Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Why Don’t Priests Follow Rubrics? Fr. Z Cheerfully Rants.


ToJesusMyHeart

Is Fr. Z correct?  

16 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Agape had an entire history before making it into the New Testament. OUR Tradition, Christian Tradition is as much mine as anyone else's, imo invaldily, reads agape in ways that "make a great pretense of religion, but deny its power" according 2 Timothy 3:5. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/02/why-dont-priests-follow-rubrics-fr-z-cheerfully-rants/

 

"The rubrics of the older Mass are a powerful leash indeed. When a priest obeys the rubrics of the older form of Mass, he is kept under tight control. He cannot impose too much of himself on the Mass and on the congregation.


On top of that, the mania of turning altars around – in no way asked for or required by the Council – poured gasoline on already fired up priestly pride."

 

I want to know your thoughts.

 

+JMJ

 


Sorry for derailing your thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agape had an entire history before making it into the New Testament. OUR Tradition, Christian Tradition is as much mine as anyone else's, imo invaldily, reads agape in ways that "make a great pretense of religion, but deny its power" according 2 Timothy 3:5. :)

 


And the point about the extra-biblical usage of the word agape is that it was applied to what husbands felt for their wives, parents for their children, etc. Paul did not invent the word, nor do I think the precision of usages Christianity has come up with necessarily relate back to 1st century intent, rather I think it was a capitulation to the fact that even though we are to be dead men, and to be supernaturally good, only vehicles for Christ to live his life in/through us--we are still in the flesh. Still bound and determined to be our haateful little chimpanzee selves even though we claim to have put on Christ. Much easier to spiritualize a perfectly good word than to get a wicked man to act like Jesus.

Edited by Evangetholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS


And the point about the extra-biblical usage of the word agape is that it was applied to what husbands felt for their wives, parents for their children, etc. Paul did not invent the word, nor do I think the precision of usages Christianity has come up with necessarily relate back to 1st century intent, rather I think it was a capitulation to the fact that even though we are to be dead men, and to be supernaturally good, only vehicles for Christ to live his life in/through us--we are still in the flesh. Still bound and determined to be our haateful little chimpanzee selves even though we claim to have put on Christ. Much easier to spiritualize a perfectly good word than to get a wicked man to act like Jesus.

 


No, no, no. You didn't even read the articles I quoted or linked did you?

 

[A]ny strong affection, closeness, or devotion to things or persons. The Greeks distinguished four types of love: storge, philia, eros, and agape.

 

Storge,
familial love
, is a word for the bond that exists between one who loves
and persons, animals, and the things that surround him. It is
compatible with quite a bit of taken-for-grantedness or even of hatred
at times.

 

Philia pertains to friends, freely chosen because of mutual compatibility and common values.

 

Eros
is passion,
not only of a sexual nature, but also of an aesthetic or
spiritual nature, for what is conceived of as supremely beautiful and
desirable.

 

Agapic love is manifested when one person has much to give to
another more needy. It is generous self-donation without concern for
reward.

Such distinctions become especially important in discernments about marriage, because the strength of eros
love may blind one to the absence of ther types of love needed to
experience a good Christian bond that, with God’s grace, can endure
"till death do us part."

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-the-church-define-love

Edited by IcePrincessKRS
Link to comment
Share on other sites


No, no, no. You didn't even read the articles I quoted or linked did you?

 

[A]ny strong affection, closeness, or devotion to things or persons. The Greeks distinguished four types of love: storge, philia, eros, and agape.

 

Storge,
familial love
, is a word for the bond that exists between one who loves
and persons, animals, and the things that surround him. It is
compatible with quite a bit of taken-for-grantedness or even of hatred
at times.

 

Philia pertains to friends, freely chosen because of mutual compatibility and common values.

 

Eros
is passion,
not only of a sexual nature, but also of an aesthetic or
spiritual nature, for what is conceived of as supremely beautiful and
desirable.

 

Agapic love is manifested when one person has much to give to
another more needy. It is generous self-donation without concern for
reward.

Such distinctions become especially important in discernments about marriage, because the strength of eros
love may blind one to the absence of ther types of love needed to
experience a good Christian bond that, with God’s grace, can endure
"till death do us part."

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-does-the-church-define-love

No I didn't read your articles. I'm telling you that the word agape in particular has been spiritualized to Hades when that wasn't a needful thing. I'm telling you that none of these words include the potential for abusive speech. I am coming very close to telling you that you and the other Christian women here who are criticisng this priest are violating more than the reasonable understanding of what the inclusive English  word "love" mean, but you are also sewing dissension and confusion in your church by not abiding the biblical injunction that you learn in silence and submission (which seems to include not pettily picking apart presbyters). I do not mean for this to sound as harsh as it probably does, but I do not know how else to say it.

Edited by Evangetholic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS

No I didn't read your articles. I'm telling you that the word agape in particular has been spiritualized to Hades when that wasn't a needful thing. I'm telling you that none of these words include the potential for abusive speech. I am coming very close to telling you that you and the other Christian women here who are criticisng this priest are violating more than the reasonable understanding of what the inclusive English  word "love" mean, but you are also sewing dissension and confusion in your church by not abiding the biblical injunction that you learn in silence and submission (which seems to include not pettily picking apart presbyters). I do not mean for this to sound as harsh as it probably does, but I do not know how else to say it.

 

You are defining words wrong. Agape doesn't mean what you say it means. It never has. And I'm done talking to you in this thread. Peace, bro. :like:
 

Edited by IcePrincessKRS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eagle_eye222001

After 4-something pages, the point has been defended that Fr. Z is able to give his opinions in such form....

 

so the the next contention point to be resolved is Circle churches VS. Rectangle churches.........and GO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IcePrincessKRS Are you objecting factually to the idea that agape was used to describe the kinds of love I listed?



Would you like to see an example of these usages, or (and it's understandable if you feel this way, many Christians do) are you saying that how it was used outside of the Bible has no relevance to what it means in the Bible (please answer this--and please do not think I'm being purposefully uncharitable)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a fun thread...

 

Anyhow, Nihil, that depends on what your definition of private Mass means canonically.  Do you mean the canon definition of celebrating it alone by oneself, or the definition of celebrating it with a select congregation (such as the priest's family members)?  Either way, wouldn't broadcasting it on the internet for anyone to view, invalidate the nature of it being "private", because the priest is no longer alone, nor is his select congregation the only ones "present"? Or would that mean that the internet population watching is that select congregation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...