FILMOGRAFIA MICHELA CESCON

If we feel sufficiently holy, that’s all that’s reuiqred according to your view, is it not?No it isn't. Where did you get that idea? Please read my post carefully. I was not in the least advocating the abrogation of liturgical rules and norms. I even pointed out that certain things are allowed in the rules and that this was perhaps why JPII allowed them.Also, Sabbath and liturgy are 2 different words, with 2 different meanings Do you think I wasn't aware of that? (That is why I put the liturgy in brackets to begin with).But surely there is some sort of analagy possible betwen the holy day and the rites celebrated on it?The truth is that God made the day of the liturgy and asked us to rest on it. He didn't make that rule simply because he likes making rules or because He feels the need to be obeyed. Us and our physical and spiritual health were the goal. When he uttered that famous saying, Jesus was pointing this out. In the practical sense, He must have felt his disciples would have a **** time resting on the Sabbath if they were starving. The legalist Pharisees couldn't get that. In the same way God made the liturgy, made the Eucharist (and what a stupendous invention or if you will simply a stupendous reality it is). Jesus spent a long time teaching it and its meaning to us. He gave us a very good idea of how we are to use it. Everything he did was designed to make use of the human senses and imgination to lift us to God. The Church has striven throughout the centuries to preserve the substance and the meaing of this through her liturgical rules. The rules are the walls that hold the goodness, not the goodness itself. Once again the rules are not

I don't pretend to be an exrept on the matter, but I've generally understood our late Pope to have toed a very thin, fine line, especially liturgically. As I understand it, he had a brutally difficult job.When Karol Wojtyla came to the papacy as John Paul II in 1978, where did the Church stand liturgically?Well, on one hand, he had die-**** traditional factions who won't allow any changes to be made to Mass at all; on the other hand, he had equally fervent modern factions who wished to simplify the Mass considerably and omit much of the traditional trappings. Both wanted their way to prevail immediately.Oh, yeah, he wanted ALL the faithful to pray the Mass from the depths of their being.How to solve this mess?One way might be to impose a sort of compromise Mass on both sides and threaten both with excommunication or other suitably grave penalty against anyone who dissents. Oh..wait..several nations' bishops conferences had already exercised a sort of de facto authority by imposing the Novus Ordo in 1969. At the same time, since technically, the traditional Mass has never been officially abrogated, several traditionalist orders have simply ignored the potential abuse of authority..and have continued offering the traditional Mass and hang the opinions of the bishop's conferences.Efforts between 1969 and 1978 haven't healed wounds, but rather have deepened and widened that rifts that existed before. Now the Church isn't suffering from lapses of discipline precisely, but has managed to come to the brink of open schism anyway.Unfortunately, neither side has precisely broken any canon law rules, so you can't precisely reprimand either side without either inherently promoting the other side