A question about obedience

[MarkThompson]

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

Ah, I think as Oneofthewomen says you meant to type the Agnus Dei. But anyway, I thought it was an interested counterpoint, not to a specific concern about the Sanctus, but to the overall theme that “there was instability and uncertainty before Trent, then 400 years of glorious stability where everything was identical and no one would ever have thought of tinkering with the liturgy, whereas today we are back to ‘pre-Trent times, in that one can go from parish to parish, and see differences’.”

 

[scylla]

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…

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.

You post as if having many Priests, many Children, a longer fast and a stricter practice of the faith is bad? I see that having a stricter adherence to the faith, more Priests, more Children ends up with more people in Heaven. How is that bad?

I would also disagree with the position that people know what is going on at Mass now…
Are you serious? Do you know how much belief in the center of our faith has dropped in the last 40 years. Belief in the real presence has been decimated. Which means that something is horribly wrong.
So we have a bunch of people doing stuff around the Church and most feeling good about themselves but practicing contraception, denying the faith and not practicing the faith. I do not see that as a good thing, as a young Catholic who grew up in the 70-80’s I know how feel good Catholicism has left my generation, and I treasure the traditions of the past as it seems they are the answer to the crisis the Church is in right now.

It might be a bit more difficult, not so fun, yet Salvation of souls involves sacrifice.

In Christ
Scylla

Now obedience is something that I see abused and denied as those who like to mess with the faith use obedience to try and push others to deny the faith, and there are some who abuse obedience to only show obedience to themselves.
It is certainly not dis-obedience to question the prudence of practice, yet we should always have respect for those above us even if they make bad decisions.

 

[otjm]

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.

The history is perhaps a bit more complex than that. While it is true that the general rule for the Roman rite was Communion on the Tongue, in the Eastern Church Communion in the hand was retained, so actually Catholics received both ways - but the vast majority of Roman Catholics received on the tongue. And to add to that, it was only for about 200 years that all Roman Catholics so received; in the 1200’s the Franciscans were granted the right to receive in the hand and have done so for the last 800 years or so.

Thus, it was not a complete abberration that Communion in the Hand arose after Vatican 2, as there was history both in the Eastern Church and within the Roman Church, albeit very selectively, of such means of reception.

I do not personally have the history of the Belgium/Netherlands issue; I have however, heard on several occasions that there was a limited permission to experiment with that means of reception, and if this were true, then the charge that this was done illegally (illicitly) and proceeded from there would not be entirely accurate.

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.

It might be better to say that it is the norm of the Roman Church; one can argue that there is tradition on both sides of the issue. The more recent tradition is reception on the tongue, but it is not exactly accurate to say it is “the traditional way” without some qualifications.

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.

Actually, the issue of loss of understanding of the True Presence is longer than “the last few years”, unless by that you mean from some time in the 1970’s to today. One could receive under either format and not know of the teaching of the True Presence - not because of the means of reception, but rather because of the catechesis - or rather, the lack of it. Catechetics prior to Vatican 2 (at least in the US) was primarily through the use of the Baltimore Catechism. That got tossed out somewhere in the late 1960’s/early 1970’s and replaced with the “Jesus my buddy warm and fuzzy we must all love one another” pablum that was passed off as catechesis. It is not the last few years which have suffered a lack of knowledge, but the last several decades. Blaming the mode of reception for the loss of understanding is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc assignment of blame. The Protestant reformation took place about 500 years after the move to reception on the tongue in the Roman Church; but neither the Eastern Church nor the Western Church suffered loss of belief when reception in the hand was present and adequate catechesis was the norm.

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.

They may be objectively in such state, but subjectively may not be. In any event, what is needed is a return to catechesis that follows the Magisterium, something that in the US has been gradually improving since the 1990’s.

 

[otjm]

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.

I think that you are confusing unity with uniformity. It really is not that hard to do the red and say the black, but in doing so, the Church has seen fit to not require absolute uniformity, a point that clearly bothers some Traditionalists. And the issue of uniformity (putting aside the fact that the Eastern Churches may never have shared uniformity with the Western Church) certainly does not have a majority of the historical practice in the Western Church, a point that seems lost on some.

