A question about obedience

[Oneofthewomen]

I have noticed something on these threads, and have never seen the subject brought up, so I am going to try. These are merely observations of an American, Catholic woman, trying to find her way in a very complicated world by giving praise God with all I do and trying to follow His will and not my own.

There have been a few threads the past few days where someone who identifies themselves as a “Traditional Catholic” who will use documents and writings that are not official Magisterial documents to try and prove that certain things (CITH, use of EMHC, no head covering’s for women- the list goes on & on) are not “traditional” and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow “less Catholic”. I have also encountered people who are defending members of the clergy or organizations (Fr. Gruner & the Fatima League, SSPX, etc.) who are not in line with the Magisterium, and in some cases have had their priestly faculties revoked and who even denounce, sometimes very publically and with much venom, members of the clergy and the laity who hold different opinions than theirs.

I am not sure I understand this.

As Roman Catholics, we are supposed to be obedient to the Magisterium, and all that means. Including accepting that the Bishop is the shepherd of his diocese, with the right to make certain decisions, within the parameters given to him by his office, and that the Pastor of a parish also has some leeway as to how he does things, and that ultimately, it is their opinion that really counts.

Pope Benedict, much like his predecessor John Paul II, has definite personal opinions regarding some of these things, and they are the ones who could actually do something about certain practices, and yet they chose not to. Should not that tell us something?

I also see a lot of people using the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law and various other writings as “proof” that the opinion that they hold is “right”, even though the newer documents and codes, in most cases, say that they (the newer ones) replace the older documents or that the opinions of various priests and theologians are regarded more highly than what the Church’s actual opinion is on some matters.

How does this fit into being obedient to the Magisterium?

In my humble opinion, it seems to be anything but. It seems to me, that this attitude by some “traditionalists” is the exact same attitude, only the other end of the spectrum, as the “progressives” who want to take the books and the traditions of the Church and throw them out the window!

I truly believe that what the Church, and the whole world, needs more than anything right now, is a sense of “balance”- the “both/and” perspective instead of the “either/or”.
The $64K question is-
How do we achieve this, and become the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, we proclaim we are every week?

Thoughts, comments?

 

[James224]

I have noticed something on these threads, and have never seen the subject brought up, so I am going to try. These are merely observations of an American, Catholic woman, trying to find her way in a very complicated world by giving praise God with all I do and trying to follow His will and not my own.

There have been a few threads the past few days where someone who identifies themselves as a “Traditional Catholic” who will use documents and writings that are not official Magisterial documents to try and prove that certain things (CITH, use of EMHC, no head covering’s for women- the list goes on & on) are not “traditional” and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow “less Catholic”. I have also encountered people who are defending members of the clergy or organizations (Fr. Gruner & the Fatima League, SSPX, etc.) who are not in line with the Magisterium, and in some cases have had their priestly faculties revoked and who even denounce, sometimes very publically and with much venom, members of the clergy and the laity who hold different opinions than theirs.

I am not sure I understand this.

As Roman Catholics, we are supposed to be obedient to the Magisterium, and all that means. Including accepting that the Bishop is the shepherd of his diocese, with the right to make certain decisions, within the parameters given to him by his office, and that the Pastor of a parish also has some leeway as to how he does things, and that ultimately, it is their opinion that really counts.

Pope Benedict, much like his predecessor John Paul II, has definite personal opinions regarding some of these things, and they are the ones who could actually do something about certain practices, and yet they chose not to. Should not that tell us something?

I also see a lot of people using the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law and various other writings as “proof” that the opinion that they hold is “right”, even though the newer documents and codes, in most cases, say that they (the newer ones) replace the older documents or that the opinions of various priests and theologians are regarded more highly than what the Church’s actual opinion is on some matters.

How does this fit into being obedient to the Magisterium?

In my humble opinion, it seems to be anything but. It seems to me, that this attitude by some “traditionalists” is the exact same attitude, only the other end of the spectrum, as the “progressives” who want to take the books and the traditions of the Church and throw them out the window!

I truly believe that what the Church, and the whole world, needs more than anything right now, is a sense of “balance”- the “both/and” perspective instead of the “either/or”.
The $64K question is-
How do we achieve this, and become the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, we proclaim we are every week?

Thoughts, comments?

