tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205973525389434155.post4526880608605247377..comments2024-03-20T11:41:40.379+10:00Comments on Neocatechumenal Way - An Insider's View: My Response to Anonymous PosterDianahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13613247477141929635noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205973525389434155.post-40763474463401195962014-03-30T13:35:41.689+10:002014-03-30T13:35:41.689+10:00Cont.
6. Your argument to show the legitimacy of ...Cont.<br /><br />6. Your argument to show the legitimacy of the Way's Eucharistic practices by resorting to this concelebration argument (and the relevant GIRM instructions) is like fighting fire with diesel. Your argument is along the lines of "because we do something different to what is allowed, we will change the meaning of the language, so that what we do doesn't look so much like something that is not allowed". Brilliant! But futile, because what you do is still not allowed.<br /><br />7. Once again, you say "According to you, this concelebrated mass is not illicit, but the NCW (which holds a similar liturgy) is viewed as illicit." and then "My argument to you is this.....the Way's liturgy itself, with its slight modification, could not be illicit since it is very similar to the concelebrated mass." <br />In fact, it is entirely different to a concelebrated Mass, because lay people are not ordained priests and have no right to 'celebrate' Mass in the formal sense. The common priesthood of the people is not sufficient to conduct (celebrate) the Mass, which is why we need am ordained priest or bishop, and why lay people are not entitled to stand in the sanctuary and utter the words of the consecration.<br /><br />8. Of course a NCW Mass be concelebrated if there is more than one priest presiding or 'celebrating'.<br /><br />9. "Was it not in this light that the Early Church understood "concelebration" as pertaining to all Christians? " No, as you have pointed out "concelebration" in the early Church simply meant 'being present' or 'participating' in the Mass - whereas now concelebration has a formal, clear meaning that is understood by all (well, nearly all obviously.<br /><br />10. I recommend that you , and your readers should review the relationship between the common priesthood (of both clergy and laity) and the ministerial priesthood ( of clergy only). You might like to read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdflaity.htm<br /><br />"The characteristics which differentiate the ministerial priesthood of Bishops and Priests from the common priesthood of the faithful and consequently delineate the extent to which other members of the faithful cooperate with this ministry, may be summarized in the following fashion:<br /><br />a) the ministerial priesthood is rooted in the Apostolic Succession, and vested with "potestas sacra"(29) consisting of the faculty and the responsibility of acting in the person of Christ the Head and the Shepherd.(30)<br /><br />b) it is a priesthood which renders its sacred ministers servants of Christ and of the Church by means of authoritative proclamation of the Word of God, the administration of the sacraments and the pastoral direction of the faithful.(31)"<br /><br />In the meantime, please desist from this line of argument as you are embarrassing your brothers and leading others into error.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8205973525389434155.post-70423273437592816032014-03-30T13:35:26.326+10:002014-03-30T13:35:26.326+10:00I am surprised that, for a lawyer, you seem to hav...I am surprised that, for a lawyer, you seem to have trouble with formal and legislative texts.<br /><br />In any case I'll have a go at responding.<br /><br />1.Your purpose in quoting the GIRM and Eucharisticum Mysterium was clearly to suggest that references to the concelebration really can mean the involvement of the laity. As I said, of course the laity can attend and participate in concelebrated Masses, but not as "concelebrants" This is why the laity do not stand in the sanctuary and utter the words of consecration. So your assertion that the NCW Eucharistic practices can be justified by references to the GIRM is just plain wrong, as the GIRM clearly uses the verb 'concelebrate; in relation to the ordained clergy.<br /><br />2. You correctly quote me as saying that the definition of "concelebration" in the early Church is not relevant to the consideration of what "concelebration" means in the Church, and in the liturgical books now. Are you really going to argue against that? In any case you then go on to state: "I view all liturgies of the Catholic Church very beautiful, awe-inspiring, and worthy of respect regardless of how old it is. I do not regard them as irrelevant."<br />This is disingenuous - I did not say, or imply, that the liturgies of the early Church were irrelevant or not worthy of veneration, but simply that your assertion of what concelebrate means is plain wrong. You can, of course, choose to reject the Church's current position.<br /><br />3. I asked you where the NCW statutes say the Way celebrates Mass as the early Church did, and you provide this: <br />"5 "An itinerary of a catechumenal type, which follows all those phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism....<br /><br />It is inspired by various documents of the Holy See, including: <br />- chapter 4 of the RCIA [Part II: 4 of the 1988 US edition] which suggests an adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate for the conversion and maturation of faith even among baptized adults;....."<br /><br />Surely it is obvious to you that this does not satisfy my request. Your quote simply refers to the "phases which the catechumens in the early Church followed before receiving the sacrament of Baptism" which obviously cannot include the sacrament of the Eucharist, and "adapted use of the catechesis and certain rites proper to the catechumenate" which again explicitly excludes the Eucharist.<br /><br />4. I asked you to show one Catholic authority that agrees with your interpretation and ludicrous claim about the meaning of concelebration in the liturgical texts. You didn't do that. Rather you refer to a priest who thinks the Eucharistic practices of the Way are ok. So? I know a few of them too. Does this priest agree with your statements on concelebration? Please show me one person that does. I think I'll be waiting for a while.<br /><br />5. All the popes "blessings" of the way are of course predicated on the idea that the NCW will remain faithful to the teaching of the Church and obedient to Her instructions. Do you think the pope would define 'concelebration' as you do?<br /><br />to be cont.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com