V
VARC
Guest
I apologize. It’s hard to identify sarcasm when I’m reading it instaed of hearing it.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m sorry, but this brought a smile to my face, because it reminded me of my Jewish mother. It’s the whole guilt thing. I’m a convert from Judaism; but that’s another thread.
In all charity, please allow the Holy Spirit to guide. We are going through rough times, but that’s not new in the history of the Church and we have survived. Once again, we shall survive. You must believe and trust that. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church and they never have.
If we panic and try to take control, as Lefebvre did, in a certain sense, we are calling into question Christ’s efficacy. He can do it and he will do it. We must simply obey as he obeyed.
Try to remember that in the eyes of Peter, the death of Christ made no sense, but Christ insisted that it had to be this way. Peter got upset and Christ got upset with him and called him Satan. Then they kissed and made up. Then Peter cuts off some guy’s ear and Christ tells him to put his sword away. Finally, Peter is scared out of his mind and denies that he knows Christ.
In the end, Christ keeps his promise. He rises and sends him a message to meet him later. When they part company the only question that Christ asks him is, “Peter do you love me?”
None of this made any sense to Peter, as much of what’s happening today may not make sense to you and others.
But the only thing that Christ asks is “Do you love me?” He doesn’t ask, do you understand?
When Peter says, “Lord, you know that I love you.” Christ promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail against him. It was Peter’s profession of faith and love that earned him to be the keeper of the keys and the promise of Christ.
Sometimes, like Peter, in the midst of confusion and what appears not to make sense to us, we have to say, “Lord you know that I love you?”
Take also Thomas who doubted the resurrection. When he finally meets the risen Lord, he has doubts. He has to touch the wounds to prove that Jesus is truly risen. Doubts are part of the life of the Christian soul. It’s how the soul journeys to God.
If we, like the great mystics of old, Peter, Thomas, John, Teresa, Francis and others, simply say what Peter and Thomas said, “Lord, you know that I love you.” and “My God and my all” the rest will be taken care of by the Holy Spirit.
I
Indyann
Guest
Thank you, JR.
You are so blessed. You now have 2 Jewish mothers. Most of us here, only have 1.
V
VARC
Guest
I’m sorry but I feel that you are avoiding the issue. The Pope cast the traditional practices of the catholic religion to the scrap heap. To go along with him means to abandon the traditional practice of the faith. To defy him means to abandon the ordinary structure of the church. Both sides require a leap of faith. So which do you choose and do you anathemitize your other catholic brethren.
V
VARC
Guest
Which is more important? The traditional practice of the faith or the structure of the Church?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That is not quite how Pope Benedict XVI sees it.
Pope Benedict states — true ars celebrandi is the harmony between what is in the heart to what is expressed by the lips. The lips is a reflection of the heart.
You in turn say – as long as he accepts the theology – doesn’t matter of the Pope leaves it out.
Note — when he says We — he is including himself.
Pope’s Response to Priests on the Liturgy
“We Ourselves Must Interiorize the Structure, the Words”
zenit.org/article-17088?l=english
It is important, therefore, to enter into this conversation. St. Benedict in his Rule tells the monks, speaking of the recitation of the Psalms, “Mens concordet voci.” The “vox,” words, precede our mind. This is not usually the case: One has to think first, then one’s thought becomes words. But here, the words come first. The sacred Liturgy gives us the words; we must enter into these words, find a harmony with this reality that precedes us.
Thus, to be well in tune, it is very important to understand this structure that developed over time and to enter with our “mens” into the “vox” of the Church. To the extent that we have interiorized this structure, comprehended this structure, assimilated the words of the liturgy, we can enter into this inner consonance and thus not only speak to God as individuals, but enter into the “we” of the Church, which is praying. And we thus transform our “I” in this way, by entering into the “we” of the Church, enriching and enlarging this “I,” praying with the Church, with the words of the Church, truly being in conversation with God.
This is the first condition: We ourselves must interiorize the structure, the words of the liturgy, the Word of God. Thus, our celebration truly becomes a celebration “with” the Church: Our hearts are enlarged and we are not doing just anything but are “with” the Church, in conversation with God. It seems to me that people truly feel that we converse with God, with them, and that in this common prayer we attract others, in communion with the children of God we attract others; or if not, we are only doing something superficial.
