The Catholic Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Christus Vincit
Christus Vincit, July 2021
>
1. Along the Way
message 1:
by
John
(new)
Jul 01, 2021 02:44AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I knew nothing about this book or Bishop Schneider and I am reading it on Kindle, so I can't see the back cover, or flip through the pages, look for pictures, etc. There probably is a way to do that on Kindle books but I can't be bothered. I just read. So I expected this book to be Schneider's theological opinion. He was going to posit a theory and expound on it. Hence I began and found an interview. I thought that was a forward or prologue. Not only was I wrong about the prologue, but I was also completely wrong about the modus operandi of the author. The entire book is an interview. And! so far it's pretty interesting.
I have previously read a couple of articles by Bishop Schneider and I liked them.
I read this book a few months ago on my kindle. I don't have access to it anymore, so any comments I make will be from memory:-)
Mod
OT, but may I ask how you lost access on your kindle? I have gotten used to reading on my kindle, especially when I'm on a long trip. But I am aware of how Amazon has abused their power in this regard in the past. I've never lost access to a book as far as I know, so I am curious.
Mod
Yes, the cover, or perhaps the introduction explains that the book is the result of three sets of interviews and the author preserved the interview format.
Elisabeth wrote: "I read this book a few months ago on my kindle. I don't have access to it anymore, so any comments I make will be from memory:-)"My experience with kindle which is half dozen years is that once you have it you have access to it again even if you delete it. Amazon remembers and you can access it again without further cost.
Mod
It was on Kindle Unlimited for free, but then I stopped my subscription to Kindle Unlimited, so it was taken off.
Mod
But he is exactly spot on when he said that the reaction to the Regensburg Address proved the truth of it.
What do others think about his insistence on receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue, and about the altar facing away from the people? Surely Christ can be reverently received by making a "throne" of one's hands! The Eucharist is a meal as well as a sacrifice, and I much prefer the full participation of the congregation to having the priest mumble prayers up front while individuals say their own favorite prayers! Of course there were abuses, but I think the liturgical changes after Vatican II for the most part were very positive.
I find his treatment of marriage inadequate. Procreation can't be the primary purpose of marriage or the Church wouldn't witness the marriages of those too old to bear children! Of course being open to life is essential, but procreation is more like a consequence (almost a byproduct) of unity. I found his imagination of couples at the gates of heaven being shown the children they "should" have had absurd. It's not like those individuals exist before husband, wife and God co-create them! I'm sure couples can practice Natural Family Planning for selfish reasons, but surely we're responsible to discern together God's will for our families at this particular time.
I disliked his defense of the death penalty and war. This is one area in which I hope the Church continues to sharpen its conscience. The fact that all human beings are going to die is totally different from the state putting criminals to death. It has very little to do with justice or "expiation," solves nothing.
Another area in which the Church has changed in a better direction is ecumenism. We used to say, Just become Catholic. Now we are open to learning from the strengths of other denominations, e.g. love of Scripture and putting it into the hands of ordinary people, knowing and supporting those in your community, congregational singing--and greater clarity about theological truths like those articulated in the joint declaration on justification with Lutherans. Surely the fault for the rupture of the Reformation doesn't lie on only one side!
I'm grateful for documents like Laudato Si, which he seems to see as purely secular and inappropriate. The Church has essential insights that affect these conversations and cannot remain indifferent. Francis so clearly identified the connection between our exploitation of the earth and of the poor, those closest to the heart of our Savior.
Mod
Before communion in the hand was approved in Spain, I had already adopted that way while I was in the Netherlands, in 1968 and 1969. I agree with Jill here.
Mod
I agree. When I was a teenager, I read a book by a Spanish priest where he described a family, their three children, and then added: "and then the fourth child, which they should have had, but didn't." Even at that age I disliked this intensely. The author should have remembered what Aslan said to Lucy: "You are never told what would have happened."
Mod
Traditionally the Church accepted three exceptions to the "you won't kill" commandment: 1. individual legitimate defense; 2. just war; 3. death penalty. The first affects an individual against an individual; the second a country against a country; the third a society against an individual. The first two are balanced: I think a person or a country should have the right to defend themselves against unjustified external attacks. But the third one is unbalanced: a society is much stronger than an individual, and should have other ways to defend itself, rather than the death penalty.
