Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[qfnol31]

[quote]Heteronomy - this is a way of saying that everything God says is good just because He says it. We follow Him and His teachings just because He said to. Too far in this direction and we don't even have a say in our salvation because God says who gets saved. It creates a tyrannical approach to God in a way, if we're not careful. If you go far enough you'll run into John Calvin. This was sadly sometimes the tendency about 40 years ago and can be today.

Autonomy - everything we say is correct. There is no higher truth (for perfect autonomy) that we must follow. Everything is relative to ourselves. Not too far in this direction is Martin Luther. Sadly this is seen often today, even amongst the laity.

If you look at these two objectively you see that they are two sides of the same coin. Both are voluntaristic (you take either God or yourself, put Him or you in a vacuum, and then take whatever is said to be absolute truth for yourself). Both of them seperate God and good; one makes good subordinate to God, the other makes good subordinate to self. Both are limiting in the way that they view man. Oftentimes people will try to escape the one and end up in the other. They miss participative theonomy completely.

Participative Theonomy says that there is a God and He is the highest good. He tells us what we do because it is good for us. His teachings aren't just arbitrary, they are truly what is best for us. There is an individuality here (lacked in heteronomy) whereby we can still participate as ourselves, but it is not an individualism (found in autonomy), where there is an objective truth that is present in our lives, but one that is good for us rather than just present. This good of God is an integral part of ourselves. It is first given to us by Natural Law, in which we participate in Eternal Law of God. Following this leads us to an Authentic Freedom, that is really a freedom from soon to do good.[/quote]

For more in depth, go here: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=22679"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=22679[/url]


I don't want this to be a debate, but knowing full well what's capable of happening on the phorum, I will post this here. This is actually an argument why personal prayer isn't the only necessarily thing (though that's very implicit).




Ever heard this phrase (the title) before? If you say SSPX, I would say that's the first place I heard it. It's also something I'm starting to believe. One of the easiest ways for heresies to seep into what we believe has to do with how we pray. SSPX holds that the Mass can cause problems today, and is to blame for many of the autonomous beliefs held by the laity. I agree that this can be the case, that the Mass can influence what we believe...


But! I believe that this should be the case for all Masses. That means that this must be true for the Tridentine Mass. This must be true for the Novus Ordo. This must be true for the Divine Liturgies. And this must hold true for all Protestant and non-Christian forms of prayer. And it is! The erring towards heteronomy was probably right for it's day. But it is not how the Church can remain! Her first and foremost goal is for Truth, absolutely.

Before the Council of Trent the tendency was towards autonomy, the belief of the individual. This is what Luther taught (somewhat). This council was set forth to combat this (it is essentially a heresy) and did so by helping to form a Mass. This is the Tridentine Mass, promulgated by Pius V. This was an excellent thing, for it caused a unification in beliefs. It did many marvelous works in the Church, which should never be denied! However, this Mass eventually went to far and people began to confuse Doctrine and Discipline. People started falling under the dome of heteronomy and forgetting the why and participation. To continue on this path is to continue towards a tyrannical God. The Council of Trent was not wrong, and is not wrong today. It is what helped combat the idea of Protestantism and other wrong beliefs.

Then comes the Second Vatican Council. This is a council started as the faithful begin to heads more towards heteronomy, which is something that eventually had to be corrected. Also, there are many other wrong teachings outside of the Church that must be overcome. It was not possible for the Council of Trent to reach all of these. The Second Vatican Council helped with some of these difficulties. The Church was lifted more into the idea, the true idea, taught always by the Church, an idea that is like a virtue to two vices (heteronomy and autonomy), [i]participative theonomy[/i], a step begun by all the other councils, aided greatly by Trent, and added to more by Vatican II. There was a new Liturgy set forth to aid in this goal. This Liturgy was promugulgated by Paul VI. It adds a new dimension to the Church which could not have been realized with just the Tridentine Mass.

