Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahony
TomzWeb1
In a message dated 97-12-01 11:34:35 EST, you write:
<< >From another list:
>
>The November 28 issue of *The Tidings*, Southern California Catholic
weekly,
>had an interesting story about Mother Angelica and the uproar she created
on
>her Nov 12 show. The target of her remarks is Cardinal Roger Mahony's
>Pastoral letter of September 4, called "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide
>for Sunday Mass".
>
>A sampling of what Mother Angelica said:
>
>"The average lay person, who has long forgotten whatever catechism
>they learned, is told that there's no need for confession, there's no need
for
>baptism, there's not really (Christ's) body, blood, soul and divinity (in
the
>Eucharist).
>
>"In fact, the cardinal of California is teaching that it is bread and wine
>before the Eucharist and after the Eucharist. I'm afraid my obedience in
that
>diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else's in that
diocese
>is zero."
>
>Cardinal Mahony characterized Mother Angelica's accusations and the fact
>that she made them publicly on television as "astounding and
reprehensible",
>and demanded that she make "an immediate public clarification and apology".
>He added that "for you to call into question my own belief in the Real
>Presence is without precedence. To compound the matter, you call for my
>people to offer zero obedience to their Shepherd is unheard of and
shocking".
>
>Seemingly Mother Angelica gave a half hearted apology, saying she was
>confused what the pastoral letter said. A direct quote: "I'm just a
simple
>religious with a simple faith, and all this goes over my head. I was
>confused." According to the Tidings, that while Mother Angelica did
>apologize, she used most of the Nov 19 show as a vehicle to launch another
>broadside at Cardinal Mahony.
>
>Cardinal Mahony is in Rome attending the Synod for the Americas, and has
>issued formal complaints to Vatican officials. He has also contacted the
>Vatican Ambassador to the US, Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla, president of
>the NCCB, and also Bishop David Foley of Birmingham, Alabama, in which
diocese
>EWTN is located.
Perhaps Mother should be reminded of Canon 1373 ("One who publicly either
stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or
against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or
ministry or incites subjects to disobey is to be punished by an interdict or
by other just penalties.")
Since Mother admits she is "just a simple religious with a simple faith"
perhaps she should say *nothing* until she has actually RESEARCHED what was
said. Too often Bishop Mother Angelica shoots her mouth off and has all or
most of the facts wrong!
While I greatly admire the work she has done in putting together a Catholic
television and radio network I find that she is frequently the possessor of
an ill-tempered mouth!
Deacon Ed
>>
Mother Angelica is right on the money. I have read Cardinal Mahoney's "Gather
Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass" and found it also very
misleading, contradictory, confused and erroneous in its thinking. For a
thorough analysis of it, one should refer to the October and November issues
of the Adoremus Bulletin.
In as much as the Cardinal is imposing changes in the liturgy, for which he
has absolutely no authority, she is right to urge Catholics to be faithful to
the higher authority (the Holy See) rather than a lower authority (Cardinal
Mahoney) which contradicts it.
I find it highly hypocritical of Cardinal Mahoney to react so strongly to some
criticism of the letter produced by his liturgy committee, when so many at the
liturgy conference that was held in Los Angeles, and for whose Catholicity he
went out of his way to vouch for, were actually well-known dissidents from
Church teaching, and heretics. Why did he not complain about them to their
superiors and try to suppress them? Why has he given them his active
encouragement and support? His moral outrage at Mother Angelica's
comparatively mild remarks rings hollow, since it is clearly a double
standard.
Catholics have no duty to follow the ill-conceived "suggestions" of the
letter. They are not consistent with Catholic piety, and tend to reinforce
the erroneous notions concerning the liturgy which abound.
God Bless Mother Angelica
Thomas
TomzWeb1
In a message dated 97-12-01 03:07:37 EST, bgr...@LYNX.DAC.NEU.EDU writes:
This is the second post in as many days (Bill
Grisham's was the first) that leads me to wonder
about this woman's orthodoxy and judgment.
Bonnie Granat
Technical Writer >>
Bonnie,do not wonder about her orthodoxy, just her tact. I believe that she
was entirely justified in taking issue with the very faulty "Gather Faithfully
Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass"
I believe that the statement she made "I'm afraid my obedience in that
diocese would be absolutely zero. And I hope everybody else's in that diocese
is zero," refers only to those things which are themselves outside of the
legitimate authority of the Cardinal to command, such as liturgical abuses,
and not to those areas which he has legitimate authority.
A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass"
can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus Bulletin. The
thinking is often confused, and contradictory. The phraseology of the letter
strongly suggests a belief in "transignification" rather than
transubstantiation.
I think that when she said "I'm just a simple religious with a simple faith,
and all this goes over my head. I was confused" she was really saying that
she still doesn't buy the Cardinals pleadings of innocence, but that she
overstepped her bounds in catagorically stating what can only be inferred from
the language of the text.
To his credit, maybe the Cardinal really does believe in the Real Presence the
way the Church does, but that is not reflected in the language his committee
chose to use. The beliefs of the committee that produced this letter should
be his beliefs, and those of the Catholic Church. If not, then he is
responsible for finding people who do share the beliefs of the Church. If
they produce a defective letter, then he is to be held responsible for it, and
should not whine when someone criticizes him.
Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of the letter
and its impact on the Church. She just needs to be a little more diplomatic
and nuanced in her speech. But her sincerity and "human-ness" is what endears
her to a lot of us. She is a feisty old lady. She speaks the plain truth
bluntly, but I don't think she advocates disobedience to legitimate authority.
I hope this sheds some light on the controversy.
Thomas
Ken Dawe
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, TomzWeb1 wrote:
> A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass"
> can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus Bulletin.
-
> Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of the letter
> and its impact on the Church.
Sadly Thomas is blindly naive to the terrible dissent that is prevalent in
Adoremus and in Mother Angelica. Usually dissent is seen on the left but
it is just as prevalent on the right...everyone knowing what's right in
order to save the Church excpet the church hierarchy...what a sad lot !!
Dharma Bum
Ed Faulk
TomzWeb1 <Tomz...@AOL.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 97-12-01 11:34:35 EST, you write:
>
><< >From another list:
> >
> >The November 28 issue of *The Tidings*, Southern California Catholic
> weekly,
> >had an interesting story about Mother Angelica and the uproar she created
> on
> >her Nov 12 show. The target of her remarks is Cardinal Roger Mahony's
> >Pastoral letter of September 4, called "Gather Faithfully Together: A
Guide
> Perhaps Mother should be reminded of Canon 1373 ("One who publicly either
> stirs up hostilities or hatred among subjects against the Apostolic See or
> against an ordinary on account of some act of ecclesiastical power or
> ministry or incites subjects to disobey is to be punished by an interdict
or
> by other just penalties.")
>
> Since Mother admits she is "just a simple religious with a simple faith"
> perhaps she should say *nothing* until she has actually RESEARCHED what
was
> said. Too often Bishop Mother Angelica shoots her mouth off and has all or
> most of the facts wrong!
>
> While I greatly admire the work she has done in putting together a
Catholic
> television and radio network I find that she is frequently the possessor
of
> an ill-tempered mouth!
>
> Deacon Ed
> >>
>
>Mother Angelica is right on the money. I have read Cardinal Mahoney's
"Gather
>Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass" and found it also very
>misleading, contradictory, confused and erroneous in its thinking. For a
>thorough analysis of it, one should refer to the October and November
issues
>of the Adoremus Bulletin.
Have you now? And what is it that *you* found "misleading"? What was
"contradictory" What was "confused"? and what was "erroneous thinking"?
Don't tell me what Adoremus says, tell me what *you* found lacking in the
document.
>In as much as the Cardinal is imposing changes in the liturgy, for which he
>has absolutely no authority, she is right to urge Catholics to be faithful
to
>the higher authority (the Holy See) rather than a lower authority (Cardinal
>Mahoney) which contradicts it.
He is within his rights under both liturgical and canon law to set
guidelines for the celebration of liturgy within his diocese so long as his
guidelines do not conflict with the established rubrics. Having CAREFULLY
read the document, I could find nothing there that conflicts with the
existing rubrics, nor with what we know of the rubrics that have been
proposed for the new Sacramentary.
Your assertion that Mother can urge Catholic's to be faithful to a higher
authority is fine as long as she does nto violate canon law. In this case
she did.
>I find it highly hypocritical of Cardinal Mahoney to react so strongly to
some
>criticism of the letter produced by his liturgy committee, when so many at
the
>liturgy conference that was held in Los Angeles, and for whose Catholicity
he
>went out of his way to vouch for, were actually well-known dissidents from
>Church teaching, and heretics. Why did he not complain about them to their
>superiors and try to suppress them? Why has he given them his active
>encouragement and support? His moral outrage at Mother Angelica's
>comparatively mild remarks rings hollow, since it is clearly a double
>standard.
If all she did was criticize the letter there would probably be no reaction
at all. Mother, however, chose to suggest that the Cardinal had no belief in
the Real Presence and then to suggest that the people of Los Angeles could
offer "zero obedience" to the Cardinal. These two actions are
unconscionable. The first is something that only the Cardinal and God know
for sure, the second is a violation of canon law.
Since the letter has nothing to do with the "liturgy committee" -- the
Cardinal drafted it himself your comments are quite out of place. Secondly,
since I was at that liturgy conference I can assure you there was not one
speaker who is a dissident nor a heretic. We need to remember that there is
a broad panoply of acceptable understanding of Catholicism, it is not the
neat, narrow definition that Mother has chosen to follow. There is room for
the right, the left and the center -- not just Mother's right.
>Catholics have no duty to follow the ill-conceived "suggestions" of the
>letter. They are not consistent with Catholic piety, and tend to reinforce
>the erroneous notions concerning the liturgy which abound.
What "erroneous notions" are you referring to here? You are full of
accusations but offer little substance. Why should we put any credence in
what you have to say?
Deacon Ed
Ed Faulk, efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
200 S. Kraemer M/S W533
Brea, CA 92821
Phone: (714) 961-6778, FAX: (714) 961-3930
"Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides;
cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
-St. Augustine
Ed Faulk
TomzWeb1 <Tomz...@AOL.COM> writes:
>A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday
Mass"
>can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus Bulletin. The
>thinking is often confused, and contradictory. The phraseology of the
letter
>strongly suggests a belief in "transignification" rather than
>transubstantiation.
First, are these issues on-line so one can read them or do we have to rely
on second-hadn information?
Second, since the Cardinal, by reference, included the ENTIRE teaching of
the Church on the Real Presence and transubstantiation, what could possibly
lead you to make such a statement as "The phraseology of the letter strongly
suggest a belief in 'transignification' rather than trnsubstantiation"?
>I think that when she said "I'm just a simple religious with a simple
faith,
>and all this goes over my head. I was confused" she was really saying that
>she still doesn't buy the Cardinals pleadings of innocence, but that she
>overstepped her bounds in catagorically stating what can only be inferred
from
>the language of the text.
Actually I think she was trying to acoid accepting responsibility for her
actions.
>To his credit, maybe the Cardinal really does believe in the Real Presence
the
>way the Church does, but that is not reflected in the language his
committee
>chose to use. The beliefs of the committee that produced this letter
should
I disagree here. Having had the pleasure of assisting at Mass with the
Cardinal I am well aware of his deep and abiding faith in the teachings of
transubstantiation. To even hint at his not believing this is lible!
>be his beliefs, and those of the Catholic Church. If not, then he is
>responsible for finding people who do share the beliefs of the Church. If
>they produce a defective letter, then he is to be held responsible for it,
and
>should not whine when someone criticizes him.
The Cardinal wrote the letter. Are you sure you have actually *read* it and
not just what the Wanderer reported?
>Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of the
letter
>and its impact on the Church. She just needs to be a little more
diplomatic
>and nuanced in her speech. But her sincerity and "human-ness" is what
endears
>her to a lot of us. She is a feisty old lady. She speaks the plain truth
>bluntly, but I don't think she advocates disobedience to legitimate
authority.
She is flat wrong! Sorry, but that "feisty old lady" doesn't understand
what's written there plainly.
>I hope this sheds some light on the controversy.
You haven't shed any light -- you've simply made unsubstantiated statements.
Dan Hydar
> From: Ken Dawe <sad...@INFONET.ST-JOHNS.NF.CA>
>
> Sadly Thomas is blindly naive to the terrible dissent that is prevalent in
> Adoremus and in Mother Angelica.
And they "dissent" from.....?
|Dan|
Jim Pauwels
On 12/17/97, TomzWeb1 <Tomz...@AOL.COM> wrote:
<<Mother Angelica is right on the money. I have read Cardinal Mahoney's
"Gather
Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday Mass" and found it also very
misleading, contradictory, confused and erroneous in its thinking. >>
I've also read it. I didn't encounter any of these difficulties. Which
parts confused you? Maybe we can help.
BTW, it's available on-line at
http://www.la-archdiocese.org/framein/eudocen1.htm
<<For a thorough analysis of it, one should refer to the October
and November issues of the Adoremus Bulletin.>>
Not sure how much analysis is needed - it seems pretty
clear and self-explanatory. But I don't take the
Adoremus Bulletin. Could you post some excerpts, or
point us to a URL?
<<In as much as the Cardinal is imposing changes in the liturgy, for which
he
has absolutely no authority, she is right to urge Catholics to be faithful
to
the higher authority (the Holy See) rather than a lower authority (Cardinal
Mahoney) which contradicts it.>>
The Cardinal is not imposing any "changes" that would exceed his
authority. To the contrary, the letter makes it clear that he is
urging the people of his archdiocese to embrace the letter and
spirit of the official liturgy.
You imply that (a) there is some sort of split or discrepancy
between the Cardinal and the Holy See; and (b) Catholics in the
LA archdiocese have to choose between one and the other.
What is your evidence of the split? To my knowledge, the
Cardinal is in perfect accord with Rome. And it seems
dangerous and irresponsible of Mother Angelica
or Adoremus to try to create the impression that there is
any sort of split where none exists.
<<I find it highly hypocritical of Cardinal Mahoney to react
so strongly to some criticism of the letter produced by his
liturgy committee, when so many at the liturgy conference that
was held in Los Angeles, and for whose Catholicity he went
out of his way to vouch for, were actually well-known
dissidents from Church teaching, and heretics. Why did he
not complain about them to their superiors and try to suppress
them? Why has he given them his active encouragement and
support? His moral outrage at Mother Angelica's
comparatively mild remarks rings hollow, since it is clearly a
double standard.>>
The double standard is not clear at all to me. Who are
these "dissidents" and "heretics"? What is the evidence
of their dissidence or heresy?
<<Catholics have no duty to follow the ill-conceived
"suggestions" of the letter. They are not consistent with
Catholic piety, and tend to reinforce the erroneous notions
concerning the liturgy which abound.>>
Catholics should not follow the leadership of
the ordinary? The letter's directives are not
"consistent with Catholic piety"? Nonsense.
Document the inconsistencies. What errors
are being reinforced?
