Will the outcome of Synod XV affect liturgy and sacred music?

JulieColl

Considering the ancient maxim that lex credendi legem orandi statuat, do you think delegating to bishops' conferences the pastoral/doctrinal solutions to the questions of allowing Communion for the divorced/remarried and of ministry to homosexuals will have an effect on liturgy and sacred music?

(I'm sure there's a better way to construct that sentence, but that's the best I can do for the moment. More about the possibility of devolving doctrinal matters to bishops' conferences here.)

CharlesW

Life is short and worrying about such things is well above my pay grade. May God's will be done, whatever it happens to be.

Salieri

Julie: I think that that is a fait accompli. Cf.: Communion in the hand, "Extraordinary Ministers", the forced communion lines at the hands of ushers, the New Theology of the Eucharistic Meal, etc.

How much more can they screw things up?

Call me crazy if you want to (I'm sure some already do), but sometimes it seems like all of the awful innovations of the past fifty-odd years, were a way of preparing us to be ready to accept the things that you mention. We have been softened and the soil of our hearts readied to accept such foul seed, ready to bring forth brambles which choke out the Word.

JulieColl

It's true; I don't know how much more the OF can be tweaked and modified, but the realization is dawning that if pastoral solutions for the favored minorities (the divorced/remarried and homosexuals) are left up to bishops' conferences we may be looking at a whole new avalanche of liturgical changes to reflect the new theology, at least in those places where new doctrines and praxis are adopted.

So, here's another question: if there are bishops' conferences that allow Communion for the divorced and remarried and invent new ministries for gays, and they want to make some liturgical changes, e.g. new rites and ceremonies, changes to prayers, adoption of inclusionary language and gestures, etc., how will all this be regulated between the different conferences?

Also, what will happen if there are rogue bishops in a conference that don't want to go along with the rest of their conference? Will they be allowed doctrinal and liturgical autonomy?

Will we someday be looking at a situation where in Diocese A, anything goes, but in Diocese B, we still follow GIRM?

And, think about this-- what if it goes down to the parish level, and individual pastors are allowed the privilege of theological and liturgical self-determination?

I just don't see how, purely from an administrative, organizational perspective, having the Church suddenly shift to a decentralized model is going to work out. It's making my head spin.

tomjaw

Why would there be a change, Cardinal Nichols already has a Mass for Homosexuals, yes and they do come up hand in hand to Communion. I am sure he is not the only prelate / bishops that does this.

Fornicators, Adulterers... etc. they already receive Communion in most places no questions asked, apart from the fact that most of the congregation know who is committing adultery. When did anyone last hear about mortal sin? In the OF the Corpus Christi reading has been edited, etc.

A few old men in Rome are trying to solve yesterdays problem tomorrow. "By their fruits you will know them" well looking at the synod some of these bishops and cardinals are coming from diocese' that are heading for extinction, they have no fruit.

melofluent

The real deal-
It is now de rigeur at our joint for celebrants, at weddings and funerals only, to offer a brief caveat to the congregation after self-communication along the lines of "Those Catholics prepared to receive Holy Communion come forward." That is not said as it's "in the Missalette," at Sunday Masses. In either case, nary a word is said in a homily or elsewhere as to what, exactly, constitutes being "prepared." Crapshoot.

JulieColl

Oh my. I guess most of the innovations start in California and spread east. I still think they won't be able to resist the opportunity to create some new rites of initiation or blessing or whatever and celebrate in some way the official debut of sacrilegious Communion.

francis

"I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galatians 1:6-10

JulieColl:

They have been going down the slippery slope for years and now we will watch them slide off the cliff (Church).

Abbot Jonathan Coel

Here is a suggestion for your consideration. In some Eastern Orthodox churches, anyone that desires to receive communion (as well as any other sacrament), MUST meet with the pastor or his clerical priestly delegates, many times before hand to show / prove themselves bodily, spiritual and in all way fit to receive communion or a sacrament according to the historical and fundamental teaching and magisterium of the Church and GOD. If not, they are refused until such time they are "right" with GOD and His Church. In this way, you truly become a "known" member of a "shepherd's" flock. Then the full responsibility and authority rests squarely upon "your" pastor and his intimate knowledge of each member of his congregation.