The Novus Ordo focuses on the participation of the faithful (though this is sometimes taken advantage of), which is desperately needed for [i]participative theonomy[/i]. The Tridentine Mass's main focus was more on the theonomy, which too is very necessary. That is why these two Masses [i]must[/i] coexist today. They give us something together which cannot be realized alone. They keep us straight when they work together. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger has taught, and obviously believe by John Paul II because he gave the indult for the Tridentine and will most likely soon be giving a universal indult for the Mass. These Masses together help the faithful realize the Mass. Don't deny their places, please! When the Mass is denied it's proper place, you get these branches (and schisms) such as SSPX, Protestantism, and other such ideas.

Now comes the question, what should be done today? To be honest, along with Ratzinger, I believe there should eventually be a reform of the Liturgy. The Liturgy cannot be changed right away for that would destroy it and could split the Church (which of course goes against Jesus in the Gospel). Eventually there should be a reform and a new Liturgy, that works in unison with the old Liturgies. This Liturgy must combine the best aspects of the two, giving a [i]participative theonomy[/i] approach, which is what the Church commands today. However, until that is possible, people need to stop taking the Liturgies for granted and try warping them to what they want them to be. This [i]Discipline[/i] of the Church must fit the times. That's how the Church has set it up and what she's always taught.

Now to take this further, the Liturgy must be something that doesn't turn people away. It must center on the Blessed Sacrament and the Sacrifice, which at times both current Liturgies miss. Only this way will we be able to bring the Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and schismatics back into the Church. We need a new Liturgy today because the faithful is starting to err towards autonomy, which is a natural phenomenon when trying to escape heteronomy. That's how you can tell when something's off base. You look at the result of [i]participative theonomy[/i] and see either heteronomy or autonomy arising, and you know that the opposite was there prior. The problem is, people in autonomy or heteronomy are very blinded, and can't see [i]participative theonomy[/i]. This closes them off to the Truth. It's why it's so difficult to reconcile Protestantism. SSPX holds that the Church is autonomous today with the Mass, but that's because heteronomy makes [i]participative theonomy[/i] look autonomous. That's also how you can tell that neither are in the right spot, because they both think the middle is the other. To a vicious person (a person full of vice, who thinks it's virtue), virtue looks like the other vice. The only difference though, in both cases, is that [i]participative theonomy[/i] (like a virtue) is not on the same field as heteronomy or autonomy. It's better, and so it's on a higher plain.

Edited to make this easier to read.

Edited November 7, 2004 by qfnol31

[God Conquers]

Good post Q.

The Catholic Church, champion of the Via Media.

Every heresy and schism is an attempt to limit the faith. In teh same way, the liturgy must be reflective of the universality and inclusion, rooted in orthodoxy and the sacrifice of Christ.

Good show.

[popestpiusx]

qfnol, I can't sufficiently address what you are asking here right now. E-mail me if you can and we can futher discuss the matter at some later date. I am quite tired an busy right now. But it is worth discussing.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 7 2004, 02:44 AM'] Now to take this further, the Liturgy must be something that doesn't turn people away. It must center on the Blessed Sacrament and the Sacrifice, which at times both current Liturgies miss. Only this way will we be able to bring the Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and schismatics back into the Church. We need a new Liturgy today because the faithful is starting to err towards autonomy, which is a natural phenomenon when trying to escape heteronomy. [/quote]
How do you (not neccesarily you personally -- in general, as well) propose "changing" the Liturgy to accomplish this? Just curious.


Good post, too.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 8 2004, 11:32 PM'] qfnol, I can't sufficiently address what you are asking here right now. E-mail me if you can and we can futher discuss the matter at some later date. I am quite tired an busy right now. But it is worth discussing. [/quote]
LoL, I posted this in another thread, but did you ever receive an email from me?

Amber, for your question, I'm not sure yet...but when I have an idea, I'll let you know.

[popestpiusx]

I got the e-mail. I'm up for it.

[qfnol31]

Me too.

[cmotherofpirl]

The Liturgy will be reformed again in the future. As Cardinal Arinze stated it is not something kept n a Vatican refrigerator.

[qfnol31]

Yep, I'm glad too.

