tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321657255738955008.post2843224775566644988..comments2023-03-21T05:51:10.791-04:00Comments on Father Norm's Notebook: Uniformity vs. UnityFr Normhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08746221786980114114noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3321657255738955008.post-86967693862636834462010-09-16T14:06:21.219-04:002010-09-16T14:06:21.219-04:00Oh, Fr. Norm... I pray your readers are few in num...Oh, Fr. Norm... I pray your readers are few in number and even then that they are not nearly gullible enough to believe much of what you've offered here. <br /><br />Since when is the sacred liturgy a “local issue” as you call it? <br /><br />WRT to the bishop's authority: Anyone familiar with Vatican II is well aware that individual bishops and their conferences have very limited authority indeed, and only then as it is either granted by Rome or reflects teaching in union with the Holy Father. The Council specifically stressed this dependence as it concerns regulation of the sacred liturgy. (cf SC 22) <br /><br />Ut Unum Sint is a treatment of ecumenism. It is not a document that in any way suggests granting regulation of the sacred liturgy to local bishops beyond that which the Holy See has been inclined to give up to this point in time. Your claims of recourse to Ut Unum Sint in support of your personal views of liturgy is really little more than proof-texting. <br /><br />Perhaps you could support your suggestion that Vatican II itself in some way recognized the bishop’s local authority apart from unity with the Holy See as it relates to the sacred liturgy. I think we both know this is not possible.<br /><br />Your claim that the Holy See's regulation of the liturgy "undermines the teachings of both Ut unum sint and Lumen Gentium" is wholesale nonsense. If I am incorrect, kindly afford your readers documentation from either document in support of this wild claim.<br /><br />You call liturgical translation "non-essential." According to whom, you, Father? The Council specifically said that the translation of liturgical texts "are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See." (cf SC 36)<br /><br />The simple fact that you don’t recognize how absolutely essential the words and the language that we employ at Holy Mass are is very telling indeed. <br /><br />As a champion of Vatican II in the matter of liturgy, why may I ask are you not insisting that Latin be retained in the Latin rite as the Council Fathers clearly stated? Perhaps you are not so much the Council's champion as its detractor...<br /><br />In summary, there is no "debilitating" conflict in this matter for those humble enough to view the Church as Holy Mother. May you one day be numbered among them.<br /><br />Louie VerrecchioLouie Verrecchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09635443412868538894noreply@blogger.com