Well, you’re right. Some opinions here have to do more with what they “Wish” it could be and do remain obedient. I’m one of them. Of course, other’s don’t so you have a mix. I think the SSPX comes up a lot because they keep to traditional Catholicism more than anyone else with the exception of being obedient to the Roman Pontiff. I know that is a very big thing. I think they want to (that’s why they’re talking to the Vatican) but they went into schism because they wanted stability in everything they consider necessary to maintain a Traditional Catholic Faith and lifestyle. In other words, like me, I sympathize with the SSPX but do not attend their chapels. I hope something can be worked out between the Vatican and the SSPX. To me, Tradition is a mindset and attitude in a secondary sense but a very important one. Those who are not Traditional don’t understand this. I consider this secondary sense of tradition part of my personality. I think this way on most things and have since I was very young. Does this make sense?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Well, you’re right. Some opinions here have to do more with what they “Wish” it could be and do remain obedient. I’m one of them. Of course, other’s don’t so you have a mix. I think the SSPX comes up a lot because they keep to traditional Catholicism more than anyone else with the exception of being obedient to the Roman Pontiff. I know that is a very big thing. I think they want to (that’s why they’re talking to the Vatican) but they went into schism because they wanted stability in everything they consider necessary to maintain a Traditional Catholic Faith and lifestyle. In other words, like me, I sympathize with the SSPX but do not attend their chapels. I hope something can be worked out between the Vatican and the SSPX. To me, Tradition is a mindset and attitude in a secondary sense but a very important one. Those who are not Traditional don’t understand this. I consider this secondary sense of tradition part of my personality. I think this way on most things and have since I was very young. Does this make sense?

No it does not make sense.

What if I said that I believe that woman and married men should be able to become priests and that I think the Magisterium is wrong in it’s opinion, but I accept their position and do not split off into one of the schismatic groups that have sprung up on this side of the spectrum?
What if I go on to say that it me this is part of the “social justice” teachings of the Gospels and that those who don’t agree with it will never understand it but that it is just an ingrained part of my personality?

How is this position any different in it’s disobedience than the one you posted?

 

[Dorothy]

I have noticed something on these threads, and have never seen the subject brought up, so I am going to try. These are merely observations of an American, Catholic woman, trying to find her way in a very complicated world by giving praise God with all I do and trying to follow His will and not my own.

There have been a few threads the past few days where someone who identifies themselves as a “Traditional Catholic” who will use documents and writings that are not official Magisterial documents to try and prove that certain things (CITH, use of EMHC, no head covering’s for women- the list goes on & on) are not “traditional” and that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow “less Catholic”. I have also encountered people who are defending members of the clergy or organizations (Fr. Gruner & the Fatima League, SSPX, etc.) who are not in line with the Magisterium, and in some cases have had their priestly faculties revoked and who even denounce, sometimes very publically and with much venom, members of the clergy and the laity who hold different opinions than theirs.

I am not sure I understand this.

As Roman Catholics, we are supposed to be obedient to the Magisterium, and all that means. Including accepting that the Bishop is the shepherd of his diocese, with the right to make certain decisions, within the parameters given to him by his office, and that the Pastor of a parish also has some leeway as to how he does things, and that ultimately, it is their opinion that really counts.

Pope Benedict, much like his predecessor John Paul II, has definite personal opinions regarding some of these things, and they are the ones who could actually do something about certain practices, and yet they chose not to. Should not that tell us something?

I also see a lot of people using the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law and various other writings as “proof” that the opinion that they hold is “right”, even though the newer documents and codes, in most cases, say that they (the newer ones) replace the older documents or that the opinions of various priests and theologians are regarded more highly than what the Church’s actual opinion is on some matters.

How does this fit into being obedient to the Magisterium?

In my humble opinion, it seems to be anything but. It seems to me, that this attitude by some “traditionalists” is the exact same attitude, only the other end of the spectrum, as the “progressives” who want to take the books and the traditions of the Church and throw them out the window!

I truly believe that what the Church, and the whole world, needs more than anything right now, is a sense of “balance”- the “both/and” perspective instead of the “either/or”.
The $64K question is-
How do we achieve this, and become the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, we proclaim we are every week?

Thoughts, comments?

I totally agree with you about obedience. To not be obedient to the Magisterium and to take part in criticizing what is allowed does nothing for more reverence. I choose to obey first and not bicker about things I would like to see being done better. For instance, an indult was given to allow Communion in the hand. I can understand why many may not agree. But it is pointless to keep bickering about what is legitimately permitted.

