My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina: Denying Communion to Obstinate Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians "in many cases becomes the right decision and the only choice" | Main | Windows Vista: In Perspective »

Friday, February 02, 2007

Comments

Patrick

If we can get to the point where we would genuflect before one another...

This line reminds me of something Cardinal Mahony wrote about gazing into the eyes of the person across from you (excuse me while I vomit).

We REALLY need that universal indult.

Patrick

I would like to add something else:

Isn't enough they have that shake of peace thing and hand-holding during the Lord's Prayer? I draw the line at falling on my knees and worshipping my fellow parishioners.

palinurus

Why, he sounds like a Protestant ....... every time I try to respect the US bishops as a group, they gotta go and pull something stupid like this.....

alan

"The mystery of Christ present in my brother and sister at Eucharist is inseparable from the mystery of Christ in heaven who becomes really present in the signs of bread and wine."

I wonder if Trautman intends "inseparable" to be synonomous with "indistinguishable" or "equivalent" or "identical". If Christ is already present in "my brother and sister", wouldn't that make his presence in the Eucharist redundant? Or is that the point?

Yvonne

I am only a layperson. I am not well versed or schooled in theology. I believe it would be a perversion of the Sacrament to genuflect before me, or any other person. No person may be worshipped as a god, especially during Mass. We have not yet been judged by the terrible judge, and therefore have not been given our inheritance as brothers and sisters in Christ. To genuflect to any person appears to me to be an evil distraction. There is only One worthy of and entitled to such worship or reverence. It would be better to spend all of our time praying, and none of it analyzing how to pray if there is even the slightest danger that the least of us might unknowingly be led astray. Christ has already taught us how to pray. I do not believe it should be altered, at peril of spiritual death.

Dominic

It is my feeling that much of the language used is neccessarily that of the mystic. One should not attempt to take it too literally, because it is attempting to describe that which cannot be described.

David

This is the Hegelian worship of the community--the worship of the worshiping community, so to speak. It's not just a heresy to which the majority of our priests and bishops ascribe--it is idolatry of the worst kind. Instead of a golden calf these “horizontalists” (as you call them, though I would refer to them as modernist dogs), is themselves, the liberal congregations that mirror their ideology. Why should we wonder about liturgical dance at novus ordo messes? The natural thing for the idolatrous to do is to dance half-naked around their graven images (in this case the “Community”).

Just think about this for a moment. If the golden calf is the “Community”, then what will this entail? Read what Moses did when he and Joshua walked in on the Israelites and their idolatry.

When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." But he said, "It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear." And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and scattered it upon the water, and made the people of Israel drink it. (Ex 32: 17-20)

Bishop Trautman’s precious “Community” the one to which he wants to kneel in worship, is going to be burnt with fire and ground to powder and scattered upon the water, and the rest of us will have to drink it.

That’s frightening. Many thanks to Trautman and the rest of the modernist dogs for leading the Catholic people into this idolatry!!

joanne

He did say "genuflect", not 'kneel'.
Unless I knew otherwise, I would take this as "show a sign of respect for a fellow 'Temple of the Holy Spirit', rather than an invitation to WORSHIP one another as gods. I hope.
Nevertheless, this thinking can and has been taken to extremes and has had the negative effect of "Why should I go to Mass if God is with me everywhere?" I think it's good to remember that the Cross is both horizontal AND vertical and that Jesus is Man and God. If we become too vertical or too horizontal, we topple and need correction. Similarly, if we lose the religious "tension" of the mysteries of our faith, our faith suffers.
Given all that, I am appalled and sorry that anyone is ever punished for showing too MUCH reverence for God. How can there ever be too much reverence? For those of you who have suffered for kneeling before God, don't forget: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me."

Doug

For the last time, it's "Trautperson," not Trautman.