Jim
Martin E Fontenot
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:11:27 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
writes:
>> If you KNOW that the bishop is saying that, then you are justified
>in
>> doing so. However, if you have just heard a rumour about the
>bishop's
>>
>> beliefs, then you are obliged to discover the truth before preaching
>> disobedience to the bishop. This is especially true for someone in
>> Mother Angelica's position.
>
>> Also, there are proper channels for pursuing such accusations.
>
>If your brother sins against you, *first* go and tell your brother.
>Cardinal Mahoney could have called Mother A and hashed it out with her
>personally....who knows she might have become very contrite and
>invited
>him on her show to clear it up. The whole thing could have turned out
>to
>be a love fest. (Like when Cardinal Bernadin was accused falsely) The
>way it looks now is like the bishops may finally get some real ammo to
>get rid of EWTN and silence Mother Angelica for good.
>
Excuse me, how did Cardinal Mahoney get to be the one in the wrong here?
No, Its Mother ANgelica who decided to attack him publicly and smear
him. If she had a beef against him, why didn't she go to him privately
before beginning a coast to coast campaign, and disinforming his flock?
I C | XC Friar Gordo - Martin Fontenot
------------ fri...@juno.com
NI | KA Ruthenia on the Neches
Gordoqwk v 2.1 - the offline pontificator - imprimature pending
Jim Groark
> But I don't take the Adoremus Bulletin. Could you post some excerpts, or
> point us to a URL?
The "choice of [Eucharistic] Prayer should not be at the sole discretion
of the presider, it should reflect the aspirations and needs of this
community. It is the entire assembly's prayer."
The assembly is "to be gathered round, if possible right around the altar,
because what occurs here involves not only the bread and wine, but those
standing near" because "we too are consecrated, changed, shared".
The people are to "raise their hands in prayer for the Our Father and through
the acclamation `For the kingdom.....'"
"Great attention has to be given to the arrangement of ministers and to
the flow of the procession around and through the assembly. The songs
used at Communion should be ones that all can sing without books in
their hands, ech parish having perhaps six or seven Communion songs
that are able to bear repetition, in word and melody, through the years.
This singing of a single Communion song lasts until the procession and
all the sharing of Holy Communion end."
"receiving both the body and blood of Christ is to be the practice of every
parish at every Sunday Liturgy" and that "homilists should occasionally
make reference to the fullness of the symbol that is now extended to
every communicant".
Symbol?......
"horizontal inclusive language , at least to the extent encouraged by
the U.S. bishops in their work of revising liturgical books, should be
incorporated into all liturgical celebrations of this Archdiocese.."
".....the Eucharistic Prayer was a kind of orphan. People said, `We lift
them up to the Lord,' and sang the `Holy, Holy.' But for years no one
could have told you anything about the Eucharistic Prayer except that
`the priest does the consecration......Now the parishioners can talk
about the experience of standing and singing God's praise together...."
VR
Jim Groark
Ken Dawe
The hierarchy obviously...or haven't you been following the thread?
You just don't get on nationwide tv and radio and tell Catholics to piss
on a Cardinal's leg...and you don't have a so called "Catholic" magazine
defended the pisser. Those are the actions of all-knowing dissenters !!!!!
Dharma Bum
TomzWeb1
In a message dated 97-12-18 00:43:52 EST, sad...@INFONET.ST-JOHNS.NF.CA
writes:
<< > A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday
Mass"
> can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus Bulletin.
-
> Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of the
letter
> and its impact on the Church.
Sadly Thomas is blindly naive to the terrible dissent that is prevalent in
Adoremus and in Mother Angelica. Usually dissent is seen on the left but
it is just as prevalent on the right...everyone knowing what's right in
order to save the Church excpet the church hierarchy...what a sad lot !!
Dharma Bum
>>
There is no way that one can equate the desire of Mother Angelica and Adoremus
to see the Liturgical norms given by the legitimate authority of the Church be
implemented, with the dissent and disobedience from that same authority by
"the left". They are as different as obedience is from disobedience.
Mother Angelica and Adoremus do not advocate disobedience from legitimate
authority. Cardinal Mahoney has no authority to change the liturgy, or to
make certain options given by the Church (that is the Holy See) mandatory.
Dharma Bum doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
If anyone knows of some evidence that Mother Angelica or Adoremus advocate
disobedience to the legitimate authority of the bishops, then please forward
that evidence to me from my web page.
http://members.aol.com/TKief38929/index.htm
Thomas
Martin E Fontenot
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:01:14 -0800 Dan Hydar <dhy...@OACIS.COM> writes:
>> From: Ken Dawe <sad...@INFONET.ST-JOHNS.NF.CA>
>>
>> Sadly Thomas is blindly naive to the terrible dissent that is
>prevalent in
>> Adoremus and in Mother Angelica.
>
>
> |Dan|
>
from their bishops far to often, and far too often give a permission to
disobey bishops.
TomzWeb1
In a message dated 97-12-18 22:21:42 EST, fri...@JUNO.COM writes:
<<
On Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:11:27 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
writes:
>> If you KNOW that the bishop is saying that, then you are justified
>in
>> doing so. However, if you have just heard a rumour about the
>bishop's
>>
>> beliefs, then you are obliged to discover the truth before preaching
>> disobedience to the bishop. This is especially true for someone in
>> Mother Angelica's position.
>
>> Also, there are proper channels for pursuing such accusations.
>
>If your brother sins against you, *first* go and tell your brother.
>Cardinal Mahoney could have called Mother A and hashed it out with her
>personally....who knows she might have become very contrite and
>invited
>him on her show to clear it up. The whole thing could have turned out
>to
>be a love fest. (Like when Cardinal Bernadin was accused falsely) The
>way it looks now is like the bishops may finally get some real ammo to
>get rid of EWTN and silence Mother Angelica for good.
>
Excuse me, how did Cardinal Mahoney get to be the one in the wrong here?
No, Its Mother ANgelica who decided to attack him publicly and smear
him. If she had a beef against him, why didn't she go to him privately
before beginning a coast to coast campaign, and disinforming his flock?
I C | XC Friar Gordo - Martin Fontenot
------------ fri...@juno.com
NI | KA Ruthenia on the Neches
Gordoqwk v 2.1 - the offline pontificator - imprimature pending
>>
Cardinal Mahoney got to be in the wrong by allowing all kinds of liturgical
abuses to go unchecked and with the unofficial blessing of the Chancery office
for many years.
He wrote "the assembly is the basic symbol when the liturgy is celebrated."
Where does he get that? Not from any Church teaching. This IS something,
however, that is taught by those who believe in transignification, elements of
which are very common in seminary teaching in the U.S. these days. They teach
that the eucharist represents the people. There is a confusion with the
Mystical Body of Christ, meaning the Church, with Christ's Eucharistic
presence, body blood soul and divinity.
Thomas
TomzWeb1
In a message dated 97-12-18 18:12:48 EST, you write:
<< On 12/17/97, TomzWeb1 <Tomz...@AOL.COM> wrote:
<<For a thorough analysis of it, one should refer to the October
and November issues of the Adoremus Bulletin.>>
Not sure how much analysis is needed - it seems pretty
clear and self-explanatory. But I don't take the
Adoremus Bulletin. Could you post some excerpts, or
point us to a URL?
>>
I'll do you one better. Send me your address and I will buy you a
subscription.
<A HREF="http://www.adoremus.org/">Society for the Renewal of the Sacred
Liturgy</A>
<A HREF="http://www.adoremus.org/statement.html">ADOREMUS STATEMENT ON
GATHER FAITHFULLY TOGE...</A>
<< The double standard is not clear at all to me. Who are
these "dissidents" and "heretics"? What is the evidence
of their dissidence or heresy? Couldn't find the issue I was looking for,
about the conference in Los Angeles, but it was similar to this:
<A HREF="http://www.hli.org/issues/dissappl.html">Dissent Letter from Fr.
Marx</A>
<<Catholics have no duty to follow the ill-conceived
"suggestions" of the letter. They are not consistent with
Catholic piety, and tend to reinforce the erroneous notions
concerning the liturgy which abound.>>
Catholics should not follow the leadership of
the ordinary? The letter's directives are not
"consistent with Catholic piety"? Nonsense.
Document the inconsistencies. What errors
are being reinforced? >>
They have no duty to follow the "suggestions" of Cardinal Mahoney, like
gathering around the altar, which contradict the rubrics and Catholic
tradition. A lot of people don't understand that we only have to obey the
lawful authority of the priests and bishops. But when they contradict a
higher authority, we have no obligation to obey them.
Thomas
Ken Dawe
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, TomzWeb1 wrote:
> There is no way that one can equate the desire of Mother Angelica and Adoremus
> to see the Liturgical norms given by the legitimate authority of the Church be
> implemented, with the dissent and disobedience from that same authority by
> "the left". They are as different as obedience is from disobedience.
Problem is Thomas that both Mother Angelica and Adoremus think they have
the answers to the "ills" of the Church and will do anything to get their
way, including publically being heretical and defending that heresy.
> Mother Angelica and Adoremus do not advocate disobedience from legitimate
> authority. Cardinal Mahoney has no authority to change the liturgy, or to
> make certain options given by the Church (that is the Holy See) mandatory.
>
> Dharma Bum doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
That could be true but I'm not wearing blinders. Your defense of Mother
Angelica and Adoremus and your criticism of Cardinal Mahoney would be
laughable if they weren't so sad and twisted.
You're all pressure tactic dissenters and are too blind in your
self-righteousness to even see it.
Dharma Bum
Hobson, John
> TomzWeb1[SMTP:Tomz...@AOL.COM] wrote:
>
<snip>
> A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday
> Mass" can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus
> Bulletin. The thinking is often confused, and contradictory. The
> phraseology of the letter strongly suggests a belief in
> "transignification" rather than transubstantiation.
>
> I think that when she said "I'm just a simple religious with a simple
> faith, and all this goes over my head. I was confused" she was really
> saying that she still doesn't buy the Cardinals pleadings of
> innocence, but that she overstepped her bounds in catagorically
> stating what can only be inferred from the language of the text.
>
> To his credit, maybe the Cardinal really does believe in the Real
> Presence the way the Church does, but that is not reflected in the
> language his committee chose to use. The beliefs of the committee
> that produced this letter should be his beliefs, and those of the
> Catholic Church. If not, then he is responsible for finding people
> who do share the beliefs of the Church. If they produce a defective
> letter, then he is to be held responsible for it, and should not whine
> when someone criticizes him.
>
I love your phrase "maybe the Cardinal really does believe in the Real
Presence the way the Church does" -- which I interpret as havin an
implication of "but he probably doesn't".
Somehow, both Mother Angelica and you -- assuming that you have read the
letter, rather than what Adoremus said about it -- seem to have missed
the following in the letter:
The topic of the Eucharist is inexhaustible in its many graces and
understandings. Like a precious diamond, each view of it offers new and
deeper insights. For the purposes of this Pastoral Letter I wish to
incorporate totally the full teaching of the Church on the Eucharist as
found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1066 to 1209,
on Liturgy, and 1322 to 1419, on the Eucharist.
While my focus in this Letter is on the Sunday celebration of the
Eucharist, all of the teachings and understandings of the Catechism are
understood as the principles upon which this Letter stands.
Given the misunderstanding that sadly exists among some Catholics about
the very nature of the Eucharist, I wish to include par. 1376 from the
Catechism as a foundational teaching for all:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was
offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction
of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by
the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the
whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ
our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and
properly called transubstantiation."
ENDQUOTE
I would say that this is a quite explicit statement of the Cardinal's
belief in transubstantiation.
> Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of
> the letter
> and its impact on the Church. She just needs to be a little more
> diplomatic
> and nuanced in her speech. But her sincerity and "human-ness" is what
> endears
> her to a lot of us. She is a feisty old lady. She speaks the plain
> truth
> bluntly, but I don't think she advocates disobedience to legitimate
> authority.
>
No, she both spouts off her ignorance in this specific instance and she
publicly called for disobedience to a bishop.
> I hope this sheds some light on the controversy.
>
I hope that my actual quotation from the letter sheds some light on the
controversy.
--
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. -- Gene
Spafford
John Hobson (hob...@mail.cai.com)
Computer Associates, Lisle, IL USA
Tom Kreitzberg
Thomas writes:
> I think that when she said "I'm just a simple religious with a simple
> faith, and all this goes over my head. I was confused" she was really
> saying that she still doesn't buy the Cardinals pleadings of
> innocence, but that she overstepped her bounds in catagorically
> stating what can only be inferred from the language of the text.
Doesn't this interpretation of her comments mean that she was
lying?
> To his credit, maybe the Cardinal really does believe in the Real
> Presence the way the Church does, but that is not reflected in the
> language his committee chose to use.
Let me state my categorical opinion that anyone who concludes
from reading "Gathering Faithfully Together" that Cardinal Mahony
doesn't believe in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic
Church is an idiot.
Tom
Martin E Fontenot
Says you. I mean, you are accusing a man of liturgical abuses, and she
is accusing him of heresy, yet, oddly enough, the competent authorities
have not accused him of anything. In other words, you are both acting
as rumor mongers so far as I can tell.
>He wrote "the assembly is the basic symbol when the liturgy is
>celebrated."
>Where does he get that? Not from any Church teaching. This IS
>something,
Excuse me, he gets that from St Basil the Great. Last I checked, St
Basil was indeed inside the Church.
>however, that is taught by those who believe in transignification,
Bullshit. The congregation is the basic symbol we can perceive when the
liturgy is celebrated. That does not deny the real presence within the
Eucharist. First of all, learn something about what you are talking
about. YOu are behaving like Eutyches.
>elements of
>which are very common in seminary teaching in the U.S. these days.
HOw do you know. Have you done a survey?
>They teach
>that the eucharist represents the people. There is a confusion with
>the
>Mystical Body of Christ, meaning the Church, with Christ's Eucharistic
>presence, body blood soul and divinity.
There is no confusion. They are both the mystical body. Read St Paul for
heaven's sake! They are both the body of Christ - the Eucharist comes to
impart grace to those of us who are members, and we as members are there
to impart grace to the world at large. What we partake in we are
supposed to be for the world. Try St John Chrysostom on this one.
The real problem here is that you and Mother Angelica are evidently out
to try a man for heresy who has done nothing wrong, fabricating evidence
out of your own ignorance. THis is a violation of the commandment
against bearing false witness.
His beatitude remains the victim here and ya'll are the perpetrators.
Jim Russell/Systems/ais
The Mahony document relegates the clear teaching of the Real Presence to a
footnote, which apparently has caused some confusion, not only with Mother
Angelica, but with others as well (I for one only scanned the footnotes on my
*second* read of the document). I'm sensing that there is more history here
than I'm aware of--that perhaps the liturgical practices of Mahony's diocese
have grated against MA and Adoremus for a lot longer than the life of this
document. This is only my speculation, though.
JW Russell
Ed Faulk
TomzWeb1 <Tomz...@AOL.COM> writes:
>In a message dated 97-12-18 00:43:52 EST, sad...@INFONET.ST-JOHNS.NF.CA
>writes:
>
><< > A detailed analysis of "Gather Faithfully Together: A Guide for Sunday
>Mass"
> > can be found in the October and November issues of Adoremus Bulletin.