You might say to me, "but some congregations are so large" or "well they can go to another church." Well as our churches should be a fore-shadowing of what is to come at the final celestial home coming and banquet, I would answer them in this manner to think upon that passage in the bible of the sheep and goats standing before Christ the King and Judge Eternal. "Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."

CharlesW

I have read, and can not provide any substantial proof, that those rites of "blessing" Julie mentions were performed in some local parishes in the later days of the Roman Empire. True? I don't know. I did read about a blessing ceremony for same-sex couples in Bulgaria centuries ago. True? Again, I can't prove or disprove it. There is nothing new under the sun, but the mistake many make is thinking that the last 100 years accurately reflects all that went before that time. It doesn't.

eft94530

delegating to bishops' conferences

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963-dec-4)
[...]
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:

A) General norms

22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided.
[...]

eft94530

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Lumen Gentium (1964-nov-21)
CHAPTER I
THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
[...]
8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church,
[...]
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,
[...]
CHAPTER III
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH
AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
[...]
23. This collegial union [...] For it is the duty of all bishops to promote and to safeguard the unity of faith and the discipline common to the whole Church, [...]
27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness [...] although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful.
[...]

eft94530

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Lumen Gentium (1964-nov-21)
APPENDIX
From the Acts of the Council*
'NOTIFICATIONES' GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964

A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a vote.

The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: "As is self-evident, the Council's text must always be interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all."

On this occasion the Theological Commission makes reference to its Declaration of March 6, 1964, the text of which we transcribe here:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

eft94530

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Lumen Gentium (1964-nov-21)

**The following was published as an appendix to the official Latin version of the Constitution on the Church.**

A preliminary note of explanation is being given to the Council Fathers from higher-authority, regarding the Modi bearing on Chapter III of the Schema de Ecclesia; the doctrine set forth in Chapter III ought to be explained and understood in accordance with the meaning and intent of this explanatory note.

Preliminary Note of Explanation

The Commission has decided to preface the assessment of the Modi with the following general observations.

1. "College" is not understood in a strictly juridical sense, that is as a group of equals who entrust their power to their president, but as a stable group whose structure and authority must be learned from Revelation. For this reason, in reply to Modus 12 it is expressly said of the Twelve that the Lord set them up "as a college or stable group." Cf. also Modus 53, c.

For the same reason, the words "Ordo" or "Corpus" are used throughout with reference to the College of bishops. The parallel between Peter and the rest of the Apostles on the one hand, and between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops on the other hand, does not imply the transmission of the Apostles' extraordinary power to their successors; nor does it imply, as is obvious, equality between the head of the College and its members, but only a proportionality between the first relationship (Peter-Apostles) and the second (Pope-bishops). Thus the Commission decided to write "pari ratione, " not "eadem ratione," in n. 22. Cf. Modus 57.

2. A person becomes a member of the College by virtue of Episcopal consecration and by hierarchical communion with the head of the College and with its members. Cf. n. 22, end of 1 1.

In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included. The word "functions [munera]" is used deliberately instead of the word "powers [potestates]," because the latter word could be understood as a power fully ready to act. But for this power to be fully ready to act, there must be a further canonical or juridical determination through the hierarchical authority. This determination of power can consist in the granting of a particular office or in the allotment of subjects, and it is done according to the norms approved by the supreme authority. An additional norm of this sort is required by the very nature of the case, because it involves functions [munera] which must be exercised by many subjects cooperating in a hierarchical manner in accordance with Christ's will. It is evident that this "communion" was applied in the Church's life according to the circumstances of the time, before it was codified as law.