Going back to my youth again, I was always against the death penalty. Thankfully, the Church has also followed this line after the Council.
I agree with Jull concerning Communion in the hand. I was wondering if he allowed Communion in the hand when he was serving in different places. In the beginning, he said the people preferred Communion on the tongue so he continued the practice. That's his preference.
Jill wrote: "What do others think about his insistence on receiving communion kneeling and on the tongue, and about the altar facing away from the people? Surely Christ can be reverently received by making a "t..." I struggle with this. I never felt entirely comfortable, even as a child, sticking out my tongue at the priest. I'm sure the apostles didn't receive their first Eucharist that way. It's referred to as "breaking" the bread and usually described as distributed by hand. I do miss the communion rail, but why not receive the bread in the hand as the apostles did? While I miss a great deal of pre-Vatican II practices, I'm still OK with receiving it in the hand--it seems more natural and reverent than the tongue thing. And remind myself that obedience is part of being a good Catholic.
Mod
This is true. But the reason why the Church instituted the communion on the tongue was to make it more difficult (although not impossible) to take the host away to desecrate it. Now, with communion on the hand, this is easier, and has been done. Thus the priests usually tell the faithful to consume the host directly as soon as they have received it.
In a similar way, the origin of Eucharistic fast was to prevent drunk people to go to communion.
Jill wrote: "Another area in which the Church has changed in a better direction is ecumenism. We used to say, Just become Catholic. Now we are open to learning from the strengths of other denominations, e.g. lo..."I grew up alongside our Southern Baptist sisters and brothers, and heard over and over that Catholics don't read the Bible (only it made no sense in those days when I went to daily Mass at school and heard the Bible every day, studied it every year in our religion classes) and that we worship Mary and the saints, something I learned to refute early on because the saints are one of the coolest things about being Catholic. We have people in heaven to will pray with us and for us, more friends than deities. Lately I see American Catholics trying harder than ever to unite against a common enemy, and that is a positive.
A few weeks ago one of my devout Baptist girlfriends called me up with a Biblical question and an invitation to lunch--what a delightful day! Her question was about who Enoch was--and we discussed Biblical apocrypha, especially revelation and how we have different ideas about that. The Book of Enoch, it seems, is apocryphal in most Christian scripture, except maybe some Eastern Orthodox, I think. I learned more doing research to answer her question as well, and our discussion covered much more. When I was in school, I don't think that kind of dialogue would have been possible. I am still rejoicing that a Baptist was looking for Biblical truth from a Catholic!
Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "I found his imagination of couples at the gates of heaven being shown the children they "should" have had absurd."I agree. When I was a teenager, I read a book by a Spanish priest wh..."
I do believe that all the children a couple conceives but miscarries are waiting for the rest of their immediate family in heaven. We have a ministry now (which we did not have when I lost two of ours in the first trimester) which supports parents who lost infants early in life before or after they would be born.
I've also read a lovely book called "Honoring our Babies Born to Heaven." Our parish also has an annual Mass that does just that--a beautiful and healing service for those of us who have that private grief we are not expected to share. We light candles for those babies and there is special music. The thought that they wait for us in heaven (and there is some indication from people who were clinically dead and had a vision of heaven--including a personal friend--that this is more likely to be true than not, and this is also considered a possible healing for women who repent sincerely of a past abortion.). Not so much a "should have been born" as "would have been born but God chose to take them to heaven early." I cannot believe there is a heaven with no babies, especially since some of our saints have had visions of the infant Jesus, even held Him.
Mod
I agree. I have always expected to meet my five children in Heaven. The first three were miscarried. Just in case, I gave them a Wish Baptism just before or after they died.
Madeleine wrote: "I cannot believe there is a heaven with no babies, especially since some of our saints have had visions of the infant Jesus, even held Him."
But Jesus is a special case. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (in Summa contra gentiles), all of us will be in Heaven the same age as Christ when He died (a little above thirty), regardless of our age at the time of death. I rather like this idea.