> -
> > Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of the
>>letter
> > and its impact on the Church.
>
> Sadly Thomas is blindly naive to the terrible dissent that is prevalent in
> Adoremus and in Mother Angelica. Usually dissent is seen on the left but
> it is just as prevalent on the right...everyone knowing what's right in
> order to save the Church excpet the church hierarchy...what a sad lot !!
>
> Dharma Bum
> >>
>
>There is no way that one can equate the desire of Mother Angelica and
Adoremus
>to see the Liturgical norms given by the legitimate authority of the Church
be
>implemented, with the dissent and disobedience from that same authority by
>"the left". They are as different as obedience is from disobedience.
>
>Mother Angelica and Adoremus do not advocate disobedience from legitimate
>authority. Cardinal Mahoney has no authority to change the liturgy, or to
>make certain options given by the Church (that is the Holy See) mandatory.
Well, it's clear you haven't read the document. Cardinal Mahony (note there
is no "e" in his last name) hasn't proposed a "change" to the liturgy. He
has proposed that those responsible for preparing the liturgy be more
attuned to the needs of the community in which they worship. He has proposed
certain actions that are not in any way prohibited by the GIRM and has, in
fact, reinforced some actions that the GIRM DOES call for (such as
reverencing the altar).
He has suggested certain actions that, according to the GIRM, are withing
the scope of his competence. And, yes, in doing so he has taken away some of
the options of the priests. At the same time, it's important to remember
that the priests function *only* because the bishop has given them faculties
to do so.
Deacon Ed
mcampbell
Jim, this is really good. Nothing that I haven't read before but somehow
it's put together so nicely and it is complete. Im going to keep this one.
Thanks,
Marlene
----------
> From: Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM>
> To: CATH...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahony
> Date: Thursday, December 18, 1997 10:32 PM
>
> > But I don't take the Adoremus Bulletin. Could you post some excerpts,
or
> > point us to a URL?
>
Dan Hydar
> From: Ken Dawe <sad...@INFONET.ST-JOHNS.NF.CA>
> > > Adoremus and in Mother Angelica.
> >
>
> The hierarchy obviously...or haven't you been following the thread?
Excuse me... but how do Mother Angelica & Adoremus "dissent from the
hierarchy"? [Note the present tense.]
> You just don't get on nationwide tv and radio and tell Catholics to
> piss on a Cardinal's leg...
Um, how colorful. Anyhoo, Mother got the facts wrong, said something
that she shouldn't, realized he mistake and then took it back. (Or
haven't you been following the thread?) It would be nice if actual
dissenters could do the same, yes?
I hope nobody sends any Prodigal Sons your way in the near future...
> and you don't have a so called "Catholic" magazine defended the pisser.
Please quote the bit from the "Catholic magazine" where this happened.
I suspect that there's a whole forest of examples of territory-marking
in the archives by a certain Dawgie I could name... don't make roll up
a newspaper. 8^)
|Dan|
Dan Hydar
> From: JPauwels <jpau...@AOL.COM>
>
> Anyone here care to wager that she has even glanced at the pastoral
> letter? Discussing that about which she knows not the minutest kernel
> of fact is nothing new for Mother Angelica.
For example....?
> Ah, well. At least she's on the advisory board of Adoremus, the folks
> who want to reform our liturgies. If this is an example of their
> liturgical scholarship and leadership, I'd say they've got a great
> program.
It's inspiring to see someone make such an informed judgement.
Why is it that at least half the people in this thread that *assert*
that Mother Angelica didn't read the letter and condemn her for
commenting on it without reading it, then go on to do essentially the
same thing? Sheesh.
|Dan|
Ken Peck
Jim Groark wrote:
>
> > But I don't take the Adoremus Bulletin. Could you post some excerpts, or
> > point us to a URL?
>
> The "choice of [Eucharistic] Prayer should not be at the sole discretion
> of the presider, it should reflect the aspirations and needs of this
> community. It is the entire assembly's prayer."
To the best of my knowledge, the Eucharistic Prayer in liturgical
churches is never "at the -sole- discretion of the presider." There
are set forms approved by ecclesiastical authority which the
celebrant -must- use.
> The assembly is "to be gathered round, if possible right around the altar,
> because what occurs here involves not only the bread and wine, but those
> standing near" because "we too are consecrated, changed, shared".
Indeed. Perhaps you should read John 6:56. ("Those who eat my flesh
and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.") If that does not
involve those "standing near" and does not consecrate, change, etc.
them, then there is on the part of those "standing near" a profound
denial of the presence of Christ and the Eucharist.
> The people are to "raise their hands in prayer for the Our Father and through
> the acclamation `For the kingdom.....'"
I may regard the practice proposed here as a bit odd. It does, of
course have very ancient precedent. But it is hardly heresy.
> "Great attention has to be given to the arrangement of ministers and to
> the flow of the procession around and through the assembly. The songs
> used at Communion should be ones that all can sing without books in
> their hands, ech parish having perhaps six or seven Communion songs
> that are able to bear repetition, in word and melody, through the years.
> This singing of a single Communion song lasts until the procession and
> all the sharing of Holy Communion end."
I've been involved in solemn celebrations which were glorious and some
which were a shambles. The ones which were glorious involved "great
attention to the arrangement of ministers and to the flow of the
procession around and through the assembly" and a great many other
minute details. The ones were shambles were ones where there was
little attention paid to anything.
I suspect the Cardinal may have some difficulty coming up with a half
dozen hymns that "-all- can sing without books in their hands." But
there is nothing heretical about singing hymns without books in hand.
> "receiving both the body and blood of Christ is to be the practice of every
> parish at every Sunday Liturgy" and that "homilists should occasionally
> make reference to the fullness of the symbol that is now extended to
> every communicant".
>
> Symbol?......
It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
the Church Fathers.
> "horizontal inclusive language , at least to the extent encouraged by
> the U.S. bishops in their work of revising liturgical books, should be
> incorporated into all liturgical celebrations of this Archdiocese.."
"Horizontal inclusive language," as the very phrase itself reveals,
involves the torture of the English language. But there isn't any
thing particularly heretical about changing "men of God" or "sons of
God" to "women and men of God" or "daughters and sons of God" or
"people of God."
> ".....the Eucharistic Prayer was a kind of orphan. People said, `We lift
> them up to the Lord,' and sang the `Holy, Holy.' But for years no one
> could have told you anything about the Eucharistic Prayer except that
> `the priest does the consecration......Now the parishioners can talk
> about the experience of standing and singing God's praise together...."
The Cardinal may exaggerate the ignorance of past Roman Catholic
laymen, but the fact is that "for years" the great eucharistic
prayer of the Church was said -secretly- by the celebrant. Of
course, they could read a translation (or if they understood
Latin, the actual words) in their missals. But how many did?
Ken+
Ken Peck
TomzWeb1 wrote:
> If anyone knows of some evidence that Mother Angelica or Adoremus advocate
> disobedience to the legitimate authority of the bishops, then please forward
> that evidence to me from my web page.
> http://members.aol.com/TKief38929/index.htm
Probably a more appropriate place would be the Vatican. <g>
And I gather, the Cardinal whose authority has been threatened
may have already done so.
Ken+
Ken Dawe
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Dan Hydar wrote:
> Excuse me... but how do Mother Angelica & Adoremus "dissent from the
> hierarchy"? [Note the present tense.]
No explanation needed...they're obviously liturgical terrorists who will
go to no end to get their own narrow-minded way.
> > You just don't get on nationwide tv and radio and tell Catholics to
> > piss on a Cardinal's leg...
>
> Um, how colorful.
Yes...very yellow of Mother to do that...and then run to the next fire
hydrant Bishop that she wants to mark her territory with.
> Anyhoo, Mother got the facts wrong, said something
> that she shouldn't, realized he mistake and then took it back. (Or
> haven't you been following the thread?) It would be nice if actual
> dissenters could do the same, yes?
Took it back? haha...get real. She offered an apology that was words only
to try to save face. She despises Mahony and is hiding behind Adoremus
and other defenders like yourself and others on the list (where's Bugge?).
Using nation-wide tv to display her heresy was abominable and no
half-hearted apology washes away her true feelings and beliefs about
Cardinal Mahony and any other Bishop who doesn't do things the way she
thinks they should be done. And you can lump Adoremus and the Reform of
the Reform crowd right in there with her. They think they are the True
Church and anyone who doesn't do follow their narrow little way is
subject to their public vilification. What a sick bunch !!
And for her to say that Cardinal Mahony has watered down belief in the
Real Presence is disgusting and typical of the reformist crowd.
> I hope nobody sends any Prodigal Sons your way in the near future...
Hey if a Prodigal Son returns he's welcome as long as he's sincere
about not being two-faced.
> Please quote the bit from the "Catholic magazine" where this happened.
Easy..go read the article that Deacon Ed gave the url for...defense of
the pisser is seen in the article's whining tone throughout even if the
pisser's name is not used.
> I suspect that there's a whole forest of examples of territory-marking
> in the archives by a certain Dawgie I could name... don't make roll up
> a newspaper. 8^)
Roll it up and use it on Mother Angelica...she's the one who told
everyone to disobey the Cardinal....something I've never done and if I
had it wouldn't mean a row of beans to anyone...but Mother Angelica is on
nationwide tv and what she did was revolting.
Dharma Bum
Martin E Fontenot
I can think of. As for relegating the teaching of the real presense to a
footnote, he actually relegates it to a supposition. He assumes the
reader to know the teaching and works from that, that is clear and
present in the parts I have read of the document anyway.
As for whether he grates Adoremus, I would suggest that that does not
speak well of Adoremus, and as for Mother Angelica's actions, they were
uncatholic beyond belief, for she raised herself above the Holy See of
Rome and the synod of bishops of the United States when she "freed" the
people of Los Angeles from "obedience". YOu don't do that if you are a
Catholic. I used to loathe the Cardinal Archbishop of Philidelphia
(whose name I do not recall, he died a while back) for his reactionary
politics which he tried to pass off as religious teaching, but I would
never have suggested that the people of Philly were released from
obedience to him, and I am one person who is apt to shoot off his mouth
far too much on such subjects.
Mother ANgelica needs remedial eccelsiology.
Jim Groark
> To the best of my knowledge, the Eucharistic Prayer in liturgical
> churches is never "at the -sole- discretion of the presider." There
> are set forms approved by ecclesiastical authority which the
> celebrant -must- use.
Can't help it.....those are not my words, but a quote from the Cardinal's
letter, as cited in the Adoremus Bulletin.
> Indeed. Perhaps you should read John 6:56. ("Those who eat my flesh
> and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.") If that does not
> involve those "standing near" and does not consecrate, change, etc.
> them, then there is on the part of those "standing near" a profound
> denial of the presence of Christ and the Eucharist.
See above....I justprovided quotes.
> I may regard the practice proposed here as a bit odd. It does, of
> course have very ancient precedent. But it is hardly heresy.
Where did I say it was?
> I suspect the Cardinal may have some difficulty coming up with a half
> dozen hymns that "-all- can sing without books in their hands." But
> there is nothing heretical about singing hymns without books in hand.
See above.
> > Symbol?......
> It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
> the Church Fathers.
So the Eucharist is essentially a symbol?
> "Horizontal inclusive language," as the very phrase itself reveals,
> involves the torture of the English language. But there isn't any
> thing particularly heretical about changing "men of God" or "sons of
> God" to "women and men of God" or "daughters and sons of God" or
> "people of God."
I didn't say there was.....(OBTW, "particularly"?)
> The Cardinal may exaggerate the ignorance of past Roman Catholic
> laymen, but the fact is that "for years" the great eucharistic
> prayer of the Church was said -secretly- by the celebrant. Of
> course, they could read a translation (or if they understood
> Latin, the actual words) in their missals. But how many did?
But do you know for a fact that the Cardinal is referring to the Tridenttine
Mass.....or is he merely referring to the years preceding his little edict?
> Ken+
VR
Jim Groark
Jim Groark
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Dharma Scum wrote:
> Yes...very yellow of Mother to do that...and then run to the next fire
> hydrant Bishop that she wants to mark her territory with.
Who are you?....Pope Uriscus II?
> Took it back? haha...get real. She offered an apology that was words only
> to try to save face. She despises Mahony and is hiding behind Adoremus
> and other defenders like yourself and others on the list (where's Bugge?).
And just how are you able to discern this?
> And you can lump Adoremus and the Reform of the Reform crowd right
> in there with her.
Could you please further identify the "Reform of the Reform" crowd?
> They think they are the True Church and anyone who doesn't do follow
> their narrow little way is subject to their public vilification. What a
sick bunch !!
Just because they won't support legalization of self-abuse is no reason
for your Holiness to get so upset.
VR
Jim Groark
Jim Groark
I really don't think the good Cardinal is as chicken-shit as your comment
makes
him out to be.
VR
Jim Groark
Gerard Bugge
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ken Dawe wrote:
> Took it back? haha...get real. She offered an apology that was words only
> to try to save face. She despises Mahony and is hiding behind Adoremus
> and other defenders like yourself and others on the list (where's Bugge?).
Thanks for asking!
Actually I'm still here--and attempting to celebrate Advent and
Christmas as best as I am able, with some help from the excellent
programming of EWTN.
Indeed, EWTN made it into my annual Christmas letter, sent to
family and friends (I've been doing this since 1969!). Here is a portion
of my Christams letter, since it does deal a bit with the topic of Mother
Angelica, etc.
"THE NEW MILLENNIUM AND HOPE How exciting that we approach the new
millennium. I am so filled with hope really as the Great Jubilee
approaches. Indeed, I never thought I'd live to see the things I have! I
never thought I would live to see a day when a crowd of young people, at
least double that of the Woodstock festival (I wrote about that festival
in my first Christmas letter in 1969--and I must say with great naivete
now!). What a sign of hopefulness! This Pope is magnificent and I do
believe he will join just two other Popes by being known as "Pope John
Paul--THE GREAT."
SPRUNG FOR CABLE TV Another great "sign of hope" for me is the growing
television network of Mother Angelica, Eternal Word Television Network
(EWTN). I I have never been a great TV person, but I actually broke down
and got cable TV (and share the bill with another resident of our
household--just so I could have EWTN. Our local cable provider offers
this great channel 24 hrs a day. If your cable company doesn't offer it,
perhaps you could write them asking for it. It is superb.
I didn't like Mother Angelica at first; but now am really taken with her
(even if, at times, she puts her foot in her mouth!). I even support this
evangelizing effort financially. I can't get over the fine programming:
offering a feast of instruction, of prayer, of art and music, getting
better all the time. And the daily Mass celebrated at Mother Angelica's
Monastery is among the most beautiful and reverent celebrations I've ever
witnessed. Definitely a wonderful enrichment for my own life (and many,
many others I am sure).
THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE I am convinced, indeed, that both the World Youth
Day in Paris with the Pope and EWTN with its emphasis and style is "the
wave of the future" and bodes well for the vitality of the faith into the
new millennium. Numerous other signs abound showing the vitality and
youthfulness of "traditional" faith and practices---and the failure of the
"modernistic" and "dissenting" voices to captivate minds and hearts and
followers. I never thought I'd live to see this day with such a dramatic
"turning of the tide."