For this reason it is clearly stated that hierarchical communion with the head and members of the church is required. Communion is a notion which is held in high honor in the ancient Church (and also today, especially in the East). However, it is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity. Hence the Commission, almost unanimously, decided that this wording should be used: "in hierarchical communion." Cf. Modus 40 and the statements on canonical mission (n. 24).

The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.

4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church's Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always "fully active [in actu pleno]"; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase "with the consent of its head" is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term "consent" suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word "only" takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.

It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss—specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
+ PERICLE FELICI
Titular Archbishop of Samosata
Secretary General of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council

JulieColl

Thanks, eft, for the targeted catechism lesson! I very much needed that, and it is a blessed relief to read measured, reasonable, serene church prose, like bedrock in times like this, though it makes the news of today even more troubling.

I found Fr. Hunwicke's comment on today's developments quite illuminating:

That . . . fellow Rosica, whose duties seem to include telling the Synod Fathers what they should think, says that the admission of the remarried divorced to Communion should be decided regionally. As Anglicans, our technical term for this was Provincial Autonomy. It's a brilliant way of perverting the Faith ... you get some perversion started in one place and then you rely on a combination of bullying and creep to spread it.

And CharlesW would be very pleased with the title of Fr. Hunwicke's blog post:

MORE BORING been there and done that

And I'm sure Francis Koerber is not oblivious to the fact that the "Provincial Autonomy" solution has emerged today, on Oct. 13, just like the "earthquake" midterm relatio was released on Oct. 13 last year.

And many thanks, Abbot Johnathan Coel, for explaining what an authentic pastoral strategy of accompaniment is. (cf. Pope St. John Paul II)

eft94530

effect on liturgy and sacred music?

Time for the razor blades.
And glue.
Make some particular hymn unavailable.

... OR ...

Play the game.
Select that particular hymn to be sung at every Mass and co-opt its value.
But this action we will not do because we know into What we would inject it.

I myself am more a Stealth Pamphleteer.
After all, every hymnal needs an extra bookmark or two, right?

eft94530

worrying about such things is well above my pay grade

Hey, man, like, that is a cop-out, man!

Gavin

I have to observe that many of the best musicians I know are homosexuals. So a more tolerant stance towards them may in fact be a great improvement to church music, by improving the caliber of musician.

francis

And today, is the "feast day" of the 98th year of the public display at Fatima.

francis

I have to observe that many of the best musicians I know are homosexuals. So a more tolerant stance towards them may in fact be a great improvement to church music, by improving the caliber of musician.

Don't forget the pillars of salt. God does not tolerate perversion. He gives men over to it that they may "mutually corrupt."

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

JulieColl

eft, is O Lord, I am not worthy headed for the ash heap?

MatthewRoth

Gavin, we have to recognize that homosexuality is disordered and stems from original sin. So, that is one barrier for some that simply cannot be removed. But it also seems to me that if all church musicians are obliged to follow the church’s teaching received from the Lord, there is no problem with a musician who happens to be homosexual. No one ought to make a fuss out of it. The trouble comes in when he or she has a partner or supports so-called same-sex marriage... But I don’t think this is limited to homosexual persons: it applies equally to all of us for it is simply following a commandment that has very public implications.

CharlesW

Hey, man, like, that is a cop-out, man

No cop-out. There is nothing anyone on this forum can do about pronouncements or edicts from Rome - other than bitch and moan about them. We can certainly do that, if nothing else.

CharlesW

I have to observe that many of the best musicians I know are homosexuals. So a more tolerant stance towards them may in fact be a great improvement to church music, by improving the caliber of musician.