There is, however, unity without a necessity of uniformity.

 

[At_Trent]

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…”

no, I’m confused. It’s the Agnus Dei I meant. I hope they move the sign of peace. prayerful>social>prayerful … It just moves too fast. Irreverant really.

 

[Layman]

‘Obedience’ comes up in this sub-forum quite often. However, I think some people are confusing this word with ‘aquiescence’ or ‘accepting a fashion’.

There’s nothing disobedient about wanting the TLM and the old sacraments. Traditionalists don’t want to go to N.O. masses, have CITH, or other novelties.

Is this disobedient? No. But I think it irks people who are happy with events post-1960.

**Post-Vat. II is the experiment, pre-1940’s is the tried-and-tested. I’d like to try the tried-and-tested. **

The N.O. isn’t said as the Council envisaged (ad orientem, with Latin and chant), but it’s the traditionalists who are disobedient?

 

[laszlo]

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?

I agree with James224. The adherence to tradition is mindset, it fills up the whole person, and works for the stability of the world, religion, everything The problem is always if the tradition is circumcised, and the very first dogma of the tradition the primacy of the pope is denied. Those with traditional midset have to circumcise their mind and heart, not the tradition.

On other hand the progressiveness is mindset too, and this mindset too fills up the person and works for the progress of the world, religion, everything. The problem is if the progressive listens to the Satan, and thinks that he/she knows good and evil (Gen 3:5) and in the principle of social justice or whatever can make judgments against the Magisterium, he understands the truth better than the Magisterium. One with progressive mindset had to accept his/hes insufficiency, and the need for the Magisterium not only in the level of he will, but on the level of the intellect too.

As for married priest, that is discipline and will be changed unless our Lord is coming first, but about the social justice and women priests, God created into a world an extreme injustice between men and women: men are not able to give body to their children, only women are able to do so. This is grave inequality, but we had to accept and believe that God knows what He is doing.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

‘Obedience’ comes up in this sub-forum quite often. However, I think some people are confusing this word with ‘aquiescence’ or ‘accepting a fashion’.

There’s nothing disobedient about wanting the TLM and the old sacraments. Traditionalists don’t want to go to N.O. masses, have CITH, or other novelties.

Is this disobedient? No. But I think it irks people who are happy with events post-1960.

**Post-Vat. II is the experiment, pre-1940’s is the tried-and-tested. I’d like to try the tried-and-tested. **

The N.O. isn’t said as the Council envisaged (ad orientem, with Latin and chant), but it’s the traditionalists who are disobedient?

I cannot speak for anyone else but I do not consider traditionalists as a group to be disobedient. Of course, it’s possible that some traditionalists may be disobedient. What irks me is some of the points raised by the OP. These are a common stance taken by a large number of traditionalists that only they are faithful to the Catholic Faith. I also take objection to those who consider all post-conciliar things and Vat. II itself to be wrong. I thought we believed that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Church from erring. Why do traditionalists believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church during the second Vatican Council? The Church has to be relevant to the needs of each generation. I am not saying that the Church has to conform to current trends. On the contrary the Church must remain loyal to the revealed Truths. However, the Church must respond in new ways to current events. The Church is alive and needs to evolve over time. While the Holy Father has made generous provision for the pre-Vatican II forms of the liturgy His Holiness has made it quite clear that the post-conciliar liturgy is to be the standard and ordinary form of worship in the Latin Catholic Church.

 

[Ben_F]

I became a Catholic in 1970. I wouldn´t have, had it not been for Vatican II. I can´t say this for sure, but ninety percent for sure. I am so glad that I know the truth. I feel for those that don´t. This probably wouldn´t have happened had I not heard the Mass in my on language. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Bakuryokuso]

…neither the Eastern Church nor the Western Church suffered loss of belief when reception in the hand was present and adequate catechesis was the norm.

(…) In any event, what is needed is a return to catechesis that follows the Magisterium, something that in the US has been gradually improving since the 1990’s.