And I am grateful that as far as I can judge, my heart remains youthful in
this way and that I have been on this journey of rediscovery of the riches
of our tradition and of the great romance of "orthodoxy" for some years
now. I hope I am on "the cutting edge"---well, even more, I hope I am
simply faithful and obedient. But it is good to see more and more seeing
what I see, saying what I have been saying (and often enough better than I
am able!), and to be a part of a growing movement for the New
Evangelization. And, of course, I hope that my presence on the web with
my Catholic Page for Lovers is a small contribution to this exciting
movement and rediscovery. Veni, Sancte Spiritus! Come, Holy Spirit!
"Blessed be the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing..
and predestined us..
to be full of love..
to the praise of His Glory!"
(Ephesians 1)"
Of course, there's much more in my letter of a more personal
nature. But I was delighted to share this good news too.
Gerard Serafin
Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:
A Catholic Page for Lovers: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com
Celebrating the Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty:
Liturgy: http://www.praiseofglory.alabanza.com/newliturgical.htm
Ed Sayre
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ken Dawe wrote:
> No explanation needed...they're obviously liturgical terrorists who will
> go to no end to get their own narrow-minded way.
And this is different from other liturgists how....? ;)
> Hey if a Prodigal Son returns he's welcome as long as he's sincere
> about not being two-faced.
The gift of inner sight? ;)
On a list that actively proposes disobedience to the Pope
in some matters, I'm not going to take this too seriously.
Peace,
--------
Ed Sayre University of Utah 801-581-5334
Academic Computing & Library Information Services (ACLIS)
ed.s...@m.cc.utah.edu (personal) sa...@u.cc.utah.edu (work)
Home Page -- http://www.cc.utah.edu/~ejs7398
Ed Sayre
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Martin E Fontenot wrote:
> Catholic. I used to loathe the Cardinal Archbishop of Philidelphia
> (whose name I do not recall, he died a while back) for his reactionary
Cardinal Bevilaqua?
> never have suggested that the people of Philly were released from
> obedience to him, and I am one person who is apt to shoot off his mouth
> far too much on such subjects.
The beam in Mother Angelica's eye is the Sears Tower in
some here ;)
Marida Ignacio
>> Mother Angelica is right on target with regard to her evaluation of
>> the letter
>> and its impact on the Church. She just needs to be a little more
>> diplomatic
>> and nuanced in her speech. But her sincerity and "human-ness" is what
>> endears
>> her to a lot of us. She is a feisty old lady. She speaks the plain
>> truth
>> bluntly, but I don't think she advocates disobedience to legitimate
>> authority.
>>
>No, she both spouts off her ignorance in this specific instance and she
>publicly called for disobedience to a bishop.
>
>> I hope this sheds some light on the controversy.
>>
>I hope that my actual quotation from the letter sheds some light on the
>controversy.
Very much so, thank you. Is it possible that perhaps, somewhere
else in the letter, there's a twist or contradiction, maybe and
that's where Mother A. had something to say?
I'm wary about such because just as how someone, ie. Mr. Yong, on
another thread professes to look up to the current pope, on another
side, he would say there is currently no valid pope in the Church.
That's how it is to look at all sides, angles and perspectives.
Now that we've seen the Cdl's side, which so far looks good, and
I hope the rest of the letter does not contradict that part, I want
to know exactly where Mother A. "reacted" upon.
---
___ ___
(__ \/ ) His Peace through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Marida
* )XxXx/
* | / "Human-kind: Where protection of valuable life starts and
* ) / takes off."
* \/ Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
* http://www.netcom.com/~mdmiguel/simonpure.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3373/
CFL
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ken Peck wrote:
> The Cardinal may exaggerate the ignorance of past Roman Catholic
> laymen, but the fact is that "for years" the great eucharistic
> prayer of the Church was said -secretly- by the celebrant. Of
> course, they could read a translation (or if they understood
> Latin, the actual words) in their missals. But how many did?
Even when we did, the onus was still on us keep one eye on the
missal and the other on the priest so that we could be in relative
temporal concert with the celebrant.
Three cheers for audible public prayer.
Mike Harrison
j...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~jmh
Toronto Canada
**********************************************************************
* + St. Pius X, pray for us! + *
**********************************************************************
JPauwels
>Subject: Re: Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahony
>Date: Fri, Dec 19, 1997 19:02 EST
>Message-id: <1997122000...@sniffles.bellahs.com>
>
>> From: JPauwels <jpau...@AOL.COM>
>>
>> Anyone here care to wager that she has even glanced at the pastoral
>> letter? Discussing that about which she knows not the minutest kernel
>> of fact is nothing new for Mother Angelica.
>
>For example....?
Go check out http:\\www.cua.edu\www\org\cbib\clif.htm
>> Ah, well. At least she's on the advisory board of Adoremus, the folks
>> who want to reform our liturgies. If this is an example of their
>> liturgical scholarship and leadership, I'd say they've got a great
>> program.
>It's inspiring to see someone make such an informed judgement.
Um, do you mean Mother Angelica? Speaking for myself, I've looked into
Adoremus a bit. I guess my reaction alternates between frustration and
boredom. But go ahead - prove my first impression is the wrong one. Wouldn't
be the first time.
>Why is it that at least half the people in this thread that *assert*
>that Mother Angelica didn't read the letter and condemn her for
>commenting on it without reading it, then go on to do essentially the
>same thing? Sheesh.
Dunno. You'd have to ask someone who asserted it.
I see, in her "apology", that she claimed she has read the letter (I didn't
know that when I asked for odds). One wouldn't have guessed it, based on her
remarks, but why shouldn't I believe her? So how about this - I'll be a little
more charitable, and believe that someone gives Mother Angelica, the "simple
religious", bad advice. And she runs with it, on the air. Hey, gullibility's
not a sin, last time I checked.
Jim
Ken Dawe
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Jim Groark wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Dharma Plum wrote:
>
> > Yes...very yellow of Mother to do that...and then run to the next fire
> > hydrant Bishop that she wants to mark her territory with.
>
> Who are you?....Pope Uriscus II?
Who are you?...Pope Uranus?
Dharma Bum :-)
Martin E Fontenot
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:44:46 EST Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
>> > Symbol?......
>
>> It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
>> the Church Fathers.
>
>So the Eucharist is essentially a symbol?
It is symbol and substance. That is the word from the Fathers of the
Church. It is perfectly legitimate to use the term symbol in the catholic
sense (a visible vehicle of the underlying reality - as such, the "creed"
is a symbol of the faith) as opposed to the protestant notion (an
intimation of something which is not there in actuality) towards the
Eucharist. Cardinal Mahoney did not state heresy - for if you try to
convict him on heresy from that word usage, you shall also have to
convict St Augustin.
Or are Mother Angelica and Adoremus advocating eschewing the Bishop of
HIppo also?
Martin E Fontenot
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:41:49 -0700 Ed Sayre <Ed.S...@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
writes:
>On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Martin E Fontenot wrote:
>
>> Catholic. I used to loathe the Cardinal Archbishop of
>Philidelphia
>> (whose name I do not recall, he died a while back) for his
>reactionary
>
> Cardinal Bevilaqua?
>
will not come to me. He was in his own 80's. He was succeeded by
Archbishop Wuerl (who seems to be fated to step into the middle of
maelstroms for some reason which are not of his own creation and sooth
the waters).
>> never have suggested that the people of Philly were released from
>> obedience to him, and I am one person who is apt to shoot off his
>mouth
>> far too much on such subjects.
>
> The beam in Mother Angelica's eye is the Sears Tower in
> some here ;)
>
>Peace,
>--------
I am sorry, but she crossed the line big time here. YOu may find it
terrible that some of us are appalled beyond belief. I will back off when
and if Mother Angelica goes beyond mere apology and states categoricly
that what she did was wrong, and that no person should ever listen to her
if she advocates such an uncatholic position again. The media goes to
people's heads and can warp them seriously (anyone here remember the name
"Fr Caughlin"?). MOther Angelica is at a crossroads here. She can cease
trying to whip up people to her side and become a straight provider of
Catholic information and catechisis (a la Bishop Sheen) or she can follow
the lines of far too many who have gone the wrong way severely.
I hope and pray she chooses the first course, but the first step is going
to have to be to publicy eat her words, and eschew such imperious
usurption of perogatives not given to her.
Ed Sayre
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Martin E Fontenot wrote:
> > Cardinal Bevilaqua?
> >
> No, it was the one who was there through most of the 80's. The name just
> will not come to me. He was in his own 80's. He was succeeded by
> Archbishop Wuerl (who seems to be fated to step into the middle of
> maelstroms for some reason which are not of his own creation and sooth
> the waters).
Wuerl? I thought he was Pittsburgh. Mind you, Pittsburgh
should rate somewhere between Rome and Constantinopole, imnsho :)
> I am sorry, but she crossed the line big time here. YOu may find it
> terrible that some of us are appalled beyond belief. I will back off when
Apologies for every thing we do wrong here would be a start too.:)
> "Fr Caughlin"?). MOther Angelica is at a crossroads here. She can cease
> trying to whip up people to her side and become a straight provider of
> Catholic information and catechisis (a la Bishop Sheen) or she can follow
> the lines of far too many who have gone the wrong way severely.
[snip]
This may sound crazy, but how about writing her a letter?
A real one, not the email kind. She'll never know how
much she hurts the Church unless we tell her.
Ken Peck
Jim Groark wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowledge, the Eucharistic Prayer in liturgical
> > churches is never "at the -sole- discretion of the presider." There
> > are set forms approved by ecclesiastical authority which the
> > celebrant -must- use.
>
> Can't help it.....those are not my words, but a quote from the Cardinal's
> letter, as cited in the Adoremus Bulletin.
Then, precisely what was your point? You appeared to be quoting the
Cardinal as an example of his alleged heterodoxy. In point of fact,
the Cardinal is quite correct . . . the Eucharistic prayer is never
at the sole discretion of the celebrant.
> > Indeed. Perhaps you should read John 6:56. ("Those who eat my flesh
> > and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.") If that does not
> > involve those "standing near" and does not consecrate, change, etc.
> > them, then there is on the part of those "standing near" a profound
> > denial of the presence of Christ and the Eucharist.
>
> See above....I justprovided quotes.
See above. You appeared to be providing quotes indicating the
Cardinal's
heterodoxy. Now you appear to be copping out. What was your point?
> > I may regard the practice proposed here as a bit odd. It does, of
> > course have very ancient precedent. But it is hardly heresy.
>
> Where did I say it was?
>
> > I suspect the Cardinal may have some difficulty coming up with a half
> > dozen hymns that "-all- can sing without books in their hands." But
> > there is nothing heretical about singing hymns without books in hand.
>
> See above.
See above.
> > > Symbol?......
>
> > It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
> > the Church Fathers.
>
> So the Eucharist is essentially a symbol?
One meaning of the word symbol, the meaning common among the Fathers is
that a symbol brings together two realities in one thing. In that the
Eucharist brings together the reality of bread and wine and the reality
of Christ's Body and Blood, it is a symbol.
Etc.
Ken+
Jim Groark
> > Can't help it.....those are not my words, but a quote from the Cardinal's
> > letter, as cited in the Adoremus Bulletin.
>
> Then, precisely what was your point?
My point was to provide some quotes in response to a posted request.
> You appeared to be quoting the Cardinal as an example of his alleged
> heterodoxy.
I have no control over what the quote says, or over your interpretation.
> In point of fact, the Cardinal is quite correct . . . the Eucharistic
prayer is
> never at the sole discretion of the celebrant.
Fine.
> > > Indeed. Perhaps you should read John 6:56. ("Those who eat my flesh
> > > and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.") If that does not
> > > involve those "standing near" and does not consecrate, change, etc.
> > > them, then there is on the part of those "standing near" a profound
> > > denial of the presence of Christ and the Eucharist.
> >
> > See above....I justprovided quotes.
>
> See above. You appeared to be providing quotes indicating the Cardinal's
> heterodoxy. Now you appear to be copping out. What was your point?
I stated my "point" above. Remember, "appearances" can be deceiving.
> > > > Symbol?......
> >
> > > It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
> > > the Church Fathers.
> >
> > So the Eucharist is essentially a symbol?
> One meaning of the word symbol, the meaning common among the Fathers is
> that a symbol brings together two realities in one thing. In that the
> Eucharist brings together the reality of bread and wine and the reality
> of Christ's Body and Blood, it is a symbol.
"symbol n. 1 Something chosen to stand for or represent something else, as
an object used to typefy a quality, idea, etc.: The lily is a symbol of
purity."
Either the Eucharist "is" Christ's Body and Blood, or it "represents" Christ's
Body and Blood....which is it? If it "is" Christ's Body and Blood, then it's
an
"actuality" rather than a "symbol".....OTOH, if it only "represents"......
VR
Jim Groark
Ron Blevins
Yes, I must say you are right. Mother Angelica should not have shot off
her mouth. Cardinal Mahoney evidently wrote her about it personally. I
don't know how the contents of Cardinal Mahoney's letter became public
knowledge. It was either
made public by Mother A or through Cardinal Mahoney's staff. It's just
too bad everything exploded the way it did. Having these two high
profile Catholics feuding in public is terrible. And all I'm saying is
that it behooves both of them to resolve their differences honestly, in
Christian charity, and between themselves and not use the media as a
battleground. Now we are all taking sides, so the whole thing has
spread.
Theresa
Martin E Fontenot wrote:
Ron Blevins
The people are to "raise their hands in prayer for the Our Father and
through
> > the acclamation `For the kingdom.....'"
Yuk. I don't like that. I don't like holding hands during the Our
Father. I don't like holding hands with people I don't know! Who wants
to stand there holding a stranger's clammy hand ? I really resent it, it
is an invasion . I never hold hands during the Lord's prayer if I can
help it. But I get pressured into it by a monkey see, monkey do
mentality. Holding hands is NOT in the liturgy! And for this reason
alone, I should not have to worry about having to *avoid* holding hands.
They say if you don't want to, don't do it. But then you stand there
worrying about what the person next to you is thinking of you for not
holding hands with him or her. It is a distraction. Is somebody going
to grab my hand whether I like it or not?! I never can focus on the
prayer just on the clammy hand grabbing mine - assuming I want to hold
hands cause * everybody else does. I don't. I'll shake hands because
it's brief. But holding a person's hand is an intimate thing to me and I
WILL CHOOSE whose hand I want to hold! I Gr.. This one really makes me
mad. The hand holding thing should be for prayer meetings...NOT THE
LITURGY!
Theresa
> I
Ed Faulk
Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET> writes:
Um...Cardinal Mahony is suggesting the orans position, not hold hands.
Ed Faulk
Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
... snip ...
> > > > > Symbol?......
> > >
> > > > It is a perfectly good word used in connection to the Eucharist by
> > > > the Church Fathers.
> > >
> > > So the Eucharist is essentially a symbol?
>
> > One meaning of the word symbol, the meaning common among the Fathers is
> > that a symbol brings together two realities in one thing. In that the
> > Eucharist brings together the reality of bread and wine and the reality
> > of Christ's Body and Blood, it is a symbol.