I have said before that more ink, more air time, and more speechmaking have been expended on this subject than was ever warranted. When did anyone's sex life become everyone else's affair? I think getting one's self into heaven will be too time consuming to worry about what someone else may be doing. YMMV.

eft94530

measured, reasonable, serene church prose, like bedrock in times like this

1963-dec-4 Sacrosanctum Concilium
1964-mar-6 Declaration from Theological Commission
1964-nov-16 Declaration repeated (in Lumen Gentium Appendix)
1964-nov-21 Lumen Gentium

So, the "times like this" are same as back then.
In recent weeks I have been reading around, trying to determine what was concurrent, and causing a Declaration to be issued and then repeated, and then be followed with an Explanation, days before the release of this second document of Vatican Two.

eft94530

headed for the ash heap?

No, I was thinking All Are Welcome.
Works both ways. If you are, then I am too (still).

Except for the Cowbird problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowbird

M. Jackson Osborn

Rogue bishops (and so forth)

Julie's comment way up above really sounds quite like the Episcopal church. What started in that church a few decades ago is now knocking on our door.
We read yesterday that a Canadian cardinal at the synod has suggested consideration be given to ordaining women to the permanent diaconate. Yes indeed, That's where it started - and they weren't satisfied with that - they screamed, screeched, and carried on until they were made what they believe to be priests - then bishops - and now one runs the Episcopal church. This will not stop until it is pronounced infallibly upon definitively for all time.

tomjaw

I have to observe that many of the best musicians I know are homosexuals

There is no problem with this, I too know a pair of homosexuals that form an excellent schola for an EF Mass on this side of the pond. The problem is that this can cause scandal... If they are chaste no problem but like the fornicator or adulterer, the sodomite is in MORTAL sin, and we are told in 1 Corinthians 11. 27-29 "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."

here is nothing anyone on this forum can do about pronouncements or edicts from Rome - other than bitch and moan about them. We can certainly do that, if nothing else.

We can do something about this...
1. Do our best to celebrate the Liturgy with due reverence. Lex orandi, lex credendi
2. Bring up our families in the truths of the Faith.
3. Encourage vocations from our families.

There is every chance that those of us who hold true to the Faith will still be around in 40 years. The same cannot be said of the Kasperites... How many OF priests will German have in 40 years!

This will not stop until it is pronounced infallibly upon definitively for all time.

I thought St. John Paul was very clear, perhaps they were not listening.

CharlesW

We can do something about this...
1. Do our best to celebrate the Liturgy with due reverence. Lex orandi, lex credendi
2. Bring up our families in the truths of the Faith.
3. Encourage vocations from our families.

There is every chance that those of us who hold true to the Faith will still be around in 40 years. The same cannot be said of the Kasperites... How many OF priests will German have in 40 years!

Even this doesn't always work.

1. Celebrate the liturgy... Nothing wrong with this and it certainly does no harm.
2. Bring up our families... I am amazed at the number of young adults who were home-schooled that have turned against the faith. Several have told me they had so much religion shoved down their throats they now can't stand any of it.
3. Encourage vocations... Also a good thing but some take to that and others do not. I am amazed at areas of the country with next to no vocations as compared to some areas that seem to have plenty of them. Has anyone looked into those differences to determine why?
Germany in 40 years... Who knows? Germany seems to be falling apart culturally. I guess religion is not doing any better there than culture.
John Paul II... I thought that was a settled issue, as well.

JulieColl

. . . really sounds quite like the Episcopal church. What started in that church a few decades ago is now knocking on our door.

That's what Fr. Hunwicke said---that the plan for "Provincial Autonomy" was "a brilliant way of perverting the Faith ... you get some perversion started in one place and then you rely on a combination of bullying and creep to spread it."

So, hypothetically speaking, if this plan is adopted by Synod XV it will be up to the USCCB to decide on the Kasper Proposal and new ministries for gays . . . let that sink in for a moment.

No matter what the U.S. Bishops decide (and I'm not 100% confident they will make the right decision) there are going to be "rogue bishops" and "rogue priests" and "rogue laypeople". I'm afraid this solution is going to cause civil war in the Church.

CharlesW

No matter what the U.S. Bishops decide (and I'm not 100% confident they will make the right decision) there are going to be "rogue bishops" and "rogue priests" and "rogue laypeople". I'm afraid this solution is going to cause civil war in the Church.