 

[joandarc2008]

you may have the charism of a Secular Franciscan - you should check it out:

nafra-sfo.org/

 

[stuart12]

…And the Roman Pontiff must be obedience to the deposit of truth as well. We are not called to be obedient for the sake for simply following the Pope, but was the sake of following Christ all the more perfectly. If a Pope acts contrary to the Faith, he sins and will be answerable to God for it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

…And the Roman Pontiff must be obedience to the deposit of truth as well. We are not called to be obedient for the sake for simply following the Pope, but was the sake of following Christ all the more perfectly. If a Pope acts contrary to the Faith, he sins and will be answerable to God for it.

Do you have a reference for what you have paraphrased or quoted in your post?

Was this a contribution to the discussion to inform us that the Pope is capable of making mistakes and that a Pope may act contrary to the Faith? Are you suggesting or implying that any Pope in recent history has done this?

Who is it that will determine whether the Pope has acted contrary to the Faith?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The problem is, some of those that "prefer’ the old ways, and the old texts, tend to complain that those that do not are somehow not faithful Catholics. They have a tendency to downgrade anyone, and anything, that disagrees with their views.

This web site is dominated by some extremely conservative thinkers that appear to reject most of Vatican II. That is sad, because they are the ones that are in revolt against their own church.

They are free to believe as they wish. God grants each of us the ability to make the choices. But, to then condemn others that do not believe as they do is to overstep the bounds of both choice and of religion.

We are enjoined not to judge others, lest we ourselves be judged. But some on this site quite literally attack anyone that does not agree with their point of view. They judge them to be less “Catholic”, less “faithful”, to be “sinners”, and they work very, very hard to attempt to force others into their point of view.

I to grew up with the “Baltimore Catechism”. I memorized it, long before I was baptized back in 1957. I learned the Tridentine Mass, I learned all of the responses (and what those Latin words actually meant). I went into Seminary in 1959, and studied Latin, as well as Pre-Theology. I miss those days, when the Mass was the same, the world around.

BUT, I do not miss the fact that the vast majority of Catholics the world around didn’t have a clue what the Mass was all about.

I do not miss the fact that all too many of us treated Priest as if they were God himself.

I do not miss the almost total lack of participation by the Congregation in the Mass, Benediction, etc. As the old saying used to go, “Catholics are the ones that don’t sing”.

I don’t miss the banal hymns that we used to sing, ones that were mostly 100–200 years old, and had little relevance to our lives. People complain about modern music, well I hate to tell you but they complained about the “Modern Music” when hymns like “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” were first introduced too.

I can go to a Tridentine Mass if I choose to do so. I go once in a while, just to keep my Latin up (it isn’t as good as it used to be, but I still know the responses). But I would absolutely HATE to see the Church go back.

There is so much more participation now. People sing with the choir, they take an active part in the worship, they get to act as extraordinary ministers, they can be ministers to the sick, the elderly, the shut-ins, etc. None of that was allowed “way back when”.

As I have said in many of my notes here, the vast majority of those that call for a return to those days, never actually experienced them themselves. Or if they did, they were very young children. They have a false image of what the church was really like back then.

I first attended a Catholic Mass in January, 1953. I was asking to be baptized by June of that year (they would not baptize me, because i was only 9 years old, and they felt there was too much of a chance i could fall away from the faith). I went to Catholic Schools in 1953/54/, 1955/56 (in Ukiah, California) and again in 1957/58 (in Santa Fe, NM) , and 1958/59 (in San Diego, CA). Then, I went to a Minor Seminary with the Passionists, at Our Lady of Good Counsel in Warrenton, MO. I knew the Latin Mass backwards and forwards.

I also know that in every church that I ever attended Mass in (all over the US, Europe, Asia, Mexico, etc.), the vast majority of the congregation had their noses buried in a Missle, and did not see or participate in, the Mass itself. They simply didn’t know what was actually going on. Let’s NEVER go back to that.

Let the CELEBRATION OF THE MASS, be exactly that, a Celebration that the people are a real part of.

Those that want to live by the old rubrics are totally free to do so. But, lets do it ALL THE WAY. Lets go back to fasting from midnight before you receive communion. Lets abstain from eating meat throughout Lent, on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day (there goes the turkey or ham dinner), etc. Let all have meatless Fridays (with the horrible Tuna Hot Dogs we were fed in San Diego). Lets have 2-3 Priests at every parish. Lets all raise our children to become Priests of religious. And above all, those conservatives better be having 8-15 children, or they are NOT living up to the precepts that they claim to love.

You can’t have it both ways. Either you are actually faithful to ALL of the old ways, or you are playing games with it. And, if you are picking and choosing, then you have not a single VALID word that you can say to anyone else about the choices that they make.