>
> "symbol n. 1 Something chosen to stand for or represent something else, as
> an object used to typefy a quality, idea, etc.: The lily is a symbol of
> purity."
>
> Either the Eucharist "is" Christ's Body and Blood, or it "represents"
Christ's
> Body and Blood....which is it? If it "is" Christ's Body and Blood, then it's
> an
> "actuality" rather than a "symbol".....OTOH, if it only "represents"......
We always have to be careful of using a modern definition as opposed to the
Church's definition. In this case the term "symbol" is clearly inappropriate
when considered only from the perspective of the definition you gave. In the
"New Dictionary of Theology" the term "symbol" occupies six PAGES in order to
correctly convey the full meaning of the word.
Here is a portion of that definition:
--------------------- Begin included material ------------------
Theological Dimensions of Symbol
Due to the effective power and primordial importance of symbols, it is not
surprising that they become apt vehicles for religious meanings. However,
religious value is not added to the symbol as though propositional doctrines
were aggregated to an already established clear statement. Rather religious
symbols, working the way metaphors do, awaken in participants an encounter with
an ultimate Other at the limits of human existence. The symbols of suffering,
guilt, death, hatred, peace, justice, love, and joy can disclose the Uncanny
Mystery (Otto), Ultimate Concern (Tillich), the Holy Mystery (Rahner), the
Totally Unconditioned (Lonergan), and Transcendence (Berger). The fragile
contingency of human life is experienced as unowed, transcended for the moment
by an ecstatic freedom. These experiences of symbol are described as gracious,
as a gift of the Other to the participant.
Christian symbolism emerges within Jewish eschatological typologies. The
menorah (seven-branched candlestick) and the shophar (ram's horn) foreshadow
the end-times, the perfect temple and its worship. Christ's story of the
eschatological vineyard (Mt 21:33-41) echoes Isaiah's use of the same image
(5:1-7). Christians quickly spoke of the promise of OT symbols being fulfilled
in Christ, as in the books of Hebrews and Revelation. Early Greek writers, such
as the authors of "The Odes of Solomon" and the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch,
Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria used symbols as a primary mode of
catechesis for the rites of initiation, as an explanation of membership in the
church, and for the meaning of salvation in Christ.
Early thinkers built upon the Pauline notion of mysterion (mystery) (Rom
16:25-26; Eph 3:1-6), as the secret plan of God hidden from eternity and now
revealed in Christ, and the Johannine structure of semeion (sign) (e.g. in
2:11; 4:54), in which Christ's actions and works revealed a new exodus and the
arrival of the heavenly wisdom. They combined these images and NT categories
with neo-Platonic thought on the symbolic unity of all reality and developed a
theology in which OT history prefigured NT events and natural events disclosed
heavenly messages.
Augustine organized the use of such symbolism through his training in
classical rhetoric in On Christian Doctrine. He elaborated a notion of signs as
a way of understanding the scriptures. The combination of natural symbolism
(such as smoke indicating fire), intellectual symbols (words conveying
meaning), and religious rituals (bread and wine disclosing the unseen)
furthered the theological discussion and created philosophical difficulties.
Ps-Dionysius established an elaborate neo-Plotinian hierarchy of being in which
each lower symbolic level anticipated the higher and in which humanity, by
participating in various stages of illumination, became gradually deified,
leaving behind the senses for the mystical darkness of divine unity. His work
was assumed to have been written by Dionysius of Athens (Acts 17:34) and became
generally known and highly influential in the western church through the
translations of John Scotus Erigena.
Building upon these thinkers and later controversies concerning the
eucharist
in the ninth and tenth centuries, theologians of the Middle Ages sought a
systematic set of terms and relations to organize the symbols of nature,
religious history and contemporary action. What were the roles of the major
christian artifacts within the cultural context as a whole? How did they relate
to the continuing presence of salvation for the believer?
The medieval west particularly attempted to rationalize scriptural
interpretation through the use of four senses (literal, moral, allegorical, and
anagogic) and to understand the nature of sacramental efficacy (instrumental
causality). The School of St. Victor in Paris, especially in Hugh of St. Victor
on the sacraments and in Andrew of St. Victor on literal exegesis, organized
the Augustinian position. The school of Chartres, especially Thierry of
Chartres, studied the relationship between Platonic thought on nature and OT
symbolism surrounding creation. The writings of Joachim of Fiore correlated
typologies of historical events not only from the OT and NT to the present, but
also from the present to the future, giving to each symbol a prophetic and
apocalyptic dimension in the immediate political situation.
Thomas Aquinas attempted to provide a theory about all the concerns and
questions of medieval symbolic life. By combining the Augustinian notion of
signs with Aristotelian causality, he offered an understanding of the
effectiveness of the sacraments. He described the signifying power of the
sacraments as related to past, present, and future and he articulated a
participative dimension to sacramental life from baptism to the beatific
vision. The natural symbolism of the sacraments was the substrate for their
supernatural transforming power; the verbal power of the sacramental symbols
represented the saving history of Christ; and their natural signification was
the instrumental cause of the believers' participation in God.
The theological developments concerning symbolism in the Middle Ages
were
based upon the doctrinal conviction that the incarnation of God in Christ
disclosed that nature and history could bear divine meanings. The visible could
give evidence of the invisible; the part provide proof of the whole; and the
known could lead to the unknown. The scriptures, the sacraments, even the
church itself were an extension of this incarnational principle.
But the principle of cultural embodiment did not always contain an
internal
corrective. The proliferation of visual symbols in civic and religious life at
the end of the Middle Ages (pageants, feasts, processions, relics, eucharistic
miracles, etc.) often obscured the central christian symbols. The scriptures
were little read, barely understood and poorly preached; the eucharist was for
spectators; marriage rituals were for the wealthy; penance only once a year;
and anointing for the dying. Theologians and ecclesiastics did not always find
it easy to maintain intellectual and magisterial order among the symbols of
popular piety. Nor did the dialectical negativity of Ps-Dionysius and
late-medieval mystics always forestall complete superstitious identification of
symbols with the reality indicated.
With the rise of the Reformation, the growth of rationalism, and the
development of science, symbols lost their privileged place in social
discourse. The radical reformers of the sixteenth century whitewashed church
paintings, smashed statues and stained-glass windows, and abbreviated
sacramental services. Seventeenth-century civil conflicts among religious
interpretations so offended the peacefully minded that they began to develop a
tolerant rational religion, a mediating voice among the strife-mongering
confessional traditions. Rational religion, or deism as it came to be called,
had little use for the opacity and polysemantic power of symbols. Early modern
science demoted the role of symbols even more, exalting experiment, rational
argument, and conceptual clarity to prime importance. The explorations by
western European empire-builders began to compare religious and social symbols
in different cultures, discovering their similarities. Symbols became human
products relative to particular religious traditions, specific cultural
contexts, and particular geographies and histories.
However, beginning in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
with
the developments of romanticism, poets and thinkers as diverse as Wordsworth,
Coleridge and Shelley in England; Chateaubriand in France; Schleiermacher,
Tieck, and Schelling in Germany; and Bushnell and Emerson in the United States
developed historical arguments, poetic evocations, educational manifestos,
novels, and philosophical and theological treatises arguing for the cognitive,
moral, aesthetic, philosophical and religious role of symbols in human affairs.
Victorian poets and thinkers such as Arnold, Newman, Pater, von Hugel,
Mallarme', and Valery stressed the ways in which symbols could focus the
dimensions of religious ultimacy through aesthetic experience.
Catholic modernists such as Loisy and Tyrrell were influenced by these
nineteenth-century developments. Using the notion of symbol to explain the
origins of the church from the gospels, the relationship of Christianity to
other religions, and the nature of the church as a sacrament, they developed
explanations of revelation, faith, church, and the sacraments parallel, or
sometimes in opposition, to public positions of the church. Their
methodological naivete' and pseudonymous political writings provoked
ecclesiastical judgment. The encyclicals Damentahili and Pascendi (1907)
condemned their theology and created a situation of fear and disquiet that has
persisted in Catholic life.
Only as Maritain, Rahner, Lonergan, and Schillebeeckx have rehabilitated
the
notion of symbol through revised readings of Aquinas has it been possible to
refer again to symbol in Catholic theology. By reestablishing the role of signs
in Aquinas' theology of the sacraments, by interpreting the notion of symbol in
an ontological sense, and by relating artistic creation and theology, these
thinkers have connected nineteenth-century romantic insights with the Catholic
medieval tradition in philosophy and theology.
The Contemporary Suspicion of Symbols
Contemporary suspicion about the functions of symbols in human affairs
has not
primarily been ecclesiastical, but philosophical and cultural. (1) If poets can
make symbols, then how do we know that they reveal anything but human history
and subjectivity? (2) If they have their origins in the human psyche, then do
they tell us anything but the disturbed characteristics of our own psychic
history? (3) If symbols are the primary mode of human expression, do we ever
reach a non-metaphoric, non-symbolic statement about reality? And finally, (4)
if symbols are socially constitutive, how do we keep them from demonically
destroying society?
Each question has its philosophical and social background. The first has
its
origins in philosophy from Kant to Nietzsche on the nature of human cognition
and the ability of knowing to contact extralinguistic reality. Freud's
critiques of the human psyche dominate the second question. His assertions
about the Oedipus complex, about the intrinsic relationship between pleasure
and death, about the libidinous origins of art, about religion as an illusion,
and about the primal "splitting up" of human identity have made all symbols
suspicious. The third question has been raised by commentators from Nietzsche
to Derrida in their insistence upon the polysemantic metaphoricity of all
language and the inability of "getting behind" to conceptual and metaphysical
understandings of "being." Symbols refer to each other rather than to reality.
Finally, the experience of the Jewish Holocaust and its support in Nazi
propaganda, as well as other genocides of this era and political oppressions,
have made it impossible not to question the meaning behind social, political,
and economic symbols. How does one judge the difference between social symbols
that lead toward the transformation of society for the good and those that lead
toward evil?
---------------------- End included material -------------------
As can be seen, this whole concept of symbols is far beyond the simple
definition you cited.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions all professions have their
technical "jargon" and theology is no exception. Even though theologians may
use a word that seems to be the same as the ordinary man-on-the-street, it may
be quite different. In fact, this is primarily the difficulty I've had with
both Bill and Jill with regard to Mariology -- their ideas may be sound, but
the way in which they sometimes express them is certainly unsound.
Ken Dawe
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Mother Theresa wrote:
> Yuk. I don't like that. I don't like holding hands during the Our
> Father. I don't like holding hands with people I don't know! Who wants
> to stand there holding a stranger's clammy hand ? I really resent it, it
> is an invasion .
-
> ...holding a person's hand is an intimate thing to me and I
> WILL CHOOSE whose hand I want to hold! I Gr.. This one really makes me
> mad. The hand holding thing should be for prayer meetings...NOT THE
> LITURGY!
If Jesus was next to you and extended his hand to you during the Liturgy,
would you hold it? Do you see Jesus in the person next to you?
Dharma Bum
Martin E Fontenot
On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:43:30 -0700 Ed Sayre <Ed.S...@M.CC.UTAH.EDU>
writes:
>On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Martin E Fontenot wrote:
>
>> > Cardinal Bevilaqua?
>> >
>> No, it was the one who was there through most of the 80's. The name
>just
>> will not come to me. He was in his own 80's. He was succeeded by
>> Archbishop Wuerl (who seems to be fated to step into the middle of
>> maelstroms for some reason which are not of his own creation and
>sooth
>> the waters).
>
> Wuerl? I thought he was Pittsburgh. Mind you, Pittsburgh
> should rate somewhere between Rome and Constantinopole, imnsho
>:)
Pittsburgh does....the Archeparchy, anyway....I dunno what the Romans are
up to in that town.
(for those of you who are benighted on things eastern - the only
Ruthenian Archeparch - archbishop if you like - resides in Pittsburg also
- and his diocese is very impressive, since it reaches all the way down
to include Texas and Louisiana).
Okay, someone help me out. THere was an Archbishop, a Cardinal, in Philly
back a few years. He was outrageous in his behavior - calling AIDS God's
curse on gays, threatening excommunication if a woman was among those who
had their feet washed on Maundy Thursday etc. He was sort of a hero to
the Wanderer set. Can anyone remember his name? I remember it was
Polish.
>> I am sorry, but she crossed the line big time here. YOu may find it
>> terrible that some of us are appalled beyond belief. I will back off
>when
>
> Apologies for every thing we do wrong here would be a start
>too.:)
THere is a difference, here. WE pop off here in a semi-private climate.
JJ spouts nonsense and someone corrects him. I do the same and someone
corrects me. Marida etc. MOther ANgelica is a t v personality. No one
is allowed to contradict her on her network and she purports to the
expounder of *true* Catholicism.
>> "Fr Caughlin"?). MOther Angelica is at a crossroads here. She can
>cease
>> trying to whip up people to her side and become a straight provider
>of
>> Catholic information and catechisis (a la Bishop Sheen) or she can
>follow
>> the lines of far too many who have gone the wrong way severely.
>[snip]
>
> This may sound crazy, but how about writing her a letter?
Good idea. ALready did it too. Have gotten no response, but it may take
time.
Tom Kreitzberg
Theresa Blevins writes:
> I'll shake hands because it's brief. But holding a person's hand
> is an intimate thing to me and I WILL CHOOSE whose hand I want
> to hold!
I hope Theresa's liver doesn't feel about her gall bladder the way
that she feels about her brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow
members of one Body.
Is confessing to another person that one has sinned, in thoughts
and words, in actions and inactions, any less intimate than holding
his hand?
There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
but I don't think dislike of strangers is one.
Tom
Jim Groark
> There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
> but I don't think dislike of strangers is one.
>
> Tom
Holding hands, orans position, gathering around the altar (kinda sounds
like the old "Breakfast Club" radio show) weren't part of the Tridentine Rite;
so why bring that "trendy" sort of stuf into the Novus Ordo.
It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for that
sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic
Ministers look like they slept under their car the night before.
VR
Jim Groark
Jim Groark
> We always have to be careful of using a modern definition as opposed to the
> Church's definition. In this case the term "symbol" is clearly
inappropriate
> when considered only from the perspective of the definition you gave. In
the
> "New Dictionary of Theology" the term "symbol" occupies six PAGES in order
> to correctly convey the full meaning of the word.
>
> Here is a portion of that definition:
>
> --------------------- Begin included material ------------------
> Theological Dimensions of Symbol
So, is the average person on the street epected to be conversant with those
six pages of whatever, or might it not be appropriate for the Church to
promulgate
dogma and doctrine in a manner more readily understood by commonfolk?
OBTW, I did a search on your treatise (and I also gave it a quick read....it
was late)
and was unable to find the word "symbol" used....any significance there?
VR
Jim Groark
Ed Sayre
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Ken Dawe wrote:
> > ...holding a person's hand is an intimate thing to me and I
> > WILL CHOOSE whose hand I want to hold! I Gr.. This one really makes me
> > mad. The hand holding thing should be for prayer meetings...NOT THE
> > LITURGY!