David

Joann, please do not be so dismissive. The article is obviously referring to a gesture of worship, thus the difference between genuflection and kneeling is semantic. In either case, it is explicitly stating that we should worship one another by stating we should genuflect to one another. Temples of the Holy Spirit, sure, but objects of worship? One does not worship the tabernacle when one genuflects in the direction of the tabernacle. One worships the Blessed Sacrament reserved therein. However, Schmidt doesn’t say anything in the least about worshipping the Holy Spirit that dwells in the persons to which we should genuflect.

The “immanent” presence of the divine, in fact, is explained as “the divine presence in this world and in the people”, and that is stated WITHOUT any reference to grace or sanctification. It is clear that the article is stating that this immanent presence is dependent on an inherent quality of the worshiping community, not upon the work of grace, let alone the sacrament.

Consider this paragraph from Fr. Jonathan Robinson’s book, The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward. This concludes the chapter entitled “Hegel: God Becomes the Community.”

“The concentration on the community has meant in fact that the focus of the liturgy as God-directed has been displaced, and any sense of mystery and awe at being in the presence of God has disappeared. Behind this, whether it is recognized or not, is the philosophical belief that the community is necessary for God to be totally real. The dynamic of this new emphasis on the community has lead to a total exclusion of any reference to God as transcendent and as having a being that is other than, and not dependent on his creation. In fact the community from having first of all displaced the focus of divine worship is in danger of becoming itself the object of worship.”

What Trautperson and Schmidt are advocating is idolatry, plain and simple.

Patrick

This is just more narcissism. If we turn our attention to fellow creatures, who are the mirror image of ourseleves, we are really turning our attention from God to ourselves.

Unfortunately, many individuals, with a certain predilection, have entered the priesthood. There is a strong relationship between this predilection and narcissism. Consequently, a narcissistic view of reality is wreaking havoc in the Church.

The term narcissism was originally taken from the Greek myth about a beautiful young man who fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water, jumped in after it, and drowned. The term was used to denote the attitude of a person who takes his own body as an object of attraction and desire...

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

Some Day

Is isn't the genuflection to people at Mass because they hold the Host in them?
I mean its extreme. No point if you have Him in you too.
And we should love with exageration.
Not exagerated dance moves. Exageration of love. We should strive for the sacralization of the world.
And he said not too?
Quare obdormis? Tempus faciendi!

ilestnee@hotmail.com

So, David and Patrick, do you think he meant 'genuflect' literally, and as more a form of worship than respect? You could be right. I get in trouble sometimes for giving people TOO MUCH of the benefit of the doubt. I hear 'light' and I think 'The Light', they say 'word', I hear 'Word',etc. I can't tell you how easy it is to get lost when you assume that everyone who talks about the spirit believes in the HOLY SPIRIT!
Yet it is possible, at times, to jump to incorrect negative conclusions...And forgive me for the semantic questions. I am by profession a semanticist. As I have noted, it's when I fail to question the intention of the words spoken that I get into trouble.

Patrick

ilestnee@hotmail.com,

My second comment (above) was meant to be a bit facetious. The bishop's genuflection comment was mostly metaphorical. That is the worst thing about it.

David

I don’t see any other way to read this than how it is put. The plain meaning of these words (from Fr. Schmidt, not Bishop Trautperson, correct me if I’m wrong), is that “the mystery of Christ present in my brother and sister at Eucharist is inseparable from the mystery of Christ in heaven”. In order for God to exist, He must exist in the “my brother and sister at Eucharist”. This is, as Fr. Robinson points out, Hegelian pantheism. The conclusion is that in for God to exist He must exist in the worshiping community. I don’t think there is any metaphor about it. Fr. Schmidt (and Bishop Trautperson, for that matter) is an idolatrous heretic.

Loyolalaw98

David,

Luckily, for all of us, ONLY Holy Mother Church may define who is precisely a heretic.

To say that someone, let alone a priest or a bishop, is a heretic is not to be uttered (or in this case written) lightly.