Thanks for all the info otjm. I converted to Catholicism this year thru an RCIA program and the catechesis was excellent. Maybe half of the RCIA attendees were cradle Catholics who had never been confirmed. All throughout the course they were like “Whoa! I’d never heard this stuff before! It’s so amazing!” So I think the lack of Sunday Obligation leads to lack of Catechism (since they’re never hearing sermons) and that can lead to erroneous beliefs.

 

[ProVobis]

This probably wouldn´t have happened had I not heard the Mass in my on language.

Don’t take this question the wrong way but is this the only reason? Don’t Protestants have liturgies, some of which they borrowed from the New Catholic Mass, in their own language? I happen to know quite a few people who left the Church during the 60’s and 70’s; and others (who didn’t leave) aren’t the happiest campers in the world.

 

[Layman]

… I thought we believed that the Holy Spirit would prevent the Church from erring. Why do traditionalists believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church during the second Vatican Council? The Church has to be relevant to the needs of each generation. I am not saying that the Church has to conform to current trends. On the contrary the Church must remain loyal to the revealed Truths. However, the Church must respond in new ways to current events. The Church is alive and needs to evolve over time. …

[My emphasis]

What traditionalists would like is access to the old sacraments. The fruits hoped for, from changing our worship, do not appear to have materialised. How long is the Church going to chase after the people, and thus, fashion, before it realises that it doesn’t work? That it can alienate people and cause scandal?

The Church should be a beacon of tradition in a world driven cracked by rapid change and social upheaval. Even during the 80’s, ‘Fr. Trendy’ became a national joke in Ireland. We need exemplars of holiness, not social workers or avuncular raconteurs.

The Church should give every new idea at least 50 years before implementing it, then another 150 trying it out.

The Church has had an iconoclasm. A pal told me ‘The Vernacular Society’ in the UK had to close down after the New Mass came out: their wildest dreams had been realised. Now old revolutionaries have no Roman, authoritarian, antiquated hierarchy to shake their fist at. You can have whatever style of Mass your bishop tolerates.

The revolution was a long time in coming, since Gutenburg printed his first Bible. We see what that has wrought; no Springtime. The opposite has occurred. You can blame society, but the revolution was supposed to be an answer to social change.

Now, also, handily enough, we find the old rite isn’t banned after all. Is that also the Holy Spirit at work?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

No, following the older rubrics are not necessarily bad. The problem is, the vast majority of those “conservatives” do NOT follow all of them either. Just as the vast majority of Roman Catholics did not follow them 100% of the time BEFORE Vatican II.

The simple fact is, there are a lot of people out there that are condemning others for following the newer rituals.

There are people out there calling for a return to the way things were done for 1,000 years. Well, let me ask a question. If you truly want things to be the way they were, why not follow the way things were well BEFORE a thousand years ago?

How about going back to what Christ himself instituted? HE chose married men to be his original Apostles. HE did not ask for, or require celibacy. HE decided that men with families were the ones to become our first Bishops. If those choices were HIS, then why do we choose to not follow the path that he laid down?

Why do WE condemn others for not following what we perceive to be the “right way”? Didn’t Jesus teach us to love one another as we love ourselves? How can you possibly do that, while telling others that they are wrong, that only YOUR way is the correct one? Over and over again, he told people NOT to point out the sin of others, but to look withion themselves.

How many of the “conservatives” actually do what he enjoined us to do? If you did, you would never condemn anyone else for their choice of music, etc. Instead, you would concentrate on being as perfect an example of a follower of Jesus as you can be.

BUT INSTEAD, you argue, you harangue, you condemn others, and you constantly look for the mote in others eyes, while ignoring the log in your own.

If you truly want to be Christians, stop picking on everyone else.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

[My emphasis]

What traditionalists would like is access to the old sacraments. The fruits hoped for, from changing our worship, do not appear to have materialised. How long is the Church going to chase after the people, and thus, fashion, before it realises that it doesn’t work? That it can alienate people and cause scandal?

The Church should be a beacon of tradition in a world driven cracked by rapid change and social upheaval. Even during the 80’s, ‘Fr. Trendy’ became a national joke in Ireland. We need examplars of holiness, not social workers or avuncular raconteurs.

The Church should give every new idea at least 50 years before implementing it, then another 150 trying it out.

The Church has had an iconoclasm. A pal told me ‘The Vernacular Society’ in the UK had to close down after the New Mass came out: their wildest dreams had been realised. Now old revolutionaries have no Roman, authoritarian, antiquated hierarchy to shake their fist at. You can have whatever style of Mass your bishop tolerates. We see what that has wrought.

Now, also, handily enough, we find the old rite isn’t banned after all. Is that also the Holy Spirit at work?

It is impossible to say whether the Church would have its current problems if the liturgy had not changed because it was changed so we cannot know what would have happened if the pre-Vat. II liturgy had been retained. I do not think the changes in the liturgy are the root of the Church’s current problems. I think there are many other underlying sociological issues that have led to the Church’s many problems. I agree that the Church should be a beacon for the Truth. What has happened, in my opinion, is that the Church has become afraid of teaching the Truth. There is one bishop in our country who changed RE in his diocese to conform to the Church’s magisterium. I believe he was shunned by his brother bishops. We need proper catechesis on the Catholic Faith - Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition interpreted by the Magisterium. The Church’s problems will not be solved by going back to the ‘old’ liturgy.

 

[Layman]

Many in the Church, from bishops on down, don’t want the laity to have the old rite. They don’t want them to have Latin. They don’t want them to have Chant. That’s the nub of it.

It would be fascinating, if I wasn’t a Catholic.** The old rites, having hundreds of years of precedent, cannot be wrong. Yet there is opposition to pious people having them. **

 

[ProVobis]

No, following the older rubrics are not necessarily bad. The problem is, the vast majority of those “conservatives” do NOT follow all of them either. Just as the vast majority of Roman Catholics did not follow them 100% of the time BEFORE Vatican II.

Good that you put the label in quotes. Many of them are only slow progressives.

The simple fact is, there are a lot of people out there that are condemning others for following the newer rituals.

That works both ways.

There are people out there calling for a return to the way things were done for 1,000 years. Well, let me ask a question. If you truly want things to be the way they were, why not follow the way things were well BEFORE a thousand years ago?

Actually, practices aside, we’re following from the time of Christ. 2011 English hadn’t come into play yet.

How about going back to what Christ himself instituted? HE chose married men to be his original Apostles. HE did not ask for, or require celibacy. HE decided that men with families were the ones to become our first Bishops. If those choices were HIS, then why do we choose to not follow the path that he laid down?

“Jesus Christ himself gave similar exhortations. He said to one of his disciples, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” He told Matthew to “Follow me.” He told his disciples, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Jesus even told one wealthy individual, “…sell that thou hast,… and come and follow me.” (Matt 8:22, 9:9, 16:24, 19:21.)”

servantsnews.com/sn9507/follow.htm

Why do WE condemn others for not following what we perceive to be the “right way”? Didn’t Jesus teach us to love one another as we love ourselves? How can you possibly do that, while telling others that they are wrong, that only YOUR way is the correct one? Over and over again, he told people NOT to point out the sin of others, but to look withion themselves.

How many of the “conservatives” actually do what he enjoined us to do? If you did, you would never condemn anyone else for their choice of music, etc. Instead, you would concentrate on being as perfect an example of a follower of Jesus as you can be.

BUT INSTEAD, you argue, you harangue, you condemn others, and you constantly look for the mote in others eyes, while ignoring the log in your own.

If you truly want to be Christians, stop picking on everyone else.

 

[ProVobis]

No, following the older rubrics are not necessarily bad. The problem is, the vast majority of those “conservatives” do NOT follow all of them either. Just as the vast majority of Roman Catholics did not follow them 100% of the time BEFORE Vatican II.

Good that you put the label in quotes. Many of them are only slow progressives.

The simple fact is, there are a lot of people out there that are condemning others for following the newer rituals.

That works both ways.

There are people out there calling for a return to the way things were done for 1,000 years. Well, let me ask a question. If you truly want things to be the way they were, why not follow the way things were well BEFORE a thousand years ago?

Actually, practices aside, we’re following from the time of Christ. Personally I wouldn’t mind giving up the 2011 English for whatever they spoke during those times.

