Before the convention last night, a parishioner at a parish in the diocese described their parish as a “nonconformist” parish. This wasn’t said in any sense if disappointment, but rather pride that the parish would rebel against the bishop’s request that we were discussing.
Sadly, the idea of not conforming to the guidance of the bishop is all too prevalent in this diocese, passed down from the priests through the parishes to the individual parishioners. Instead of acting and believing as members of the Body of Christ unified under the bishop, these parishes and parishioners act as rebellious teenagers doing and saying whatever they want without regard to the wisdom and guidance given out of love by the faithful priests, bishops, and Holy Father in union with the tradition of the Church.
As Catholics, we need to be in union with our bishops. Instead of seeking to be nonconformist, we need to seek Our Lord’s will that we all be unified as one Body under the bishop, who is the local shepherd charged with our protection and guidance. Nonconformism is simply another name for human pride. Unity under the bishop, especially when we might disagree with him, is another name for humbly seeking God’s will.
“We’re a nonconformist parish”
Bookmark the permalink.
It’s a place of pride to do what ‘we’ want in the liturgy and to invent our own. Just take a look at books that are being read to ‘educate’ people on the Mass (from ‘What Every Catholic Needs to Know” by Kevin McGloin):
[Speaking about the church from 100 to 313 AD]
‘Improvisation in the liturgy was the rule rather then the exception during this period, particularly in terms of the prayers of the Mass. Ancient documents show that the presiders of the Eucharist were free, within limits, to compose their own prayers and organize the ritual. This improvisation did not allow the presider to say or do anything he wanted; he was still called to be faithful to the tradition of the church.
The introduction of the Latin in the liturgy took place during this time because more people spoke Latin than Greek. This caused great tension among Greek-speaking Christians because Latin was considered a vulgar language spoken only by common people.
The presider was expected to wear his best clothes to celebrate the liturgy. There were no special vestments during this time.
The place where the celebrant sat or stood depended on the circumstance. When the Mass was celebrated within the context of a meal, the presider sat at the table with the people. If it was celebrated in a private home, the celebrant stood near the table surrounded by the people. When Mass was celebrated in a catacomb on the tomb of a martyr, the celebrant had his back to the people because these tombs were hollowed out of the walls.
The faithful shared communion standing up. They took the consecrated bread in their hands and drank the sacred wine from the chalice.”
Now, how many errors or half-truths can you spot?
@The Ranter
Sorry for the delay in posting your comment. You’re exactly right that this is the kind of half-baked theology and history that is being promoted as the state-of-the-art in liturgical studies. Basically, there’s no historical or theological basis for what they’re teaching, it’s just putting what they want to do into some nebulous historical practices. The large part that missing: any connection to Judaism and the temple practices.