There is not time for bishops and cardinals to deal with the liturgy
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,260
    When they have much, much more important issues to spend time on, such as listening to and pontificating on radical student demands:

    http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=58184
  • jczarn
    Posts: 64
    I'm not sure I understand why you see the views expressed as being radical? Seems like the archdiocese and the college made a prudent and even-handed decision.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,146
    The synod of the Syro-Malabar bishops has said yoga is physical exercise, not a medium to attain divine experience. http://www.madhyamam.com/en/kerala/2017/apr/4/yoga-not-medium-attain-divine-experience-syro-malabar-church These guys live with yoga on a daily basis. By examining such things, it seems the bishops are merely doing their jobs to instruct the faithful.

    The bishops have dealt with the liturgy - 3rd edition of the Roman Missal, etc. Not everyone likes the conclusions they reached, but deal with it they did.
    Thanked by 1Olivier
  • Notwithstanding Charles' valid observation, a goodly number of bishops are 'on record' (not to mention countelss priests) as being 'not a liturgist', and therefore leave liturgy up to this new species of 'liturgists' who really aren't liturgists at all, but stage managers for 'assemby' oriented 'liturgy'.

    A bishop or a priest who isn't a liturgist and isn't in love with liturgy has no business being either priest or bishop. None at all. The one and only thing that distinguishes priest and bishop alike from everyone else is their sacerdotal ordination, an ordination which inherently centres on liturgy. But for that they are no different from anyone else. Not a whit. To the degree that they function primarily as 'administrators' rather than theologians and liturgists is the degree to which the Christian religion is impoverished immeasurably.
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 276
    Hey that's my school. Where we can't have a Latin Mass for fear of people not understanding, so the fear of liturgy is equivalent to fear of yoga. One more year.

    Link is redirecting, Charles, would you please try to fix it? I'd really like to read it.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • "Liturgist" is stupid. Read the books. Do the red. Say the black. We have no problems!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 8,146
    The link worked earlier today. Copy and paste this into a browser - I used Chrome.
    http://www.madhyamam.com/en/kerala/2017/apr/4/yoga-not-medium-attain-divine-experience-syro-malabar-church
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 164
    A bishop or a priest who isn't a liturgist and isn't in love with liturgy has no business being either priest or bishop. None at all. The one and only thing that distinguishes priest and bishop alike from everyone else is their sacerdotal ordination, an ordination which inherently centres on liturgy.


    Baptism, confession, anointing of the sick ... can all happen in the context of public worship. Often, though, they don't. They are done privately. And they are all the work of a priest.

    Preaching usually happens within liturgy. Teaching, not so much, perhaps not at all. Both valid parts of the job of a priest or bishop.

    Canon law also says that there are a number of other jobs which a priest, and only a priest, can do. For instance administering a parish. (Some people would argue that you don't actually need to be ordained to do 90% of the administration work ... but I don't think that many people who disagree with canon law will be found here!)