verses in the Acts of the Apostles.


Acts 15:5 - “But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic Law’.”


…and they were right. According to the Mosaic Law, the Gentiles who believed and were now following Paul and Barnabus and wanted to be baptized HAD to be circumcised first, had to follow Jewish laws first. This created a disturbance between the Jews and the Gentiles. They took the matter to Peter, the Vicar of Christ, who would receive instruction from the Holy Spirit and exercise his authority over the matter. Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, made the decision that they did not have to be circumcised but that, “you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they (not through circumcision). The whole assembly fell silent...” Acts 15:8-12

First we must make one thing extremely clear. It is the firm teaching of the Catholic Church and always has been that we must believe that the Pope is the supreme pontiff and sole visible authority of the Catholic Church or we cannot claim to be Catholic. He is the Shepherd that makes us “One...” as we profess to believe at every mass in our Creed. This belief is fundamentally what separates us from Lutheran, Episcopalian and Anglican churches as well as included in what separates us from all other Christian “Protestant” churches. They “protest” his authority, always have. It’s the reason they exist at all.

Some simple questions. Did Peter break the Mosaic law of baptizing uncircumcised Gentiles? Did Pope Francis break the Canon Law by washing the feet of women, a Muslim woman at that? Wasn't Pope Francis’ example similar to that of Peter with the uncircumcised Gentiles in a modern day setting? Do we now require circumcision before baptism? Do we accept circumcised and uncircumcised men into the church? Did not Jesus dine with prostitutes and tax collectors and talk to a Samaritan woman at a well despite forbidden by the Mosaic Laws (which were divine doctrines given to Moses by God)? Does Pope Francis have the very same Holy Spirit and Authority, the Keys to the Kingdom, which Jesus gave to Peter, our first Pope? Were the Pharisees wrong in questioning the authority of Paul and Barnabus in the first place? Isn’t it time the whole assembly fell silent?

Pray first for humility, or the Prayer of St. Francis, and then marinate on your yes and no answers. We all must circumcise our hearts in order to see Christ in others.



Wash my feet....please.



--hide--


I would be humbled to wash your feet! We need to all focus on the Living Word. We have to remember it is the Living Word. It will never stop leading us. I remember watching a movie that told the story of what the apostles dealt with right after Jesus left them. It was based on these scriptures. Many didn't want the Gentiles included in following Christ. Remember, they were all Jewish. However, the heads of the Jewish religion had denied Christ. So they were in a quandary. It must have been horrible for them to not only turn away from their own religion, but it was also their nationality and culture. Now they had to include people that they had been taught were unclean. They had to create a whole new religion...alone in all the world. They had to rely completely upon the Holy Spirit for guidance. Where is our faith? Where is our trust in the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Christ. If the church didn't grow, we would still be sitting on the floor around tables recreating the mass in Aramaic:) and certainly women and children wouldn't be included.

Apr 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I understand the point that Jesus was making. But he made it a point to only include the men. H...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said:

I understand the point that Jesus was making. But he made it a point to only include the men. He had plenty of women followers and didn't wash their feet. Everything Christ did was for us and we should follow his examples.
--hide--


So let's just go a step further. He didn't have women at the Last Supper, only his chosen 12. Isn't that where He washed their feet? The Mass is based on the Last Supper, so does that mean women and children shouldn't partake. Children receive the Eucharist at around 6. I don't remember reading in scripture about any 6 year olds being there either.

Apr 5th 2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I was really confused by the "I trust the Holy Spirit" comment. Because the Pope does...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said:

I was really confused by the "I trust the Holy Spirit" comment. Because the Pope does something means that it's the will of the Holy Spirit? Popes makes mistakes all of the time, just like the rest of us. I don't agree with Popes, Cardinals, Bishops or Priests washing women or girls' feet on Holy Thursday for the simple fact that Jesus didn't. What was happening on Holy Thursday? The institution of the Eucharist. Jesus was teaching his future Bishops. Jesus saw everything that would happen throughout all of time and history, including this discussion. If he wanted women included in this tradition he would have been the first to wash their feet. NOTHING Christ did was without significance. I strongly recommend that everyone get a copy of "A Catechism of Modernism." Just because things are changing doesn't mean it's a good thing.
--hide--


Actually if you want to be a true traditional Catholic you would be celebrating the Eucharist in Aramaic:) Saying it in Latin would've been "modern" in the early days of Christianity.

When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin?

By Victoria M. Tufano| 15 | Print | Share Article Church Glad You Asked The instinct of Christianity has always been that people should worship in a language they understand.

The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

Exactly how this change in the liturgy came about is uncertain. In the early church the liturgy was led extemporaneously by the bishop, according to a pattern. There were written examples of Eucharistic Prayers, but they were models, not prescribed prayers. The last such document in Greek was written around the year 215. By the sixth century, the Roman Canon (which is still in use, also called Eucharistic Prayer I) appears, completely in Latin and prescribed for use exactly as written.

What happened during those centuries? It seems that a core of the Roman Canon was developed and used first, probably even in liturgies that were partly in Greek and partly in Latin, until the final Latin version evolved. Because Christians had not used Latin for worship prior to this, words had to be adapted or imported (often from Greek) to express Christian ideas, beginning the development of an ecclesiastical form of Latin. There is also evidence that the Roman Canon was influenced by prayers from the Eastern churches.

Even though Latin evolved into various modern languages, Latin remained the sole language of the Roman Rite until the Second Vatican Council returned to the original instinct of Christianity that people should worship in a language they understand. 

This article appeared in the July 2010 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 75, No. 7, page 46).

Posts 51 - 60 of 78