I would imagine that God reserves that right to the Church because He knows we are weak and prone to pride, the deadliest of sins!

If pride could do in an angel, a non-corporeal being, imagine what it can do to us.

1.) I don't think that anyone who reads ALL of what either Fr. Schmidt or the Bishop said, please don't look at just my quotations, could in Christian charity go so far as to define them as heretics, and I disagree with what they are saying!

2.) What we are experiencing happens because the Church, given the authority to resolve such matters, has allowed this lack of clarity on something so crucial as the mass.

God willing, we will all live to see the "tide turn." I think, however, we must be cautious in allowing emotion to cloud this discussion.

The wisest man I ever knew, Fr. Newman Eberhardt, C.M. - a regrettably now deceased Vincentian of the old school - learned, pious and faithful - would frequently remind us:

"PASSION ENTERS AND REASON FLIES."

Patrick

David,

I believe ilestnee@hotmail.com was trying to point out that the bishop's comment about the physical gesture of genuflecting to one another is probably metaphorical. However, if it is a metaphor, it is meant to convey his idea that “the mystery of Christ present in my brother and sister at Eucharist is inseparable from the mystery of Christ in heaven”. I agree with what you have to say about his idea. Cardinal Mahony wrote the same thing in his liturgy document Gather Us Faithfully Together. Mother Angelica of EWTN called him a heretic for it. I think she was right.

Patrick

After reading Loyolalaw98's comment about the use of the word "heretic" I realized that we do need to be more precise with our terminology. Mother Angelica may have referred to Cardinal Mahony's document as "heresy." I can't remember her exact words. Loyolalaw98 is correct that only the Church can declare someone to be a "formal heretic." A person can spread heresy without being a formal heretic.

TM Lutas

As somebody who is in a different rite, I am fortunate that this sort of thing is not my burden (our section of the Church has equally heavy but different crosses to bear). From an "outsider" perspective, in the struggle between immanence and transcendence in the Latin rite, it seems that immanence is winning out quite handily at present. An "exaggerated attention to the sacred" seems positively victorian in its drawing attention to a near non-existent problem while ignoring more pressing troubles. Bishop Trautman should know better.

I am not a linguist so my opinion should not be definitive but I am somewhat alarmed at the charge that the english language commission has translated a translation and has knowingly accepted a distortion in the liturgy. God's message should not be the subject of a game of "telephone". If it's everybody in the original aramaic and multis due to imprecise linguistic mapping between latin and aramaic, increasing inaccuracy for the sake of compatibility with latin seems a poor choice. I do wish I knew the other side though.

The charge that people do not know the words "sullied", "unfeigned", "ineffable", "gibbet", "wrought", thwart" is a damning indictment of the state of public education today. Bishop Trautman should be up in arms that the school system is creating such a poorly educated bunch of Catholics. I do wonder if he's pushing on that issue.

David1

Well, I guess I must be one of those uneducated clods because I didn't know the definition of "gibbet." I looked it up:

"a gallows with a projecting arm at the top, from which the bodies of criminals were formerly hung in chains and left suspended after execution."

Nice . . .

joanne

I am glad of the reminder from loyalalaw98 that everyone who spouts heresy is not necessarily a formal heretic. To be sure, the average faithful person can easily promote 'heresy' by ignorance or by lack of prudence in speech. And yet we are told that we will be judged by every word we utter. Lord have mercy on us all.
I was considering the 'mystic" angle mentioned earlier but didn't every mystic have a superior to whom their words were submitted? It is too bad that our modern apostles don't have a "doctrine-checker" for their speeches. It must be worse to speak authoritatively and then find that you've either misspoken or been misinterpreted.

Patrick

TM Lutas,

Here is the other side from the Latin Mass Society Newsletter (February 2000):

ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many" (saggi'in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all". This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.