[CatholicforChrist]

Since the law of prayer is the law of faith, is it not true that this prayer can either incite orthodox faith or heresy? I would say so. With that being said, let us consider the following (take it as you will):

Let us pray for God's ancient people, the Jews, the first to hear his word: for greater understanding between Christian and Jew; for the removal of our blindness and bitterness of heart; that God will grant us grace to be faithful to his covenant and to grow in the love of his name. (Silent prayer.) Lord, hear us. Lord, graciously hear us. Lord God of Abraham, bless the children of your covenant, both Jew and Christian; take from us all blindness and bitterness of heart, and hasten the coming of your kingdom, when Israel shall be saved, the Gentiles gathered in, and we shall dwell together in mutual love and peace under the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.


Wow....wow, that's all I can say...wow.


"Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis : Ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum ut et ipsi agnoscent Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
[color=red]Non respondetur Amen, nec dicitur oremus aut Flectamus genua, aut Levate, sed statim dicitur:[/color] Omnipotens sempiterne Deus qui etiam judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis; exaudi preces nostras quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus, ut agnita veritatis tuae luce quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum nostrum Jesun Christum Filium tuum, qui tecurn vivit et regnat in unitate Spirtus Sancti Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen."

That ^ is more like it.

[CatholicforChrist]

Cmom, do you believe that the Liturgy is an "ever-changing" aspect of the Faith? If so, this is problematic considering Lex orandi, lex credendi. Or do you believe that its 'organic development' must end at some point? Thanks, God bless.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Nov 11 2004, 11:00 AM'] "Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis : Ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum ut et ipsi agnoscent Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.
[color=red]Non respondetur Amen, nec dicitur oremus aut Flectamus genua, aut Levate, sed statim dicitur:[/color] Omnipotens sempiterne Deus qui etiam judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis; exaudi preces nostras quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus, ut agnita veritatis tuae luce quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eumdem Dominum nostrum Jesun Christum Filium tuum, qui tecurn vivit et regnat in unitate Spirtus Sancti Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen."

That ^ is more like it. [/quote]
In English:

"Let us pray, also, for the faithless Jews, that our Lord and God may take away the veil from their hearts, so that they, too, may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let him not respond: Amen, nor let him say oremus, nor Flectamus genua, nor Levate, but immediately let him say: Almighty, eternal God, Who repellest not even Jewish perfidy from Thy mercy, hearken to our prayers which we make in behalf of the blindness of that people, that, recognizing the light of Thy truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen."

(The translation of the rubrics was my own, so it may be a bit off.)

Edited November 11, 2004 by CatholicCrusader

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Nov 11 2004, 09:05 AM'] Cmom, do you believe that the Liturgy is an "ever-changing" aspect of the Faith? If so, this is problematic considering Lex orandi, lex credendi. Or do you believe that its 'organic development' must end at some point? Thanks, God bless. [/quote]
As it it Doctrine, it would be allowed to be open to change. My point is that if we have a Liturgy as we did before, or as we do now, and we try to make it one or the other, we could end up in the heresies of heteronomy or autonomy kinda fast. That's if Lex orandi, lex credendi is a true argument.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 11 2004, 03:38 PM'] As it it Doctrine, it would be allowed to be open to change. My point is that if we have a Liturgy as we did before, or as we do now, and we try to make it one or the other, we could end up in the heresies of heteronomy or autonomy kinda fast. That's if Lex orandi, lex credendi is a true argument. [/quote]
How is it a heresy to say: there should be no Novus Ordo, and we should go back to the Traditional Mass? That would necessarily be saying that everyone who lived before the Novus Ordo was in heresy since they didn't have the Novus Ordo nor want... wouldn't it?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 01:47 PM'] How is it a heresy to say: there should be no Novus Ordo, and we should go back to the Traditional Mass? That would necessarily be saying that everyone who lived before the Novus Ordo was in heresy since they didn't have the Novus Ordo nor want... wouldn't it? [/quote]
The heresy would be in denying the right of the Magisterium to change it if there was one.

And yes, I'm saying that before Vatican II, people were erring on the side of heteronomy, as today they're erring on the side of autonomy. You'll have to read this whole post and the whole post of Vatican II and participative theonomy.