>
> If Jesus was next to you and extended his hand to you during the Liturgy,
> would you hold it? Do you see Jesus in the person next to you?
I love this kind of statement. Do you see Jesus in the person
not wanting to hold hands during the liturgy as well? :)
Either way, it's a liturgical/personal preference. Why
hold Jesus hostage to some position?
Ed Faulk
Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
>> There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
>> but I don't think dislike of strangers is one.
>>
>> Tom
>
>Holding hands, orans position, gathering around the altar (kinda sounds
>like the old "Breakfast Club" radio show) weren't part of the Tridentine
Rite;
>so why bring that "trendy" sort of stuf into the Novus Ordo.
First, the orans position is historically the position of one's hands in
prayer, it's not "trendy" at all. Second, the Cardinal does not advocate
brining people up around the altar, but that in his church (the design for
the new cathedral in Los Angeles) they will be seated on three sides of the
altar so they are physically "around" it -- and by uniting their prayers to
that of the priest they are spiritually gathered at the altar as well.
Again, not "trendy" so much as a theological necessity.
Hobson, John
> Jim Groark[SMTP:JimG...@AOL.COM] wrote:
>
> > There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
> > but I don't think dislike of strangers is one.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Holding hands, orans position, gathering around the altar (kinda
> sounds like the old "Breakfast Club" radio show) weren't part of the
> Tridentine Rite; so why bring that "trendy" sort of stuf into the
> Novus Ordo.
>
at all.
> It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for
> that sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary
> Eucharistic Ministers look like they slept under their car the night
> before.
>
Speaking as a member of such a parish, and as an extraordinary
Eucharistic Minister at that parish, I want to thank you for your
description of my looks. I have exactly once served as an EM there in
jeans, but I was pressed into service because a person who was scheduled
did not show up. I served as a Eucharistic minister at the 11 o'clock
Mass yesterday morning, and I wore black shoes, grey slacks, a light
blue shirt, a tie, and my Harvard blazer. This is my typical outfit
when I serve, and fits the standard for male EMs at St Francis.
--
Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. -- Gene
Spafford
John Hobson (hob...@mail.cai.com)
Computer Associates, Lisle, IL USA
J.J. Ursic
Jim Groark writes:
>It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for that
>sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic
>Ministers look like they slept under their car the night before.
So you don't believe the homeless should be allowed to
become Eucharistic Ministers?
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
J "We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a pope to J
J live for twenty years. It is an anomaly and bears no fruit; he be- J
J comes a god, he has no-one to contradict him, does not know facts, J
J and does cruel things without meaning it." John Henry Newman :-) J
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ HAVE A NICE DAY JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com
Ed Faulk
Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
>> We always have to be careful of using a modern definition as opposed to
the
>> Church's definition. In this case the term "symbol" is clearly
>inappropriate
>> when considered only from the perspective of the definition you gave. In
>the
>> "New Dictionary of Theology" the term "symbol" occupies six PAGES in
order
>> to correctly convey the full meaning of the word.
>>
>> Here is a portion of that definition:
>>
>> --------------------- Begin included material ------------------
>> Theological Dimensions of Symbol
>
>So, is the average person on the street epected to be conversant with those
>six pages of whatever, or might it not be appropriate for the Church to
>promulgate
>dogma and doctrine in a manner more readily understood by commonfolk?
No, and that's one of my objections to a lot of writing. One should refrain
from using technical jargon unless one is writing to an audience of one's
peers. I don't think the Cardinal was writing for other clergy -- at least
not the first section.
>OBTW, I did a search on your treatise (and I also gave it a quick
read....it
>was late)
>and was unable to find the word "symbol" used....any significance there?
First I was writing for a more general audience and, therefore, was
constraining my terminology to that which would be appropriate for such an
audience. Second, I wanted to make sure the reader would quickly and easily
understand what I was saying without being unduly taxing.
Jim Groark
> I served as a Eucharistic minister at the 11 o'clock
> Mass yesterday morning, and I wore black shoes, grey slacks, a light
> blue shirt, a tie, and my Harvard blazer. This is my typical outfit
> when I serve, and fits the standard for male EMs at St Francis.
What did I say that indicated I thought that type of attire was inappropriate?
VR
Jim Groark
Jim Groark
> First, the orans position is historically the position of one's hands in
> prayer, it's not "trendy" at all.
Deacon Ed,
I've always considered the position of one's hands in prayer as that depicted
in so many renderings of "praying hands", i.e. palms and fingers together, or
possibly fingers interleaved. Is that what we're talking about here?
If not, could you describe the orans position?
VR
Jim Groark
Jim Groark
> >It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for that
> >sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic
> >Ministers look like they slept under their car the night before.
>
> So you don't believe the homeless should be allowed to
> become Eucharistic Ministers?
I probably used a poor analogy here. Typical of the scenario I'm referring to
is this:
One Sunday at a church in the northern section of the city of Baltimore,
one of the Eucharistic Ministers was wearing white denim shorts, ankle
length socks, sneakers, an unbuttoned lumberjack shirt with tails out,
and a T-shirt underneath. All his attire looked like it had been slept in.
Someone (not me) questioned him about his appearance, and his
response was that he hadn't expected to be tabbed for "duty" that
Sunday.....Hell, I wouldn't even show myself in church dressed like that.
Since he was articulate and clean shaven, he did not fit the image of
homeless.
Just because a person looks like they slept under their car (as opposed
to "in" it), it does not necessarily follow that they are homeless. There are
a lot of folks, some of whom Jeff Foxworthy has commented on extensively,
that are not homeless, but look like they sleep under their car.
At one church I frequently attend in Southwest Baltimore, it is not uncommon
to see congregants who do look like they're homeless, yet by their bearing
they seem devout. However, I've yet to see a Eucharistc Minister who did.
VR
Jim Groark
Ken Dawe
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Ed Sayre wrote:
> I love this kind of statement. Do you see Jesus in the person
> not wanting to hold hands during the liturgy as well? :)
> Either way, it's a liturgical/personal preference. Why
> hold Jesus hostage to some position?
I ain't holding him hostage, Stud Muffin. If Jesus put his hand out to
me, I'd give it a good shake.
Don't seem like Mother Teresa minded gettin' her hands all slimied up
over in Calcutta.
Handy Andy
Paul J. Chiasson
Tell me why a homeless man or woman--admittedly without the baggage of a
mental disability to boot--wouldn't have what it takes to offer Christ's
body and blood? Since when is the Church an exclusive or class
conscience social club? If clothes make the man, then I have serious
problems--you won't catch me in a suit and tie unless Penny and her
attendants hold me down and tie my hands behind my back.
=============================================================
Paul J. Chiasson
http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ai714/Paul_Chiasson.html
=============================================================
... [M]yth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are
continually repeated and can be observed over and over again.
It is something that happens to man, and men have mythical
fates just as much as the Greek heroes do. The fact that the
life of Christ is largely myth does absolutely nothing to
disprove its factual truth--quite the contrary. I would even
go so far as to say that the mythical character of a life is
just what expresses its universal validity.
--C. G. Jung, _Answer to Job_
=============================================================
Robert Mader
>Tell me why a homeless man or woman--admittedly without the baggage of a
>mental disability to boot--wouldn't have what it takes to offer Christ's
>body and blood? Since when is the Church an exclusive or class
>conscience social club? If clothes make the man, then I have serious
>problems--you won't catch me in a suit and tie unless Penny and her
>attendants hold me down and tie my hands behind my back.
>
> =============================================================
> Paul J. Chiasson
> http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ai714/Paul_Chiasson.html
I agree with you completely Paul. I don't own a suit any more.
If I wanted to be a member of an exclusive social club, I would go here to
Faith Presbyterian. THEY have a Bowling Alley...
Merry Christmas All,
Bob M.
......................................................
WEB CONSULTANTS DIRECTORY (tm)
rma...@solgate.com
......................................................
Ed Faulk
Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
The orans position is the one the priest takes when he prays the Lord's
Prayer or invites the congregation to pray with "Let us pray." Hands are
extended, palms out or slightly up with the elbows near the body.
Martin E Fontenot
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:21:04 EST Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
>> There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
>> but I don't think dislike of strangers is one.
>>
>> Tom
>
>Holding hands, orans position, gathering around the altar (kinda
>sounds
>like the old "Breakfast Club" radio show) weren't part of the
>Tridentine Rite;
>so why bring that "trendy" sort of stuf into the Novus Ordo.
>
holding up their hands during the Our Father - which is hte Orans
position, and one of the Fathers (who I will remember after I send this
message no doubt) speaks of holding hands during certain prayers.
There was not prohibition agaisnt either of these ancient customs in the
Tridentine liturgy.
>It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for
>that
>sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic
>Ministers look like they slept under their car the night before.
>
>VR
>Jim Groark
>
Excuse me, this is not my native language, so can you tell me what the
heck this means? I have held hands for the Our Father at parishes from
Kentucky to Costa Rica, and held up my hands for it in many another. I
never noticed anyone with oil stains distributing the Eucharist - but
then again, it would not have bothered me if I had.
Hobson, John
hands and gather round the altar -- and said "It's been my unfortunate
experience that the churches that go in for that sort of thing are also
the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers look like they
slept under their car the night before."
Since I belong to this sort of parish and I am an extraordinary
Eurcharistic minister there, I took offense at your remarks. I thought
that a description of what I was wearing was an appropriate response --
i.e., I did not look like I had slept under my car. The things that you
snipped out of my (quite short) response would have answered your
question here.
GMDowns
In article <1997122215...@smarty.smart.net>, Tom Kreitzberg
<t...@SMARTY.SMART.NET> writes:
>There may be good reasons for stamping out hand holding at Mass,
but I don't
>think dislike of strangers is one.
I thought Jesus said there were no strangers! Guess I must be mistaken.
GMD
Fiona Marsden
Ron Blevins wrote:
>
> The people are to "raise their hands in prayer for the Our Father and
> through
>
> > > the acclamation `For the kingdom.....'"
>
> Father. I don't like holding hands with people I don't know! Who wants
> to stand there holding a stranger's clammy hand ? I really resent it, it
> is an invasion .
I'm surprised that you find strangers at a liturgy that is supposedly
filled with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. As one of the
clammy handed however (we are experiencing a heatwave here) I can
understand your reluctance to hold my hand...I don't want to hold it
either.
I never hold hands during the Lord's prayer if I can
> help it. But I get pressured into it by a monkey see, monkey do
> mentality. Holding hands is NOT in the liturgy! And for this reason
> alone, I should not have to worry about having to *avoid* holding hands.
I don't much fancy this holding hands sentimentality...it is ridiculous
to demonstrate a unity of community when obviously the vast number of
people are not unified. Now if we were to talk about just raising our
hands in worship...I think I could get excited.
> They say if you don't want to, don't do it. But then you stand there
> worrying about what the person next to you is thinking of you for not
> holding hands with him or her. It is a distraction. Is somebody going
> to grab my hand whether I like it or not?! I never can focus on the
> prayer just on the clammy hand grabbing mine - assuming I want to hold
> hands cause * everybody else does. I don't. I'll shake hands because
> it's brief. But holding a person's hand is an intimate thing to me and I
> WILL CHOOSE whose hand I want to hold! I Gr.. This one really makes me
> mad. The hand holding thing should be for prayer meetings...NOT THE
> LITURGY!
>
Exactly! We are all there as individuals to worship Christ.
Semper Fi $:-]
GMDowns
>There are
a lot of folks, some of whom Jeff Foxworthy has commented on
>extensively,
that are not homeless, but look like they sleep under their car.
Finally we find out where Jim gets his wonderful(?) sense of humor!!! Jeff
Foxworthy is the man who makes "redneck" sound like a four letter word, and is
the exemplar of racist, classist and sexist commentary.
GMD
GMDowns
In article <19971128.21031...@juno.com>, Martin E Fontenot
<fri...@JUNO.COM> writes:
>Okay, someone help me out. THere was an Archbishop, a Cardinal, in
>Philly
back a few years. He was outrageous in his behavior - calling AIDS
>God's
curse on gays, threatening excommunication if a woman was among those
>who
had their feet washed on Maundy Thursday etc. He was sort of a hero
>to
the Wanderer set. Can anyone remember his name? I remember it
>was
Polish.
It was John Cardinal Krol, I believe.
GMD
Ed Sayre
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997, Martin E Fontenot wrote:
> I hate to tell you this, but St AMbrose speaks of the congregation
> holding up their hands during the Our Father - which is hte Orans
> position, and one of the Fathers (who I will remember after I send this
> message no doubt) speaks of holding hands during certain prayers.
I don't mean to sound flippant, far from it, but what are
the outward differences between the Roman and Ambrosian rites,
if any??
Peace,
Bill Grisham
>
>> At one church I frequently attend in Southwest Baltimore, it is not
>> uncommon
>> to see congregants who do look like they're homeless, yet by their
>> bearing
>> they seem devout. However, I've yet to see a Eucharistc Minister who
>> did.
>>
>looked devout". Thank you for this gratuitous and arrogant attack on
>Eucharistic Ministers.
Y'all cum on dowan heh to Messysippi now, ya heah? We uns
dun nevah weah fancy doodads to chuch. Dem's what doos, is
probly nutin but annuder of dem dam Yankee cahput baggus.
An dey ain't no cowunt, no how, su onlyest usun is evah a
minista dowan heh. An weuns wares ah *bes* ovralls to chuch,
if'n we'uns is ministas.
Bill Grisham, ROSAE's Steward
Stewards Under Mary (SUM)
448 Sandy St.
Waveland, MS 39576
(601) 466-4481
Email: <s...@datasync.com>
"Come and see" the link at "Invention or Intervention?" at the bottom of
my home page: <http://www.datasync.com/~sti> , for therein is a call for
help - for some of you - particularly from Christians who are scientists.
Scientific creativity is an inspiration which follows prayer, for God is
the ultimate Creator. . . Bill Grisham.
Martin E Fontenot
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:05:33 EST Kathy Rabenstein <krab...@JUNO.COM>
writes:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:40:24 -0500 Tom Kreitzberg writes:
>>Let me state my categorical opinion that anyone who concludes
>>from reading "Gathering Faithfully Together" that Cardinal Mahony
>>doesn't believe in the Real Presence as taught by the Catholic
>>Church is an idiot.
>
>I've read the letter and agree with you, Tom. They may not be idiots;
>perhaps they're just illiterate and/or ill-catechized.
Or worse.....Cardinal Mahoney, while not a great hero to the left is one
of the right's bugbears. He is a compassionate man who teaches of
struggle for the poor over being a party liner of either side. His
letters on protecting immigrants, proper christmas spirit (that of
giving) and his very level handed approaches towards AIDS victims and the
afflicted, have, disgustingly enough, gotten him branded as a pinko by
the Wanderer crowd, which many in Adoremus are - which is why my distance
to that organization will remain.
This is not the first time people have tried to frame charges of heresy
against this eminently Orthodox and decent shepherd.