The argument, however, is even stronger than at first appears since the evangelists almost certainly did not translate the words of Consecration directly themselves but used the translations with which they were familiar from the Eucharistic Liturgy in which they regularly participated. These translations go back beyond the evangelists, to the time when the first Gentiles were converted and the existing Aramaic liturgy was translated into Greek for their benefit, which must have happened at most within twenty years of the Resurrection, certainly within the lifetime of the majority of the Apostles. Is it conceivable that Christ's words were mistranslated at that time, that nobody noticed and that the Church had to wait nineteen centuries for ICEL to put the matter right?

Secondly, when the Latin Canon was first composed towards the end of the fourth century as part of the shift in the Church's liturgical language from Greek to Latin, the Latin words chosen as corresponding to the Greek were "pro multis", not "pro omnibus". The fourth century liturgists clearly did not understand the words in the Greek Canon as meaning "for all". "Pro multis" remains in the Latin Canon to this day, and even the most extreme among the twentieth century liturgical reformers have never suggested either that "pro multis" can possibly mean "for all" or that the text of the Canon should be altered to "pro omnibus". On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.

Thirdly, in Liddell and Scott's standard Greek Lexicon, the article on p o l l o i extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning "all".

David

If you want to debate “formal heresy”, then fine. But I didn't bring it up.

#1 What is a Church declaration of formal heresy? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Are you referring to formal decrees of excommunication?

#2 Heresy is defined by the Church as one who has accepted the faith of Christ, but has corrupted the dogmas of Christ.

#3 Heresy incurs a number of penalties latae sententiae, or “automatic” as in without formal decree, the chief being excommunication.

#4 The Church has as much power to define a person a heretic as she does to define a tree a tree… in other words, the Church doesn’t define reality. If a person is a heretic, he is a heretic whether or not the Church or a bishop or the pope or an Ecumenical Council declares the fact. What makes a person a heretic is whether or not they are objectively a formal heretic (someone who corrupts the dogmas of Christ), a credentis of the heresy or a fautores of the heresy (those who believe and/or favor the corruptions of Christ’s dogmas).

Having said that: If a Catholic, who has accepted the doctrines of the Church, states that human beings should be venerated as God, then that person is corrupting more than just one dogma of the faith. That is called heresy.

And I can assure you, that there’s no “passion” involved here. I’m simply stating the facts as they are presented.

Loyolalaw98

"The Church has as much power to define a person a heretic as She does to define a tree a tree..."

Are you serious or just engaging in some "tongue in cheek" hyperbole?

The Church has the sole authority to define both heresy and heretics!

Without getting into some repeat of late medieval semantical arguments ala the nominalists, and using your puerile example of a "tree," we only scientifically know what a tree is because it fits certain categorizations of science that define it as a tree. the whole kingdom, phylum, class, order, species etc... thing. (I was a humanities major - so excuse me if I'm slightly off).

Heresy is defined by analagous categories created by the Church.

In regards to your point #2, yes a decree of excommunication can be seen as a formal definition - as can any "anathema" pronouncments of both ecumenical and local Church councils. But then you already give the answer yourself in your point 4.

David

What? Are YOU serious?

So what you are saying is that the Church created those categories? Jesus had nothing to do with it? Huh?

Science didn't make the tree. God did. Science named it, recognized, but God made it.

The Church didn't creat the deposit of faith. It was given to her by God. It is the Church's responsibility, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to maintian and protect that deposit of faith. One aspect of this is the Magisterium's power to recognize heresy and even declare someone a heretic, based on the fact that the person is, objectively, a heretic.

However, the Church doesn't make someone a heretic. The heretic does. Get it?

Therefore, even if the Magisterium doesn't declare something heretical, it doesn't follow that there is no heresy. All it means is that the the Magisterium has not declared it.

Also, you seem to reducing "the Church" to the Magisterium. The Magisterium is one aspect of the Church, albeit a very important one, but the Magisterium isn't the whole of the Church.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic