A question about obedience

[ProVobis]

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.

I’ll partially agree with you here. I have never attended a Latin OF which wasn’t reverent. The vernacular allows too much secularism into the Mass, in my opinion.

 

[laszlo]

I’ll partially agree with you here. I have never attended a Latin OF which wasn’t reverent. The vernacular allows too much secularism into the Mass, in my opinion.

I attended irreverent TLM with guitar, unapproved songs centering on the community before the New Mass was introduced. The Latin has no mythical power against the abuse in itself…

 

[hazcompat]

if anyone can help? i’ve been trying to locate John Paul II document that says even the suggestions of the pope should be considered with due deference? Obedience is a great grace.

Peace

 

[vsedriver]

[My emphasis]

What traditionalists would like is access to the old sacraments.

What ‘old’ sacraments do you not have access too?

 

[ProVobis]

if anyone can help? i’ve been trying to locate John Paul II document that says even the suggestions of the pope should be considered with due deference?

Seems as if that should go without saying.

 

[scylla]

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.

I am not sure if you were responding to me, but I will respond…

First of all I do not see a problem with anyone asking anyone else to be more faithful. I ask everyone here to correct me if I am wrong and to seek ways to make me a more faithful servant of Jesus Christ. If I have been uncharitable forgive me, but lets not confuse charity with ignoring error.

I do not think people are seeking a return to the past, but a future which remembers our glorious past. It is quite a blessing to have many Priests, to use a universal language, to have many children, to have people practicing the faith, even if they are not as happy. We should seek happiness in heaven.

Our Lord was being charitable when He corrected those doing evil, with those disrespecting the Temple, even with His own disciples. We are to imitate Him even if we are not perfect. I agree with you that we should not look down on others but that doesn’t mean that error shouldn’t be corrected.

It is a sin to use contraception, to insult the Priesthood and the disrespect Holy places. We see this everyday and our Church is in terrible shape. I agree with you that we all need to be more holy and faithful, I will pray for you and I hope you pray for me, as we should all strive to be Saints and brings others to sanctity.

God Bless
Scylla

Mediator Dei says something about antiquarianism which is a desire to return to the early Church ignoring how we have developed and dealt with abuses in the past.

 

[laszlo]

Mediator Dei says something about antiquarianism which is a desire to return to the early Church ignoring how we have developed and dealt with abuses in the past.

Here is the account of the Mediator Dei about antiquarianism

1. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls’ salvation.
2. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,”[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority - even on occasion with wholesome severity - you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

The Council of Pistoia was an effort by some Italian bishops in the 18th Century to act against the pope and the papal primacy

The Mediator Dei defends the papal primacy, and assert that the hierarchy is the living ruler.

 

[James224]

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.

I understand exactly where you are coming from but it seems to be ok for you to take your stand but not those who love the Latin Mass. I love both and attend both. As I said in my first post, some of us are absolutely obedient but love or even prefer the Latin Mass. The Pope says both are acceptable. I’ve been obedient all these years attending the Ordinary Rite but as soon as someone says they love the Latin Mass and give reasons why and what they prefer, somehow that’s not ok.

 

[James224]

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?

This is not what I was saying. I said some think the way you are suggesting and I agree - We need to be obedient. That’s why I said I agree with you. Those that attack the Vatican are wrong. All I was trying to do is show you how the SSPX and others that think similiar to them think.

 

[s2srea]

This is not what I was saying. I said some think the way you are suggesting and I agree - We need to be obedient. That’s why I said I agree with you. Those that attack the Vatican are wrong. All I was trying to do is show you how the SSPX and others that think similiar to them think.

The problem with your argument when aligned with those of Traditionalists (ie SSPX) is that Traditionalists are obedient. They are obedient to the Catholic faith. It is Vatican II who was not obedient and who formed a Catholic sect which is not the same Church as the true Roman Cathoic Church. Vatican II was a false council that constituted a revolution against 2000 years of Catholic teaching and Tradition. Vatican II contains many heresies that were directly condemned by past popes and infallible councils. Any honest person who studied the issue would recognize this.

The heresies of Vatican II are numerous and continue through today. Example 1:
The Council of Florence dogmatically defined that any individual who has a view contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Trinity, or any one of the truths aboutOur Lord or the Trinity, is rejected by God.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy
Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes
and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy
Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes and
declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds
opposing or contrary views.”

This is an infallible dogmatic definition of the Catholic Church on individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews,Muslims, etc.). The Council of Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected! Note:the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord is rejected, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is rejected. This dogma is rooted in the truth that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture:

Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my
Father who is in heaven.”

The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. He who denies Our Lord is rejected by Him.

But in its Decree * on Non-Christian religions*, Vatican II taught just the opposite:

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the
Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
followed from the holy scriptures.”

Vatican II denied the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33, which was solemnly defined by the Council of Florence. The teaching of Vatican II is blatantly heretical.

But it gets even worse when one considers this in more detail. In case you have any doubt about this heresy, please consider the following:

Vatican II vs. The Dogmatic Council of Florence

VATICAN II :Nostra Aetate #4 of Vatican II: “…the Jews
should not be presented as rejected or cursed
by God…”

Vs.

DOGMATIC COUNCIL OF FLORENCE: “Therefore it
[the Church] condemns, rejects, anathematizes
and declares to be outside the Body of Christ,
which is the Church, whoever holds opposing
or contrary views.”

Also consider…:

VATICAN II Nostra Aetate #4, Original Latin:
“…Iudaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati
neque ut maledicti exhibeantur…”

Vs.

DOGMATIC COUNCIL OF FLORENCE:
The Latin of the Council of Florence:
“Quoscunque ergo adversa et contraria
sentientes damnat, reprobat et anathematizat
et a Christi corpore, quod est ecclesia, alienos
esse denuntiat.”

In making the infallible dogmatic declaration that all who have a view contrary to faith in Our Lord or the Trinity are rejected, **the original Latin of the Council of Florence uses the word “reprobat,” which means “rejects.” ** It is from the Latin verb reprobo, which means “I reject” or “condemn.”

But here’s the bombshell: In Nostra Aetate #4 (Vatican II’s Decree on Non-Christian Religions) to declare exactly the opposite, Vatican II uses the same verb! Vatican II uses “reprobati,” which is the past participle passive of reprobo – the very same verb that the Council of Florence used! This means that Vatican II and the Council of Florence are talking about the exact same thing – they use the exact same verb – and they teach exactly the opposite! The Catholic Church defines that all individuals (Jews, etc.) who have a view contrary to Faith in Christ or the Trinity the Church “reprobat” (rejects). Vatican II tells us that the Jews should not be considered as “reprobati” (as having been rejected). Vatican II could hardly contradict Catholic dogma any more precisely!

This is ONE of MANY examples of the heresies of Vatican II. This is what Traditionalist have taken the time to look into and remain OBEDIENT to the TRUE catholic faith. There is a difference in obedience and blind obedience. You are instructed by go to listen to you parents, but not in a case where they would cause you to sin(ie if your father told you to steal something from a store, you are not required obedience in this case. ).

Again, I could go on and on about the various heresies of the false Vatican II Counsel. Please let me know if you’d like me to.

 

[At_Trent]

Any books out there for a confused Catholic ?

 

[Robert_Burns]

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?

Obedience is a power given the Magisterium so as to foster Unity with the Deposit of Faith - the Purpose for Obedience is Unity with the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering by the Church Militant. I think that if Catholicism wants to unify in Our day - it needs to not overlook the purpose for Obedience. The Current Pope and Magisterium is not supposed to teach anything different than did St Peter - St Pius the V - Pope Leo the Great etc. thus therein lies the Unity and reason Catholics submit their Obedience just as every Pope has complete obedience to JESUS and the Original Apostles. I think today in this day and age - there is a growing concern among Catholics that accomodations for other religions seems more important than Orthodoxy. Thus do we have disunity. Disunity can be a sign of Heresy within Our Ranks. Not to say it reaches the Magisterium but I have to be frank - with the latest World wide sexual scandals that have caused our Church Millions of Dollars and who knows how many Parishioners that these fruits demonstrate that all is not well. Perhaps a return to a more Orthodox approach is in order and that more unity will be the result. Maybe less emphasis on the World Council of Churches and more World Wide Conversion to the One True Faith.

Pax

 

[s2srea]

Maybe less emphasis on the World Council of Churches and more World Wide Conversion to the One True Faith.

Pax

Probably the best think I’ve read on this thread