Mod
While it is certainly possible to receive Jesus in the hands reverently, I see all too many people acting as though they are shuffling through the line at the buffet. I think the return of a communion rail, whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue, would do a lot to add a sense of reverence. For a number of years, I have felt moved to receive on the tongue. There is a humbling aspect to it that I suspect may be why I have been moved in this way (I need a lot of work on humility). Receiving standing, is a transaction somewhat between equals. Babies and small children are fed. There is, for me, a helpful reminder that I am dependent on others for spiritual sustenance.
Mod
I like the Latin Mass, but my wife does not, so we don't usually go. :-)
John wrote: "I have been to too many masses where the priest confused themselves as the center of attraction with a duty to entertain the people to be entirely comfortable with the priest celebrating mass while..."I cannot agree with you more on the unnatural placing of the priest as the center of attraction during mass. The liturgy forgot about the tabernacle at his back except when going to retrieve the host to distribute at communion. We were taught to genuflect on entering the church, on leaving, genuflecting when walking across the church and passing the tabernacle. I have seen worse yet in a church from which we absconded. The entire congregation behaved like in a market place before the mass talking in almost normal tones soon upon arrival, the entire pews. The pastor himself walked up or down the isle participating in it.
You make a good point, but then again, Jesus was criticized because He did so much partying! I've found the portrayal in "The Chosen" series very refreshing, e.g. seeing Jesus and his friends dancing at the wedding at Cana.
Mod
Hmmm, I don't recall that part in the gospel, and I doubt that "partying" with its meanings in the 21st century, quite captures a wedding in 1st century Cana. And I don't recall any criticism for His presence at the wedding in Cana. The criticism I recall was for His ignoring the rules the Pharisees had built up and asserting His divinity.
Mod
Hmmm, I don't recall that part in the gospel, and I doubt that "partying" with its meanings in the 21st century, quite captures a wedding in 1st century Cana."
I think she means Mat. 11-19: The Son of man came, eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."
That's it, Manuel. Thanks.On another topic, totally relevant to this book, Pope Francis has just today modified his predecessor's ruling regarding the traditional form of the Mass. Claims it has promoted division rather than unity, though I don't see how leaving up to each Bishop what is permitted in his diocese is unifying.
John wrote: "Jill wrote: "You make a good point, but then again, Jesus was criticized because He did so much partying! I've found the portrayal in "The Chosen" series very refreshing, e.g. seeing Jesus and his ..."Maybe the “partying” at a wedding was more like in the movie “Fiddler on the roof”. There was dancing there.
He is just plain wrong about the charismatic renewal being a cheap emotionalism. Far from elevating feelings above reason, it enables personal, permanent commitment to Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. There is all the difference in the world between believing truths (believing that...) and having a loving relationship with a divine Person (believing in...). Recent Popes have made this crystal clear.His arguments against extraordinary ministers, communion under both species and communion in the hand seem specious--especially when he talks about women being even less worthy than men. (Men should wash their hands, women need something over their hands!) It almost seems like he thinks the left hand is "evil" just because of the accident of the Latin word.
I found his details about the reChristianizing of Russia fascinating.
I found many things in his reforming the reform chapter upsetting. Having the priest facing the people does not make the Mass a performance or entertainment! It makes it possible to understand the words he is praying in order to pray along with him! The Eucharistic prayers are so rich, they deserved to be prayed by the whole Body of Christ, not muttered sotto voce while the congregation engages in wordless adoration (at best), private devotions (which belong in a different venue), boredom or confusion. And what does he have against the wonderful Jewish Shabbat prayers Jesus prayed at the Last Supper?Perhaps the kiss of peace is misplaced in the Mass (though it follows up on that line in the Lord's Prayer), but it makes no sense to me to have those on the altar symbolically offer each other peace while those in the pew reflect individually and internally. Reconciliation is among people!
What is his problem with the "new calendar"? The addition of a much greater variety of saints?
The three-year Sunday lectionary is an ENORMOUS improvement, helping God's people be steeped in his Word. It's very condescending of him to think lay folks can't be enriched by hearing and contemplating Scripture. He even seems to think ordinary people shouldn't be going to daily Mass, except maybe during Lent!!!
I don't understand the need for a sacred language no one understands.
I've always been puzzled by the facing-east directive. Why? And does it matter where the church is on the globe?