I thought those "rogues" were already present and have been for years. It seems to me there already is a war - more of a cold war than a shooting war.

Scott_W

I thought St. John Paul was very clear, perhaps they were not listening

Well, I think the idea is that male-only priesthood was settled, but the diaconate is still on the table. It isn't on the table, but that won't stop the usual suspects.

One of the silliest things I ever read was a review of a book written by a nun in defense of male-only priesthood. The review said he agreed with the teaching and fully accepted Ordinatio Sacerdotalis but guess what? The Church hasn't infallibly defined maleness, so it's still an open question. Just goes to show that for malcontents, the Church is always one infallible declaration short of settling any issue.

CharlesW

I understood that JPII spoke infallibly on the male priesthood. That's only unclear to those who want to subvert it. I say this not being an admirer of John Paul II, thinking the rush to canonization was a popularity contest. I will defend him on this issue.

MichaelDickson

It seems to me there already is a war - more of a cold war than a shooting war.

Yes, a cold war -- I agree -- but there are troops on the ground. I'm sure we all have war stories. I know a new priest who introduced singing parts of the mass to his (new) parish. Initially, the pastor (a good man and excellent pastor in many ways) 'allowed' it, but the ground troops marched in and this new priest was almost immediately browbeaten into stopping that "old nonsense". It was depressing to watch.

JulieColl

Just for the record, the plan to Balkanize the sacramental discipline of the Church was floated in yesterday's Vatican press briefing (10/13/15) by Abbot Jeremias Schroder, OSB.:

"National Episcopal Conferences could be allowed to search for pastoral solutions that are in tune with their specific cultural context.”

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Morals, music and liturgy are all connected. When we debase the liturgy, the manifest debasement of morals will follow. (The debasement may already be there, but it becomes manifest after the liturgy is debased.) Music which is integral to the liturgy must suffer with the debasement of the liturgy itself.

eft94530

Apropos "debasement of morals"
my email inbox had a pointer to this ...
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/violent-mob-of-pro-abort-feminists-tries-to-burn-down-cathedral-attacks-pra
Youtube video search (cathedral catedral mar de plata argentina)
spanning several years suggest increasingly hostile behavior.

Apropos my "All Are Welcome" comment
I was wandering around and came across this ...
http://cardinaldolan.org/index.php/inclusion-of-the-new-minority/

dad29

I have to observe that many of the best musicians I know are homosexuals. So a more tolerant stance towards them may in fact be a great improvement to church music, by improving the caliber of musician.

Umnnhhh, yah. In my experience in this area, the only time a homosexual musician was removed from his position was if that person 'went public' with their attempted "marriage" or was caught by the police doing something pretty awful in a public place.

IMHO, that's the way it should be. No reason at all to preclude homosexuals from working as church musicians until.....

Blaise

Shouldn't we all calm down and remember that the synod is only an advisory body and not an ecumenical council? In a synod, the pope is the only legislator. The bishops need to quit speaking to the media and spend more time speaking to each other, discerning the Holy Spirit's will. Otherwise, they will say anything to please the "constituents"....err....the faithful, and the public will get the mistaken notion that "the Church" has said this, based on the remarks of one or more wayward bishop(s). This is the same point the theologian George Weigel makes in his book "Courage to be Catholic" regarding the USCCB's processes and their relations with the media.....less time in front of the camera, so that they can say plainly what needs to be said to their fellow bishops. (And I will say nothing about the LGBT demonstrations going on outside the synod, attended by no less than a representative of the George Soros Open Foundations.)

Blaise

Now, I am not an organist or conductor, but someone mentioned something about homosexual people serving in these positions. We must remember that there is a difference between having same sex attraction and openly displaying one's tendencies. If someone has SSA but is working to live a chaste life, I see no problem. But if someone has a leadership role in the Church and is openly flaunting His Majesty's laws and boasting about it in public (and has no desire to repent), then I think this is a terrible example for the faithful.

