Cardinal Raymond Burke on Abortion, Extraordinary Form, Communion in the Hand, Pro Multis
@tilarick,
'Latin' does not define the Extraordinary Form, since the Novus Ordo can also be said in Latin. With regards Vatican II, one has to go back to what Vatican II actually taught, instead of a popular conception of what it taught. Here's what the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium states:
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to …More
@tilarick,
'Latin' does not define the Extraordinary Form, since the Novus Ordo can also be said in Latin. With regards Vatican II, one has to go back to what Vatican II actually taught, instead of a popular conception of what it taught. Here's what the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium states:
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
54.... Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."
"Back to the people" is also not the intention, since the reference point is facing away from the people but towards Christ in the Liturgical East (the sun symbolizing the Son). The people pray together with the priest and focus together on Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
'Latin' does not define the Extraordinary Form, since the Novus Ordo can also be said in Latin. With regards Vatican II, one has to go back to what Vatican II actually taught, instead of a popular conception of what it taught. Here's what the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium states:
"36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
54.... Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."
"Back to the people" is also not the intention, since the reference point is facing away from the people but towards Christ in the Liturgical East (the sun symbolizing the Son). The people pray together with the priest and focus together on Christ in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Why TFP is Wrong? Why TFP is Wrong? The TFPs are not Catholics!
I understand where the author is coming from, but I think a few things need to be cleared up here.
In the Early Church the people did share all that they had, but this was on a voluntary basis, not enforced by the State as in Communism. I do agree that greed is bad, though.
I believe the right to property is indeed a Catholic idea, found in Leo XIII's encyclical, Rerum Novarum. It's part of the …More
I understand where the author is coming from, but I think a few things need to be cleared up here.
In the Early Church the people did share all that they had, but this was on a voluntary basis, not enforced by the State as in Communism. I do agree that greed is bad, though.
I believe the right to property is indeed a Catholic idea, found in Leo XIII's encyclical, Rerum Novarum. It's part of the principle of subsidiarity, which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authority. This encylical is where G. K. Chesterton - that Catholic apostle of common sense - got his idea of Distributionism from. So it is a Catholic idea. It's perfectly compatible with voluntary sharing of everything within a community, but not with Communism as expounded by Marx (which is also very atheistic and anti-Catholic).
I don't agree that individuals ought to own guns, either, but I think the idea comes from the same principle of subsidiarity, in trying to prevent a monolithic super-state from becoming a Big Brother. I think, if I remember rightly, the founding fathers of America put it in the Constitution for this reason. Perhaps a compromise would be to have small communities having an arms cache that's locked up and accessible in emergencies. So the issue is mainly a practical one. In any case, the idea is, I think, morally neutral - it depends on its proper use.
In the Early Church the people did share all that they had, but this was on a voluntary basis, not enforced by the State as in Communism. I do agree that greed is bad, though.
I believe the right to property is indeed a Catholic idea, found in Leo XIII's encyclical, Rerum Novarum. It's part of the principle of subsidiarity, which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest competent authority. This encylical is where G. K. Chesterton - that Catholic apostle of common sense - got his idea of Distributionism from. So it is a Catholic idea. It's perfectly compatible with voluntary sharing of everything within a community, but not with Communism as expounded by Marx (which is also very atheistic and anti-Catholic).
I don't agree that individuals ought to own guns, either, but I think the idea comes from the same principle of subsidiarity, in trying to prevent a monolithic super-state from becoming a Big Brother. I think, if I remember rightly, the founding fathers of America put it in the Constitution for this reason. Perhaps a compromise would be to have small communities having an arms cache that's locked up and accessible in emergencies. So the issue is mainly a practical one. In any case, the idea is, I think, morally neutral - it depends on its proper use.