Martin E Fontenot
On Wed, 24 Dec 1997 15:17:36 -0500 Kevin MacMaster <ar...@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>
writes:
>At 12:05 AM 12/23/97 EST, Kathy wrote:
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>>>Why is it that at least half the people in this thread that *assert*
>>>that Mother Angelica didn't read the letter and condemn her for
>>>commenting on it without reading it, then go on to do essentially
>the
>>>same thing? Sheesh.
>>
>>Whether or not she read the letter (which she obviously didn't 'cuz
>she
>>didn't know what she was talking about), telling Mahony's flock to
>>disobey him is unconscionable. I would think this is grounds for
>>excommunication. Not even an apology can really right such a wrong.
>>(How do you reverse the damage of calumny?) It's that action that
>>troubles me.
>
>I don't get ETWN but have seen it a few times. What MA did certainly
>sounds, from what I read, like a real mess. But, my God, does anyone
>here really believe that she should be excomunicated for it?
>
>Is her sin *that* bad.
>
>Kevin
>
Excommunication is a fearsome step, but, if she persists in the
presumption that she may release people from obedience to a duly
consecrated Shepherd of Christ....it may have to come to that.
That woman has taken the position of the heretics in Church discipline.
DCDUREL
Martin Fontenot wrote:
>Or worse.....Cardinal Mahoney, while not a great hero to the left is one
>of the right's bugbears. He is a compassionate man who teaches of
>struggle for the poor over being a party liner of either side. His
>letters on protecting immigrants, proper christmas spirit (that of
>giving) and his very level handed approaches towards AIDS victims and the
>afflicted, have, disgustingly enough, gotten him branded as a pinko by
>the Wanderer crowd, which many in Adoremus are - which is why my distance
>to that organization will remain.
>
>This is not the first time people have tried to frame charges of heresy
>against this eminently Orthodox and decent shepherd.
The Wanderer crowd is certainly not against Mahony because he helps AIDS
victims. After all, Mother Teresa's nuns help the most unwanted AIDS
victims, and they certainly support her nuns.
The Wanderer crowd is usually concerned about promoting true Church
teachings, and since Mahony is not exactly the most gung ho defender of
Church teachings such as abortion, orthodox catechisms, etc., he is rightly
viewed with suspicion on anything he says.
DCDUREL
Martin Fontenot wrote:
>Excommunication is a fearsome step, but, if she persists in the
>presumption that she may release people from obedience to a duly
>consecrated Shepherd of Christ....it may have to come to that.
>
>That woman has taken the position of the heretics in Church discipline.
Nonsense. I tell my children all the time that they are NEVER to obey a
bishop or Pope who requires that they do something sinful. AM I to be
excommunicated? Of course not. It is Catholic Church teaching that we are
never to obey anyone who requires us to sin. If Mother Angelica thought
that Mahony required Catholics to sin by obeying his directive, then she was
certainly right is conveying that this particular directive should be
disobeyed. Whether her judgment of the directive was correct or not is a
different story. But, she certainly has the right to advocate disobedience
to a particular directive that her conscience has determined is sinful,
because the Church teaches we must ALWAYS follow our conscience.
Canon law presumes that we must not advocate disobedience to legitimate
requests from bishops or the Pope. Those requests that are sinful must
certainly be disobeyed. You should know this by now.
Jim Groark
> >>There are a lot of folks, some of whom Jeff Foxworthy has commented on
> >>extensively, that are not homeless, but look like they sleep under their
car.
> >
> >Finally we find out where Jim gets his wonderful(?) sense of humor!!!
> >Jeff Foxworthy is the man who makes "redneck" sound like a four letter
> >word, and is the exemplar of racist, classist and sexist commentary.
> > GMD
> >
> classist or sexist commentary? He mocks only one ethnic group that I
> have ever heard - his own - which is well within the parameters of
> acceptance.
>
> Before throwing around those words, please think carefully.
>
> I C | XC Friar Gordo - Martin Fontenot
This is not a comment on the Friar's statement, with which I obviously agree
.....but rather my siezing the opportunity to entire one more comment on the
attire
of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers (EEMs).....it goes like this.
Typically, ushers at church wear coat and tie....are ushers essential to the
celebration of the liturgy?.....I think NOT.
Are EEMs more crucial to the celebration of the liturgy than ushers?....
I think SO.
Are priests vested?.....are the acolytes, deacons and virtually everone else
in
the sanctuary attired in such a manner as to indicate an intent to render to
our
Lord that which is due?....I think SO.
Are not the EEMs tasked with conveying the Real Presence of our Lord to the
communicants?.....I think SO.
Is this not more important than the function of ushers, who are attired in
coat
and tie?.....I think SO.
Is it not likely that the same EEMs, if called to appear in civil court before
a
member of the judiciary to answer a citation, would attire themselves
appropriately.....I think SO.
Why then is it not appropriate to expect that EEMs (as well as the
congregation), TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, attire themselves in a
manner commensurate with their presence in the house of the Lord, the
ultimate judge of us all, where His ultimate sacrifice to secure our salvation
is re-presented?
VR
Jim Groark
John Medaille
At 03:19 AM 12/26/97 -0600, DCDUREL wrote:
>Nonsense. I tell my children all the time that they are NEVER to obey a
>bishop or Pope who requires that they do something sinful. AM I to be
>excommunicated? Of course not. It is Catholic Church teaching that we are
>never to obey anyone who requires us to sin. If Mother Angelica thought
>that Mahony required Catholics to sin by obeying his directive, then she was
>certainly right is conveying that this particular directive should be
>disobeyed. Whether her judgment of the directive was correct or not is a
>different story. But, she certainly has the right to advocate disobedience
>to a particular directive that her conscience has determined is sinful,
>because the Church teaches we must ALWAYS follow our conscience.
MT must disobey any command that her conscience tells her is sinful.
However, before she can urge others to disobedience, she must have more
than her private conscience on which to rely. This is precisely the point
which the so-called "progressives" have trouble grasping, and now MT joins
them in the same error. Your conscience is binding on you alone; you cannot
urge it on others. Before you urge others, you must have reasons more
compelling then personal qualms. Disobedience can only be urged on matters
which are in themselves egregious or on which we have given long and
prayerful study and consultation with others, at least with our confessors.
>
> Canon law presumes that we must not advocate disobedience to legitimate
>requests from bishops or the Pope. Those requests that are sinful must
>certainly be disobeyed. You should know this by now.
Yes but the question is how to determine what is sinful. I don't care for
the good Cardinal's letter; but that's a long leap from calling it sinful.
John C. Médaille
Are we not, all unawares, objectively risking a shameless individualism
and selfishness when we seek to live in the Church in such a way as baldly
to arrange it to our own taste?
- Karl Rahner
Ron Blevins
I have said, I do not mind the sign of peace, shaking hands, looking
someone in the eye and wishing them peace of Christ. It's perfectly
okay. But shaking hands is customary between adults. Holding hands,
unless with a spouse, lover or ones child is not customary among adults.
It signifies, to me, something else.
Even shaking hands can be sort of distracting. I mean some people
(mostly women) have the flabbiest, wimpiest handshakes, which is very
irritating to me. Why bother even shaking hands if you are not going to
put any enthusiasm into it? Then some people have a grip like a bear
trap! I find most people do not know how to perform a decent
handshake, and I do make a judgement of a person by their handshake. A
preliminary judgement anyway. Oh well, that's another subject. <g>
Theresa
Kathy Rabenstein wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> In response to:
> > The people are to "raise their hands in prayer for the Our Father
> and
> >through
>
> On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 21:23:52 -0600 Theresa Blevins writes:
> >Yuk. I don't like that. I don't like holding hands during the Our
> >Father.
>
> That's not what this says. Crdl. Mahony is talking about the orans
> posture, which is under discussion as the liturgical norm for the Our
> Father. He is not talking about holding hands.
>
> >I don't like holding hands with people I don't know!
>
> <gasp> You don't know your brothers and sisters!?? You better get to
>
> know them now; you'll be spending eternity with them.
>
> >Who wants to stand there holding a stranger's clammy hand ?
>
> I don't mind it. It's an outward sign of the reality of our worship
> as
> the Body of Christ in which there is no division between stranger and
> friend. In fact, it is our duty to welcome the stranger--how better
> than
> through human touch? Perhaps you would prefer the early custom of a
> real
> kiss at the Kiss of Peace? I think holding hands is certainly less
> personal.
>
> >I really resent it, it is an invasion . I never hold hands during the
>
> >Lord's prayer if I can help it.
>
> Neither do I but prehaps I should consider it. We worship too much in
>
> isolation; liturgical worship is supposed to be about the _communal_
> worship. I think we both have a bad attitude toward, mistaken
> understanding of, the Mass.
>
> Kathy R.
> Krab...@juno.com
> http://www.erols.com/saintpat
Ron Blevins
DCDUREL wrote:
> Martin Fontenot wrote:
>
> >Excommunication is a fearsome step, but, if she persists in the
> >presumption that she may release people from obedience to a duly
> >consecrated Shepherd of Christ....it may have to come to that.
> >
> >That woman has taken the position of the heretics in Church
> discipline.
>
No fair Martin. She has apologized. I don't think she is continuing to
tell people not to obey the bishop. Mother Angelica hates heresy and I
honestly believe that she would die a thousand deaths before she would
persist in heresy. Have you ever watched EWTN? Do you think Gerard would
be so gung ho on EWTN if he thought Mother Angelica was taking a
heretical position?
If you don't trust my judgment, you might do well do trust Gerard's.
Mother Angelica is fine. She just shoots her mouth off too much. But she
is not a heretic! You really ought to try and watch EWTN if you can.
Theresa
By the way, you are not being as mean as you usually are. <g> I'm glad,
and I'm thinking that it is because of Dennis. That's a good thing.
Ron Blevins
Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> At 12:05 AM 12/23/97 EST, Kathy wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >>Why is it that at least half the people in this thread that *assert*
>
> >>that Mother Angelica didn't read the letter and condemn her for
> >>commenting on it without reading it, then go on to do essentially
> the
> >>same thing? Sheesh.
She did too read the letter. That's been established.
> >
> >Whether or not she read the letter (which she obviously didn't 'cuz
> she
> >didn't know what she was talking about), telling Mahony's flock to
> >disobey him is unconscionable. I would think this is grounds for
> >excommunication. Not even an apology can really right such a wrong.
> >(How do you reverse the damage of calumny?) It's that action that
> >troubles me.
No way! Give her a break. She has done great things with EWTN, she's
really a neat person.
>
>
> I don't get ETWN but have seen it a few times. What MA did certainly
> sounds, from what I read, like a real mess. But, my God, does anyone
> here really believe that she should be excomunicated for it?
It's preposterous! Excommunication for Mother Angelica? That would kill
her as dead as any bullet could! The words excommunicate and Mother
Angelica don't even belong in the same sentence.
>
>
> Is her sin *that* bad.
It was really a dumb stunt. But it's just her temper and her zeal for
the Eucharist that got out of control. I'm telling you Mother Angelica
is not heretical, she's okay. If you have ever watched her shows
consistently you would see that she's really a neat person and loves
Jesus and the Church.
Theresa
>
>
> Kevin
Ron Blevins
This is a good point. Would you would wear blue jeans to court, would
you wear them to your daughter's wedding? Actually I think wearing a
pair of clean blue jeans, with a tucked in shirt and combed hair and
clean hands would be okay. But some people don't even do that!
Theresa
DCDUREL
John Medaille wrote
>however, before she can urge others to disobedience, she must have more
>than her private conscience on which to rely.
I disagree, since by definition a true conscience of a Christian must use
God's laws, as taught by the Church as a standard of right and wrong.
"Progressives" or dissidents have a false idea of conscience in which
each person's private reason is used to determine the moral goodness
of an act, and this private reason is put equal to or above God's laws.
Thus, they would then use this false idea of conscience to justify
disobeying the
Church.
>Your conscience is binding on you alone; you cannot
>urge it on others.
Again I disagree. Thus, I can certainly advocate for other people to
oppose
abortion, as my conscience, as informed by
God's binding laws tells me that it violates God's laws against murder.
>Yes but the question is how to determine what is sinful. I don't care for
>the good Cardinal's letter; but that's a long leap from calling it sinful.
That is debatable. But my point was that if it was sinful, then Mother
Angelica certainly had the dute to tell others to disobey that letter.
Martin E Fontenot
political agenda and demand the Church warp itself out of its shape to
agree with them. Their constand defence, for example, of the right wing
regime of El Salvador, even when it led to the murder of an Archbishop,
numerous clergy, and way too many lay brothers and sisters, their desent
from teachings of bishops on the matter of social justice, etc declare
that they will only buy into cafeteria Catholicism which upholds their
political slant.
Cardinal Mahoney is very much a defender of orthodoxy, just not
republican orthodoxy.
I C | XC Friar Gordo - Martin Fontenot
Martin E Fontenot
>>presumption that she may release people from obedience to a duly
>>consecrated Shepherd of Christ....it may have to come to that.
>>
>>That woman has taken the position of the heretics in Church
>discipline.
>
>
>a
>bishop or Pope who requires that they do something sinful. AM I to be
Cardinal Mahoney never required anyone do anything sinful. MOther
Angelica is not mother to those who watch her, she is just a t v
personality.
The Tradition of the Catholic CHurch is that anyone trying to remove
someone from rightful obedience to their bishop is promoting dissent.
The Roman Catholics of Los Angeles owe to Cardinal Mahoney their
obedience. To try to remove them from him one has to leave Catholic
Tradition.
>excommunicated? Of course not. It is Catholic Church teaching that
>we are
>never to obey anyone who requires us to sin. If Mother Angelica
>thought
>that Mahony required Catholics to sin by obeying his directive, then
>she was
>certainly right is conveying that this particular directive should be
>disobeyed. Whether her judgment of the directive was correct or not
No, she was not right. She is not a competent authority. She is only a T
V talk show host. When a synod of Catholic Bishops declare Cardinal
Mahoney to be in heresy, or the Patriarch of Rome does so, then Mother
Angelica or you and I, for that matter may concur. We may not take it
upon ourselves.
>is a
>different story. But, she certainly has the right to advocate
>disobedience
>to a particular directive that her conscience has determined is
>sinful,
No. She may not any more than the Call to Action crowd may do so. That
is not the manner in which we are to behave as Catholics. She is
promoting dissent.
>because the Church teaches we must ALWAYS follow our conscience.
Yes, *our* conscience, not the promptings of media personalities.
> Canon law presumes that we must not advocate disobedience to
>legitimate
>requests from bishops or the Pope. Those requests that are sinful
>must
>certainly be disobeyed. You should know this by now.
>
I knwo a lot more than you do evidently. I know the difference, for
instance, in personal conscience and the ravings of political demagogues.
John Medaille
At 09:41 PM 12/26/97 -0600, DCDUREL wrote:
>John Medaille wrote
>>however, before she can urge others to disobedience, she must have more
>>than her private conscience on which to rely.
>
>I disagree, since by definition a true conscience of a Christian must use
>God's laws, as taught by the Church as a standard of right and wrong.
>
>"Progressives" or dissidents have a false idea of conscience in which
>each person's private reason is used to determine the moral goodness
>of an act, and this private reason is put equal to or above God's laws.
>Thus, they would then use this false idea of conscience to justify
>disobeying the
>Church.