 

[Bakuryokuso]

Hi OneOfTheWomen - great post.

Typically, an ecumenical council will take 100 years to be fully “digested” by the church - it has been 40 years since Vatican II and I believe these discussions are a way for the church to “work through” some of the issues which were raised.

The clearest issue can tend to be liturgical reform. Liturgy isn’t static - it does evolve. Popes can make modifications, then re-modify them again. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing and debating.

You brought up CITH. Most of the world is under the CITH indult. But the history is interesting. Although the early church used CITH, it fell out of use as Eucharistic theology progressed. The Protestants re-introduced it as a means to deny transubstantiation. It re-appeared in the Catholic church in Belgium after Vatican II as a liturgical abuse. Pope Paul VI requested that it be stopped, but then gave in, and the indult was granted all over the world.

Catholics received on the tongue for over 1,000 years prior to Vatican II. So it is the “traditional” way to receive communion and it is also fully permitted for any Catholic, aside from being the normal way to receive in the Extraordinary Form. In the last few years, we’ve seen belief in the Real Presence plummet among Catholics. Does CITH have anything to do with that? Perhaps - it’s up for discussion. The Holy Father could conceivably revoke the CITH indult at some point.

So, to me, the message of Traditional Catholicism is pretty simple: the church did things certain ways for a thousand years… and these ways are still approved options… but they make more sense for Traditional Catholics than the reforms.

I think Liberals are a much bigger problem to the church than Traditionalists. Maybe 95% of Catholics are in mortal sin because of failure in Sunday obligation and rejection of church teaching on birth control. Huge problem. But Traditionalists tend to have large families, attend church often. So maybe they do speak up too loudly and forcefully on certain issues, but I think at heart most Traditionalists are rabid lovers of the the Holy Father.

The problem, to me, is Traditionalists cliques which develop into an us-and-them mentality, which engenders the whole attitude you mention of “we’re better than you”.

But I would agree with you: it is a matter of the heart in many cases. We should all be humble and I don’t see a problem with a Catholic who is following the options that the current Code of Canon Law affords them. But lots of church practices are up for debate, so I’m all for that too.

Many Bishops have given the Extraordinary Form a really hard time, which can unfortunately encourage an “under siege” mentality among traditionalists, which doesn’t help matters.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The Old Medic-

Great post!

Thank you!

 

[At_Trent]

The $64K question is-
How do we achieve this, and become the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, we proclaim we are every week?

Thoughts, comments?

How ? That’s easy. Elect Bishop Williamson pope at the next Conclave !

j/k

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Very funny, At Trent!

But seriously, you and I had an exchange in another thread about this very topic. I would love to hear more of your thoughts regarding my assertion that the disobedience is the same on both sides, and that it is the disobedience that is helping to fuel the problems, on both sides of the spectrum.

 

[At_Trent]

On a more serious note, take a look at the Liturgy and Sacraments sub-forum. What do we see there ?

Confused Catholics asking if a priest can do this or that. Posts bringing light to novelties and abuses in the Liturgy. Look at the topics on the index page now, and wait a week. Same thing. Never ends.

The Council at Trent ( love that phrase “at Trent” ) found a solution to a very similar problem, that problem being that from one village to another, different rubrics were used in the Liturgy. Some small differences, some major. The Mass was codified to achieve unity in worship, which is part of the topic at hand.

Today, we are right back to pre-Trent times, in that one can go from parish to parish, and see differences. Don’t have to drive out of town these days. So unity in worship has taken a slide. Some parishes have kneelers, some don’t. Some kneel after Communion, some stand. It’s not a traditionalist vs contemporary thing.

Next regular Sunday Mass, take time to notice how many bow when they are supposed to during that certain part of the Creed. Do all ? If not, there is no true unity of worship is there ?

All of the above may seem like small stuff, but is it really ? How about the Sanctus ? Far too often the prayer is begun and people are still shaking hands Is this nit-picking ? Not if unity is a concern.

My point is, even if we all agree to stop bickering over Tradition and what it entails, the true issue of dis-unity is still there. Then there is the other form of the Mass. Whether we like it or not, that is another bick in the wall. When the TLM was abruptly pushed aside and the Novus Ordo Missae presented, it was a shock to many. Most kept quiet, but for many, there was a spiritual uneasiness that lingered.