Jill wrote: "I don't understand the need for a sacred language no one understands."Whenever I go to mass in a country where I don’t understand the language, I wish masses were still in Latin.
If mass was in Latin and people followed along with a bilingual missal, they would end up remembering the Latin phrases, and it would no longer be a language they don’t understand.
Of course, it would be even better for every Catholic to study at least one year of Latin. It is so elegant and concise, and understanding Latin grammar gives a huge boost in learning a lot of modern languages.
I guess there's an argument for a common liturgical language. Maybe I disliked the word "sacred," sounds like a contrast to "secular." After all, Latin was the everyday language when it began being used in liturgy.
Mariangel wrote, "Of course, it would be even better for every Catholic to study at least one year of Latin. It is so elegant and concise, and understanding Latin grammar gives a huge boost in learning a lot of modern languages."So very true--and it also helps build your vocabulary (I taught high school English, and also had two years of Latin myself). I wanted my own kids to study Latin--they were born just after Vatican II--and only one followed my advice, and she was glad she had. It helped on her SAT's.
reply | flag *
Mod
Churches used to be built with their main door facing west, so the altar, for believers, was at the east, therefore the "facing east" rule. Some say that in such way there was most light at noon (through the south windows, at the right of the altar) and an interesting red light during the evening, when the setting sun lighted the interior through the main door.
That's all? No theology involved, just light?
The practice to face east comes from the Jews, and Christians and Muslims inherited it. Tere’s more information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_orie...
Thank you, Mariangel, I found this fascinating.
What horrible "spiritual damage" do married clergy do? As a former Lutheran two of whose good friends became married priests when they decided to leave the liberalized Lutheran church and become Catholic, I am aware of great good, not to mention all their holy spouses brought to their congregations. He seems to think married sex is somewhat dirty, sullying the purity of the celebrant.I'm supposing he would oppose deaconnesses. I think they would offer the Church a great deal, not in performing public liturgical duties (though some would be superb homilists) but in pastoring other women, visiting the sick and homebound, modeling good parenting... The original function of deacons in Acts 6 isn't what our current permanent deacons do (read, preach...) but much more practical ministry to the poor.
I don't have a problem with lay people distributing Holy Communion, but I am upset when I know there are ordained men in the congregation yet the ones up front are the "extraordinary" ministers, as if the priests were trying to be incognito.
I found his chapter on adoring alongside the angels interesting. It's also refreshing when he admits some things are a matter of pious imagination rather than revealed doctrine.
Mod
In the Catholic Church there are several exceptions to the celibate rule: certain oriental Catholic churches originally Orthodox, and those priests converting from Episcopalian and Anglican churches, are allowed to be married priests.
I'm aware of the exceptions, but what does that entail about the entire discipline of celibacy? Schneider seems to deny the validity or at least the value of married clergy, but I think they bring a great richness even though I'm also very grateful for our celibate clergy. What would be dangerous, I think, is single priests open to being married. Every single woman in the congregation would be after them.
Mod
Other than her specific reference to Cana. But in any case, I've never understood that pharisaic criticism to reflect that Jesus actually was a glutton and a drunkard.
Mod
Is Bishop Schneider right in all of his criticisms and positions? I doubt it, but something is seriously wrong in the Church and I keep reminding myself to give him a fair reading, even if some of his thoughts seem loopy at first blush.
Most of the sex abuse now coming to light occurred many years ago; the Church is finally becoming more forthright about it.A prof in a church history course made the wise comment that when you look at all the external attacks on the Church (barbarians, hostile world powers...) and all the internal crises (heresies, scandalous behavior...), it's a miracle--and a sign of God's power--that it hasn't crumbled long ago.
Mod
In my case, I have lived in the Church before and after the Council, as I was almost 20 when the Council ended its works. I liked many of the changes, but saw that many people (and some priests) thought that this was the beginning of a further change that would open the Church to married priests, homosexuality, female priests, and many more. Fortunately John Paul II and Benedict XVI put an end to those excesses, which still remain active, especially in Germany.
I think the worst period for the Church were the seventies, and many of the abuses now coming to light are from those years, as Jill pointed.
I am not so worried about the Latin Mass, which seems to me a secondary question.
Mod
So I don't think the bad press against the Motu Proprio is deserved.