Trouble is, I don't think the "dissidents" would disagree. And if MT has
urged disobedience, is she not a "dissident"? Every person who dissents
does so, I think, because they cannot within their own conscience reconcile
God's law and the Church's teaching. It sounds to me as if you are saying
that "when *I* dissent, its well-formed, but when *they* dissent..." This
by itself strikes me as insufficient. MT has urged disobedience; she is
therefore a "dissenter". I am not sure her dissent is well thought out at
all. There has been little to show that the Cardinal's letter is heretical,
and only egregious error could justify such dissent. Mere disagreement with
the Cardinal's approach to liturgy (which, btw, I share) is insufficient
for so great a step.
>
> >Your conscience is binding on you alone; you cannot
>>urge it on others.
>
>Again I disagree. Thus, I can certainly advocate for other people to
>oppose
>abortion, as my conscience, as informed by
>God's binding laws tells me that it violates God's laws against murder.
But I seriously doubt that your grounds for urging it on others is that it
violates your conscience. Rather, you wish to show others why it should
violate their's.
>
>>Yes but the question is how to determine what is sinful. I don't care for
>>the good Cardinal's letter; but that's a long leap from calling it sinful.
>
>That is debatable. But my point was that if it was sinful, then Mother
>Angelica certainly had the dute to tell others to disobey that letter.
Even Adoremus didn't go that far. Before you charge anybody with sin, you
need to have certain grounds. No one has presented such evidence.
Marida Ignacio
At 09:41 PM 12/26/97 -0600, DCDUREL <DCD...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>John Medaille wrote
>>however, before she can urge others to disobedience, she must have more
>>than her private conscience on which to rely.
>
>I disagree, since by definition a true conscience of a Christian must use
>God's laws, as taught by the Church as a standard of right and wrong.
>
>"Progressives" or dissidents have a false idea of conscience in which
>each person's private reason is used to determine the moral goodness
>of an act, and this private reason is put equal to or above God's laws.
>Thus, they would then use this false idea of conscience to justify
>disobeying the
>Church.
Then you and JohnM are in agreement afterall.
Moreover, I agree with you both. There is a need for PROPER
formation of conscience in accordance to Church teaching FIRST
before we are "a-okey" in obeying our conscience.
Just take for example a malformed conscience telling an individual
to commit murder. Obviously, the individual must NOT follow such
a malformed conscience.
---
___ ___
(__ \/ ) His Peace through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Marida
* )XxXx/
* | / "Human-kind: Where protection of valuable life starts and
* ) / takes off."
* \/ Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you..."
* http://www.netcom.com/~mdmiguel/simonpure.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/3373/
Ed Faulk
Somehow, given the terminology that people are employing, there seems to be a
great deal of misunderstanding regarding this event. The offense committed by
Mother Anglica is not one of heresy, it was a violation of canon law. Period.
The maximum punishment possible under this canon is the interdict, not
excommunication. In the instant case, all Cardinal Mahony asked for (and which
he has yet to receive) is an UNQUALIFIED apology for questioning the Cardinal's
belief in the Real Presence. This Mother has not yet done. She made a qualified
apology for her reaction to the LETTER, but did not retract her statements
about the Cardinal.
Deacon Ed
----------
> From: Robert Mader <rma...@INTERCONN.NET>
> To: CATH...@AMERICAN.EDU
> Subject: Re: Mother Angelica vs. Cardinal Mahony
> Date: Friday, December 26, 1997 11:08 PM
>
> I was once told by a young man (probably a Heretic) that
> "God doesn't judge a person by a single page in his life -
> but by the contents of the Whole Book."
>
> If this is a true statement, then surely the Church could
> do no less concerning Mother Angelica. An open apology should
> be sufficient. Branding her a Heretic - which once led to a
> burning at the stake - would be a little excessive I believe.
> And very stupid.
>
> Bob M.
CFL
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997, Ron Blevins wrote:
> This is a good point. Would you would wear blue jeans to court, would
> you wear them to your daughter's wedding? Actually I think wearing a
> pair of clean blue jeans, with a tucked in shirt and combed hair and
> clean hands would be okay. But some people don't even do that!
Jesus had words about those who were concerned with outward
appearances.
Mike Harrison
j...@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~jmh
Toronto Canada
**********************************************************************
* + Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam + *
**********************************************************************
Ron Blevins
Whew! The more I find out, the harder it is to defend Mother Angelica.
But we can and should pray for an acceptable resolution to the problem.
Theresa
Dwayne K. Lanclos
In article <19971129.15113...@juno.com>, Martin E Fontenot
<fri...@JUNO.COM> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:21:04 EST Jim Groark <JimG...@AOL.COM> writes:
>>It's been my unfortunate experience that the churches that go in for
>>that
>>sort of thing are also the ones where the extraordinary Eucharistic
>>Ministers look like they slept under their car the night before.
>>
>heck this means? I have held hands for the Our Father at parishes from
>Kentucky to Costa Rica, and held up my hands for it in many another. I
>never noticed anyone with oil stains distributing the Eucharist - but
>then again, it would not have bothered me if I had.
What does it mean? Nothing. It is a logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument:
Holding hands at Mass is stupid because the churches that go for that sort of
thing have Eucharistic Ministers that look like homeless people.
----
dwayne lanc...@flash.net
"Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."
DCDUREL
>No, the Wanderer crowd is a group, like the NCR crowd, who have a
>political agenda and demand the Church warp itself out of its shape to
>agree with them. Their constand defence, for example, of the right wing
>regime of El Salvador, even when it led to the murder of an Archbishop,
>numerous clergy, and way too many lay brothers and sisters, their desent
>from teachings of bishops on the matter of social justice, etc declare
>that they will only buy into cafeteria Catholicism which upholds their
>political slant.
>
>Cardinal Mahoney is very much a defender of orthodoxy, just not
>republican orthodoxy.
Hardly correct. The Wanderer never defended the murder of
an Archbishop, clergy or lay brothers and sisters. Just because some
support a political government does not mean they support those
who abuse their powers in the goverment. I certainly support my country
but I don't support those politicians when they violate the laws of God,
such as
Clinton's promotion of abortion, etc.
And the those at the Wanderer can certainly dissent from the
bishops teachings on social justice when the bishops teachings
are not in union with the Pope.
After all in his encyclical, "Centesimus Annus,
Pope John Paul II decries the "malfunctions and defects" of
the welfare state because it "leads to a loss of human energies and an
inordinate increase in public agencies which are dominated more by
bureaucratic
ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients" and "are
accompanied
by an enormous increase in spending." Social needs "are best understood and
satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to
those in
need."
DCDUREL
John Medaille wrote
>Trouble is, I don't think the "dissidents" would disagree. And if MT has
>urged disobedience, is she not a "dissident"? Every person who dissents
>does so, I think, because they cannot within their own conscience reconcile
>God's law and the Church's teaching.
Incorrect. Dissidents, by definition dissent from the teachings of the
Church.
They claim that they are following their conscience. But, by the Church's
definition of conscience they would have to accept Church teachings
as binding on their conscience. Since they reject Church teachings, they
are actually NOT following their conscience.
< It sounds to me as if you are saying
>that "when *I* dissent, its well-formed, but when *they* dissent..." This
>by itself strikes me as insufficient. MT has urged disobedience; she is
>therefore a "dissenter". I am not sure her dissent is well thought out at
>all. There has been little to show that the Cardinal's letter is heretical,
>and only egregious error could justify such dissent. Mere disagreement with
>the Cardinal's approach to liturgy (which, btw, I share) is insufficient
>for so great a step.
The Cardinal does not have to be heretical. All he has to do
is ask Catholics to do something opposed to the teaching of
the Church. If the Church teaches that NO ONE is supposed to
change the liturgy, doesn't a request that Catholics gather around
the altar force them into a practice unapproved by the Church?
DCDUREL
>Cardinal Mahoney never required anyone do anything sinful. MOther
>Angelica is not mother to those who watch her, she is just a t v
>personality.
Since when are Catholics supposed disobey the directives
of the Church (which specifies that no changes to
the liturgy are to be made) and gather around the altar?
>The Tradition of the Catholic CHurch is that anyone trying to remove
>someone from rightful obedience to their bishop is promoting dissent.
>The Roman Catholics of Los Angeles owe to Cardinal Mahoney their
>obedience. To try to remove them from him one has to leave Catholic
>Tradition.
She was not trying to remove someone from their rightful
obedience to a bishop, because in this case he didn't have
a right to change the liturgy.
>
>>excommunicated? Of course not. It is Catholic Church teaching that
>>we are
>>never to obey anyone who requires us to sin. If Mother Angelica
>>thought
>>that Mahony required Catholics to sin by obeying his directive, then
>>she was
>>certainly right is conveying that this particular directive should be
>>disobeyed. Whether her judgment of the directive was correct or not
>
>No, she was not right. She is not a competent authority. She is only a T
>V talk show host. When a synod of Catholic Bishops declare Cardinal
>Mahoney to be in heresy, or the Patriarch of Rome does so, then Mother
>Angelica or you and I, for that matter may concur. We may not take it
>upon ourselves.
Cardinal Mahony did not have to be in heresy for Catholics to disobey
him. All he had to do was request that Catholics DO something
opposed to the teaching of the Church. Heresy was not involved.
>>is a
>>different story. But, she certainly has the right to advocate
>>disobedience
>>to a particular directive that her conscience has determined is
>>sinful,
>
>No. She may not any more than the Call to Action crowd may do so. That
>is not the manner in which we are to behave as Catholics. She is
>promoting dissent.
>
Incorrect. Call to Action advocated disobedience to a Bishop who
was FOLLOWING Church teachings. Mahony requested Catholics
do something that OPPOSED to what the Church taught.
Frankly, I am glad there is someone who has the courage to
tell Catholics they don't have to follow unauthorized changes
to the liturgy.
Martin E Fontenot
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 17:22:36 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
writes:
>I have said, I do not mind the sign of peace, shaking hands, looking
>someone in the eye and wishing them peace of Christ. It's perfectly
>okay. But shaking hands is customary between adults. Holding hands,
>unless with a spouse, lover or ones child is not customary among
>adults.
PErhaps it should be.
Martin E Fontenot
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 19:26:52 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
writes:
>This is a good point. Would you would wear blue jeans to court, would
>you wear them to your daughter's wedding? Actually I think wearing a
>pair of clean blue jeans, with a tucked in shirt and combed hair and
>clean hands would be okay. But some people don't even do that!
I wore Blue jeans at my own wedding!
I usually don't at court if I am testifying since some judges will put
you in jail for that (which makes them, in my opinion, jerks ). I wore
Corderoy to my daughter's wedding.
I have distributed communion in a very tacky piece of burlap...so what's
wrong with blue jeans?
Martin E Fontenot
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 21:41:17 -0600 DCDUREL <DCD...@PRODIGY.NET> writes:
>John Medaille wrote
>>however, before she can urge others to disobedience, she must have
>more
>>than her private conscience on which to rely.
>
>I disagree, since by definition a true conscience of a Christian must
>use
>God's laws, as taught by the Church as a standard of right and wrong.
>
>"Progressives" or dissidents have a false idea of conscience in which
>each person's private reason is used to determine the moral goodness
>of an act, and this private reason is put equal to or above God's
>laws.
>Thus, they would then use this false idea of conscience to justify
>disobeying the
>Church.
Mother ANgelica was telling people to disobey the CHurch. In the Diocese
of Los Angeles Cardinal Mahoney is the Ordinary.
"where the bishop is, there is the Church".
>Your conscience is binding on you alone; you cannot
>>urge it on others.
>
>Again I disagree. Thus, I can certainly advocate for other people to
>oppose
>abortion, as my conscience, as informed by
>God's binding laws tells me that it violates God's laws against
>murder.
In Catholic terms you are not in disobedience to the Church in that
matter. You have the concurrence of your bishops in this.
What MOther ANgelica did was urge people against their bishop, against
the teaching of the Church.
>>Yes but the question is how to determine what is sinful. I don't care
>for
>>the good Cardinal's letter; but that's a long leap from calling it
>sinful.
>
>That is debatable. But my point was that if it was sinful, then
>Mother
>Angelica certainly had the dute to tell others to disobey that letter.
No, she had not the competence. She is not Metropolitan with a synod
behind her nor patriarch of the Roman Church. She had no right, no
competance and no part of Catholic Tradition in doing what she did. She
defied Catholic Tradition by dismissing a Shepherd in performing the
ministrations for his flock. She entered into the realm of dissident
behavior.
Pavel Chichikov
When I would read occasionally at the crypt Mass at the Shrine of
the Immaculate Conception someone advised me, politely, not to wear short
trousers when reading. It was during a DC summer.
I've told this story before, but I've seen a filmed Mass
celebrated in New Guinea. The worshippers wore not much more than bird
feathers, and not too many of them. It was one of the most reverential
Masses I've ever seen. Good vibes, though the unaccustomed fervor was a
little scary.
Pavel
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/~benison/pavel.html
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, CFL wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 1997, Ron Blevins wrote:
>
> > This is a good point. Would you would wear blue jeans to court, would
> > you wear them to your daughter's wedding? Actually I think wearing a
> > pair of clean blue jeans, with a tucked in shirt and combed hair and
> > clean hands would be okay. But some people don't even do that!
>
Ron Blevins
Okay whatever. Why bother to clean up, its only Church, no big deal.
Hope you don't mind those tank tops, backless dresses, short shorts, and
bare legs with sandals.
Theresa
Ron Blevins
Oh heck, I really don't care what you wear. Times have changed, this is
the 90's and as far as dress is concerned, anything goes. I think the
causual dress at church has a lot to do with the fashion trends of the
times. In the 50's we still wore white gloves and hats to Church in the
summertime. In the future we may all dress like they do on Star Treck.
(which would be cool)
Yet I do prefer to dress up just a little for Church, it seems more
fitting. But that's just me. I have worn blue jeans on occasion too.
It's not important enough to argue about.
Theresa
Martin E Fontenot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 19:26:52 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
> writes:
> >This is a good point. Would you would wear blue jeans to court,
> would
> >you wear them to your daughter's wedding? Actually I think wearing a
> >pair of clean blue jeans, with a tucked in shirt and combed hair and
> >clean hands would be okay. But some people don't even do that!
>
> I wore Blue jeans at my own wedding!
>
> I usually don't at court if I am testifying since some judges will put
>
> you in jail for that (which makes them, in my opinion, jerks ). I
> wore
> Corderoy to my daughter's wedding.
>
> I have distributed communion in a very tacky piece of burlap...so
> what's
> wrong with blue jeans?
>
Ron Blevins
Perhaps. ( I'm getting wishy washy these days) <g>
Theresa
Martin E Fontenot wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 17:22:36 -0600 Ron Blevins <iima...@ONRAMP.NET>
> writes:
> >I have said, I do not mind the sign of peace, shaking hands, looking
> >someone in the eye and wishing them peace of Christ. It's perfectly
> >okay. But shaking hands is customary between adults. Holding hands,
> >unless with a spouse, lover or ones child is not customary among
> >adults.
>
> PErhaps it should be.
>