This is a softball. Thank you. Standing and kneeling are not a matter of "doctrine". They change from country to country depending on accepted Liturgical practices in those regions. So, no doctrine was changed.
A study of the Bible suggests that standing in the Presence of the Holy is the proper way to give respect.
Many people have difficulty differentiating levels and types of Catholic teachings and practices. "Doctrines" are universal, and infallibly defined doctrines are Dogmas.
Then there are various traditions and disciplines which can change, some univerals, some regional.
Example: Celibacy for Latin Rite priests is universal, but its just a discipline, which means a pope can change it anytime he wants to.
The question arises how far any Bishop's authority extends in the matter of practices once a church council has ruled on it in order to establish conformity.
The Bishop of Rome or his representative agreed to Canon 20. Up to that point, I could agree with the argument that standing, kneeling and even sitting while praying were acceptable. Bishops had not agreed in a council how best to achieve church unity. When the Catholic Church altered their practice, they offended the Orthodox Church whose practice remained that of standing. Does a Pope's authority extend that far that he can annul canons established by Ecumenical Councils? Does the Pope's authority justify altering practices which they had agreed to before when the altering create rifts or schisms in the Body of Christ?
You moderate Catholic discussion? Shouldn't you know the basics if you do that?
That title of moderator was given for the whole forum. My role as moderator is not to act as the thought police or the defender of purity of doctrine, my role is to try to keep things rational and peaceful.
I was aware you might make the point that this was a practice. My question rests on your point.
I am of the opinion myself that our practices are not as important as church unity. However, if a Pope signed onto canons of an ecumenical Council as a way of creating church unity, then altering course and changing the practice seems wrong to me if it creates friction and schisms. It also strikes me as close to breaking an agreement. And more, I would say the Catholic Church has eroded its own authority by claiming its ability to lead by altering practices after reaching agreements about them.
We saw something similar with the establishing of the date for Easter. Various churches had different ways of calculating it. The Council of Nicea ruled that everyone should follow the calendar and system of the Church of Rome. I think that was probably a good thing. Does it matter what the date is? Not that much to me, but I can see why early Christians desired unity among themselves over the matter.
England has two systems side by side, creating problems. One system had been introduced by the tradition established by St. John. The other system followed the Roman calendar and system. When the English debated the matter, they decided (correctly I think) to follow the Roman system -- not because that calendar was "right" and St. John's had been wrong. No, it was to show respect for the role of the Bishops of Rome.
That was established, and then later the Catholics changed their calendar! Can't you see people throwing up their hands in despair? After others had altered their practices to be in unity with Rome, Rome veered off and changed their system. The Orthodox Church refused to adopt the new calendar; and the Coptic Orthodox Church was thrown into confusion. The Coptic Orthodox Church was still asking the Catholic Church about this last year. Both sides would like to have a unified calendar.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-coptic-orthodox-patriarch-tawadros-ii-sign-joint-declarati6. This love finds its deepest expression in common prayer. When Christians pray together, they come to realize that what unites them is much greater than what divides them. Our longing for unity receives its inspiration from the prayer of Christ “that all may be one” (John 17:21). Let us deepen our shared roots in the one apostolic faith by praying together and by seeking common translations of the Lord’s Prayer and a common date for the celebration of Easter.I think it safe to say too that often practices, if maintained through history, often demonstrate with great clarity that some doctrines have been held historically. Consider the great care that clergy take not to let even one crumb of the Eucharist fall on the floor. It is a practice, but I can't dismiss it as a mere practice devoid of doctrine since the reverence shown demonstrates the belief in the Real Presence.
Similarly I can not dismiss the historical evidence of the early Christians praying for the dead as being devoid of doctrine. The practice of praying for the dead is evidence for me of a doctrine.
As for the celibacy of the clergy? Is this a practice that a Pope can make decisions about? Who should be a Bishop? Paul said someone who was married and who had demonstrated he knew how to bring up his own children.
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.Can a Pope overrule what Paul wrote? I find what Paul wrote as "sound doctrine." If you're going to pick someone to be a shepherd over sheep, you do well to choose someone whose life shows wisdom and gentleness along with strength. Love for the sheep requires it.
That brings up another canon of Nicene Council about how Bishops should be selected. The Catholic Church no longer follows those practices. They also move Bishops around, contrary to the rules established at Nicea. I was very interested when Pope Francis started paying attention to the matter -- some priests are not interested in being a Bishop somewhere they don't like. They have ambition, always wanting to be promoted. They also tend to flatter whoever the current Pope is because he often plays a role in promotions by translation. Sad to say, some Bishops are more interested in flattering the Pope than in tending their Bishoprics.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/04/03/pope-seminarians-using-church-personal-ambition-plague/Do not settle for a worry-free, comfortable life with an unhealthy attachment to money and an ambitious heart yearning for honors, Pope Francis told seminarians studying in Rome.
“I’m telling you this as a brother, father and friend. Please, shun ecclesial careerism. It is a plague. Avoid it,” he said April 1 during an audience at the Vatican with students, faculty, staff and alumni of the Pontifical Spanish College of St. Joseph in Rome. The college was celebrating the 125th anniversary of its founding.I wish him well in trying to root out this kind of careerism. I'd suggest returning to the practice agreed to at Nicea. Some practices make sense and should not be changed. People in Rome should not be making decisions at the local level of who is elected Bishop or of moving Bishops around. It's not practical for one thing; and it's ignoring the canons of Nicea which were written to protect the Church as well as to create unity. Apostles move around. Bishops should stay put and tend their flocks. I take the idea of Bishop as shepherd as good doctrine; so I see moving Bishops around as undermining that doctrine.
Pope Francis also been talking about allowing married clergy. Good for him. I would go further and would implement the advice of St. Paul that required someone to be married in order to be promoted to Bishop. Setting aside what Paul wrote and asserting that a Pope can differ with him because it's "only a practice" has led to various problems in the Catholic Church that has damaged its reputation by creating scandal. The measure to judge practices by is love. Does a practice work to establish order, unity, and love? If so, it's a good practice; if not, it should be changed. Departing from past practices can contain perils.
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register
Show Posts