How about going back to what Christ himself instituted? HE chose married men to be his original Apostles. HE did not ask for, or require celibacy. HE decided that men with families were the ones to become our first Bishops. If those choices were HIS, then why do we choose to not follow the path that he laid down?

“Jesus Christ himself gave similar exhortations. He said to one of his disciples, “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” He told Matthew to “Follow me.” He told his disciples, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Jesus even told one wealthy individual, “…sell that thou hast,… and come and follow me.” (Matt 8:22, 9:9, 16:24, 19:21.)”

servantsnews.com/sn9507/follow.htm

How many of the “conservatives” actually do what he enjoined us to do? If you did, you would never condemn anyone else for their choice of music, etc. Instead, you would concentrate on being as perfect an example of a follower of Jesus as you can be.

Which is easier, praying when it’s quiet or praying while listening to laughter? quiet or watching entertainment? quiet or hearing bothersome music? Place should be free of distraction, I would think, not full of it.

 

[joandarc2008]

No, following the older rubrics are not necessarily bad. The problem is, the vast majority of those “conservatives” do NOT follow all of them either. Just as the vast majority of Roman Catholics did not follow them 100% of the time BEFORE Vatican II.

The simple fact is, there are a lot of people out there that are condemning others for following the newer rituals.

There are people out there calling for a return to the way things were done for 1,000 years. Well, let me ask a question. If you truly want things to be the way they were, why not follow the way things were well BEFORE a thousand years ago?

How about going back to what Christ himself instituted? HE chose married men to be his original Apostles. HE did not ask for, or require celibacy. HE decided that men with families were the ones to become our first Bishops. If those choices were HIS, then why do we choose to not follow the path that he laid down?

Why do WE condemn others for not following what we perceive to be the “right way”? Didn’t Jesus teach us to love one another as we love ourselves? How can you possibly do that, while telling others that they are wrong, that only YOUR way is the correct one? Over and over again, he told people NOT to point out the sin of others, but to look withion themselves.

How many of the “conservatives” actually do what he enjoined us to do? If you did, you would never condemn anyone else for their choice of music, etc. Instead, you would concentrate on being as perfect an example of a follower of Jesus as you can be.

BUT INSTEAD, you argue, you harangue, you condemn others, and you constantly look for the mote in others eyes, while ignoring the log in your own.

If you truly want to be Christians, stop picking on everyone else.

Old Medic I am just tagging your post because I liked it -

Here is my question - I was born in 1979. I was raised Catholic and Protestant and finally took my Sacraments in 2008 when I chose to come home to Rome. I won’t get into that whole subject here. I have only a year of Latin - and it is the kind that allows me to identify scientific genus and species. So when these changes take place will those of you calling for them be willing to teach me with love and compassion, head injury and all - or will I have to pull out my father’s old missal learn on my own and suffer your condemnation when I make mistakes?

 

[ProVobis]

I have only a year of Latin

Good enough.

For obedience and for sharing in the Church’s treasures.

 

[laszlo]

My wife became Catholic (from Lutheran) this year, and the main point of her was the reverent Mass. For 17 years since 1989 we attended Mass together, Mass full with adlibiting, and honoring primarily the people instead of Jesus Christ.

In 2007 we found a Church were the mass is celebrated with reverence toward God, and only with that reverence. We attend that Mass almost always. She started to feel at home on that Church, and also felt that if she is home there, she have to be belong to ther entirely participating the confession and communion too.

The same Church offers TLM too. I like it better, because I born onto that, and grown up with that Mass. For her that is far away, she want to hear and understand what is happening. We went to TLM mass quite a bit, until the final decision. This agrees with the decision of the local people too of that church, the Vernacular Masses are more crowded than the TLM, which is filled more up with people from outside.

It is not the vernacular neither the the changes in the ordo or rubrics of the mass what makes people unhappy but the lack of piety, the lack of reverence toward God. This has nothing to do with the new Mass. The TLMs are more reverent because an extremely small minority, the rubric minded priest and people celebrate and attend that. The irreverence, the adlibiting started before the new GIRM in the sixties.