Division is not good, but we can’t deny it’s there. And you know, this being the most visited Catholic forum, it would be wonderful if we were all to agree to speak of nothing divisive ever again. I fell many guests come here and lurk and see all the fuss, Some may be those thinking of converting. Some may be reverts. Surely it’s not good to see some of these threads if one isn’t aware of all the fuss. I suppose many leave, thinking we are nuts, and some may stay and get caught up in it themselves.

At any rate, the problems there are won’t be solved on these forums by us. And even if we were to figure it out, what, 1-2% of all Catholics might see the answers here ?

Our best bet is prayer I think. jmo

I’m not sure we will ever stop bickering though. It’s tiresome, and I’m beginning to get bored with it.

 

[ProVobis]

I totally agree with you about obedience. To not be obedient to the Magisterium and to take part in criticizing what is allowed does nothing for more reverence. I choose to obey first and not bicker about things I would like to see being done better. For instance, an indult was given to allow Communion in the hand.

Okay, we’ve gone through this before. Wasn’t this practice allowed in those places which had already been disobedient to the Church’s order of not allowing unordained hands to touch the Body and Blood of Christ?

 

[ProVobis]

The problem is, some of those that "prefer’ the old ways, and the old texts, tend to complain that those that do not are somehow not faithful Catholics. They have a tendency to downgrade anyone, and anything, that disagrees with their views.

Okay, let’s go to the issue of language in the Mass.

(1) Trent said the Mass couldn’t be said in vernacular only. Impact was no vernacular for 400 years.

(2) Pope John XXIII effectively banned vernacular in the liturgy in his Veterum Sapientia.

(3) Vatican II stated that Latin be preserved in the Latin Rite.

(4) Canon 249 states that priests must study Latin in their formation.

Where’s the absolute obedience to all this? Most Catholics see only all-vernacular all-the-time liturgies.

 

[At_Trent]

Very funny, At Trent!

But seriously, you and I had an exchange in another thread about this very topic. I would love to hear more of your thoughts regarding my assertion that the disobedience is the same on both sides, and that it is the disobedience that is helping to fuel the problems, on both sides of the spectrum.

lol, I’m sorry.

I was typing whn you posted, but I kind of focused on division. But yes, everywhere and on every matter, there are extreme, but opposite, views.

If we are all to be obedient, we’d just shut up. I think it was cardinal Hoyos who told those on the internet forums to do so. There are those in Rome who keep up with the forums and blogs, I’m sure of that. Those that do may not hand a weekly report to H.H., but there is evidence some are reading.

ok, here it is…found it

“They do not know the harm they are doing,” Cardinal Castrillon said, adding that when the Vatican does not accept their demands immediately “they go directly to the Internet” and post their complaints.
summorumpontificum.net/2008/09/cardinal-hoyos-some-not-satisfied-even.html

He was talking about the TLM and demands for it. Just one example.

I don’t know the answer, but I think I know what might have enabled the mess. Probably best I just shut up

 

[joandarc2008]

It is very simple - we should all strive for understanding of the decisions of the Magisterium. With understanding comes obedience. Will there be disunity - yes. Why? Because people are imperfect creatures. Overall the Magisterium is the representative of His Church – if you don’t believe this then why believe in Apostolic Succession? If you don’t believe in Apostolic Succession then you lose the true Eucharist? Without the Eucharist why are you here?

 

[MarkThompson]

The Council at Trent ( love that phrase “at Trent” ) found a solution to a very similar problem, that problem being that from one village to another, different rubrics were used in the Liturgy. Some small differences, some major. The Mass was codified to achieve unity in worship, which is part of the topic at hand.

Today, we are right back to pre-Trent times, in that one can go from parish to parish, and see differences. Don’t have to drive out of town these days. So unity in worship has taken a slide. Some parishes have kneelers, some don’t. Some kneel after Communion, some stand. It’s not a traditionalist vs contemporary thing.

. . .

All of the above may seem like small stuff, but is it really ? How about the Sanctus ?

How funny you should mention that! You may be interested in my latest post on the Notes from Notitiae thread.

 

[At_Trent]

How funny you should mention that! You may be interested in my latest post on the Notes from Notitiae thread.

That’s interesting stuff, but I’m talking about the sign of peace not ending until the Sanctus is well underway.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

That’s interesting stuff, but I’m talking about the sign of peace not ending until the Sanctus is well underway.

I am confused, but that’s OK, it’s pretty easy to confuse me…

do you mean the Agnus Dei?

This is a huge “pet-peeve” of mine, when people are still walking around giving the sign of peace to everyone while the priest is is saying “Lamb of God…”