Thus, the fundamental element of the true “ars celebrandi” is this consonance, this harmony between what we say with our lips and what we think with our heart. The “Sursum corda,” which is a very ancient word of the liturgy, should come before the Preface, before the liturgy, as the “path” for our speaking and thinking. We must raise our heart to the Lord, not only as a ritual response but as an expression of what is happening in this heart that is uplifted, and also lifts up others.
C
catharina
Guest
To follow Lefevbve means to abandon Rome.
To abandon Rome means to doubt the promise of Jesus Christ to remain with the Church always. To doubt the promise of Jesus Christ, to act upon such doubt, is - oh so bad.
To abandon Rome means to doubt the promise of Jesus Christ to remain with the Church always. To doubt the promise of Jesus Christ, to act upon such doubt, is - oh so bad.
V
VARC
Guest
But to follow Rome means to abandon the traditional practice of the faith. Quite a dilemma. Which is more important?
C
catharina
Guest
Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, promised the Holy Spirit to the Church to inspire it and guard it and lead it for all ages. There is no dilemma. Some people love change, some people hate change. To elevate ‘tradition’ above faith is to negate the Being and promises of Christ the Lord. There is no dilemma.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I do not believe you will find a document where the Church states the SSPX have negated the Faith. Much to your distaste – the SSPX are Catholic and this the Church has not denied.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
For someone who throws out words as slander at someone for not agreeing with the late Pope’s actions — you well equip yourself to judge who has left Rome.
V
VARC
Guest
I take it you have no problem with the pope abandoning the traditional sacraments of the church. What a pity. The most important aspect of the christian religion in your eyes is papal authority. Nothing is more sacred to you.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Its astonishing that one claiming allegiance to “tradition” could state such a thing.
However, one must remember that for the first 1200 years, infant children were allowed to received Holy Communion in both East and West. Now, it is against the Canon Law in the Latin Rite. How dare the pope make such a long standing tradition against ecclesial law? Clearly Pius X, by making this long-standing tradition explicitly unlawful has “abandoned the traditional practice of the faith,” and allied himself with the “Counciliar Church.”
I’m thinking of joining the ***Society of St. Pius I ***instead, because they are the real remnant.
C
catharina
Guest
Take a deep breath and do a looooong search of this thread. You will find I have not mentioned sspx. (Sorry, dude.)
A
AlexV
Guest
Infant children weren’t receiving Communion in the west for a LONG time before 1200, and you know that, Dave. Just because the Church didn’t explicitly reprobate the practice didn’t mean it hadn’t ORGANICALLY died out long before before. Peter the Lombard in the 1100s writes how the practice was “long abandoned” in Paris and throughout northern France.
C
catharina
Guest
People who have broken with Rome know they have broken with Rome. They ANNOUNCE it when they choose to follow Lefebvre and his band of separaitsts. I don’t know but they know. Clear?
A
AlexV
Guest
Yes or no, folks. Can the pope omit calling Mary a Virgin at Mass by dropping “Virgo” every time the word precedes “Maria”?
Bottom line remains some people think the pope can do whatever he wants, and others disagree. The Catholic Church has never taught the pope can do whatever he pleases. Such behavior would rightly cause scandal…sort of like leaving out an important word like “Filioque”.
Bottom line remains some people think the pope can do whatever he wants, and others disagree. The Catholic Church has never taught the pope can do whatever he pleases. Such behavior would rightly cause scandal…sort of like leaving out an important word like “Filioque”.
C
catharina
Guest
You are sadly mistaken if you believe you know anything about me. (Incidentally, the word “Christian” is capitalized.) Go and taunt a separatist. There seem to be some of them posting in this thread.)
A
AlexV
Guest
Slander, Catharina. Blatant slander. Who are the “separatists” and how dare you decide who is a separatist/schismatic?
V
VARC
Guest
But the statement is true. In 1970 Rome abandoned the traditional Roman rite of mass that had stood and organically developed for over a thousand years. I guess the just doesn’t mean anything to some people. Papal authority is more important then the mass that all of the Latin saints practiced. That is a leap of faith for me. Something I doubt that the saints themselves believed.
- Status