JulieColl

Bingo, Chris Garton-Zavesky! That's just what I was trying to say, but you nailed it.

Apropos the theory of "Provincial Autonomy" which was introduced at the Vatican press briefing on Oct. 13, Deacon Nick Donnelly at the National Catholic Register made these points:

The Breakup of the Catholic Church

Father Rosica also indicated that some synod fathers proposed devolving the question of allowing the divorced and civilly remarried to receive communion from Rome to the national level:

“What is needed is not necessarily a universal solution to complex problems, but discussions in small groups and discussions in regional, national and continental groupings to talk about the solutions to the different areas, the different problems, which are not necessarily the same throughout the world.”

But if they succeed in doing this, they change the nature of the Church so that she is no longer one, holy, catholic and apostolic. For example, proposals to devolve decisionmaking powers over allowing the divorced and remarried to receive holy Communion to national bishops’ conferences will break the communion of the Catholic Church. If enacted, we may well see the Church in most parts of Europe abandoning the doctrine of indissolubility by allowing couples in a permanent state of adultery to receive Communion and the Church in Africa upholding the doctrine of indissolubility by maintaining the prohibition of people committing adultery from receiving holy Communion. If this situation were to happen, the Catholic Church would no longer exist in Europe, having finally fallen to liberal Protestantism.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/synod-fathers-choice-defend-truth-of-marriage-and-sexuality-or-compromise-t/#ixzz3oepShmrd

JulieColl

P.S. It is quite possible that we "as Church" are headed even as we speak towards "deep and total" institutional change. Remember the chilling words of Cardinal Maradiaga:

"We walk as Church towards deep and global renovation . . . The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible. The wind that propels the sails of the Church towards the open sea of its deep and total renovation is Mercy."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/10/doctrinal-devolution-to-bishops.html

Sounds like this could be a "scorched earth" and "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" strategy.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

I must trust that Cardinal Maradiaga doesn't actually speak for His Holiness. "Total renovation", in the hands of the cabal making news recently would mean making the Church completely unrecognizable even by "progressives" today.

eft94530

People using the term renovation, again?
Cdl Maradiaga has a twitter feed you can search and read,
would the things he says publicly on twitter
morph privately into something more conservative
because he is one of the inner circle with lips close to the papal ear?

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Eft,

Some of us don't do Twitter. Don't we call people who use Twitter "twits"?

CharlesW

As has been said, all that twitters is not gold. I don't do twitter because the last thing in the world I need is another time waster. That's all it is, a waste of time.

JulieColl

More on the "nuclear option" which has been variously called "the Balkanization of sacramental discipline," "the devolution of doctrine to the bishops' conferences", "Provincial Autonomy", and "regional diversity", aka Febronianism:

According to Sandro Magister, the strategy floated in Tuesday's Vatican Press (10/13/15) briefing to delegate doctrinal authority to national episcopal conferences was specifically mentioned in the famous "13-Cardinals' Letter" to Pope Francis:

At the end of the letter there is also a dramatic warning and even if it is written in respectful language, it sounds an alarm, by saying, that, at the end of the road embarked on by Bergoglio, in imitation of the European Protestant churches, there [would be] “a collapse” in other words - the end of the Church.

So, 13 Cardinals---who we can safely assume are not lightweights or flibbertigibbets or alarmists or twits or conspiracy nuts---are warning the Pope that this is a very, very bad idea.

So . . . let's hand over the Church's magisterial authority to the national bishops' conferences---what could possibly go wrong?

eft94530

The nuclear option I want is motu proprio dissolving of both synods and conferences.

bhcordova

So, the Church is going to hell in a hand basket. Except, we have the promise of the Holy Spirit that it's not.

CharlesW

Actually, if you believe the predictions of saints and mystics, the church will go into a serious decline.

Arthur Connick

bhcordova - If history is any guide, the situation in the Church can get a lot worse than it is today without overturning the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories