N
NewsTheMan
Guest
What? Catholic Answers is pretty much a beacon of orthodox light in an increasingly heterodox world :-\
- Status
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
The Church itself manipulates and replaces it’s own teachings with new ones.
All this “liturgical/theological renewal” “new springtime” stupidty is the cause of the questioning. Protestant influence across the board.
If the manipulations and replacements appear contradictory to the faith handed down to us, what are we do but question them? If people appear to be less strong on the path to salvation because of effects of these “new changes”, what are we to do but question them?
Compare the Offertory of the old mass and new mass:
OLD:
Compare the promotion of Natural Family Planning of some birth control substitute to complete abstinence. (most all the original promoters of NFP have were connected with dissidents or radicals)
The hierarchy of the church opened it’s own pandora’s box.
They have the keys to closing that themself box by becoming more orthodox in teaching.
A Pope can not easily maintain endorsing both the Neocatechumenal Way and Priestly Fraternity of St Peter as equally valid orthodox alternative liturgical movements within the Church and expect people to not be confused and question the Church for endorsing two groups which appear to be almost entirely at odds with each other.
All this “liturgical/theological renewal” “new springtime” stupidty is the cause of the questioning. Protestant influence across the board.
If the manipulations and replacements appear contradictory to the faith handed down to us, what are we do but question them? If people appear to be less strong on the path to salvation because of effects of these “new changes”, what are we to do but question them?
Compare the Offertory of the old mass and new mass:
OLD:
NEW:
Compare the enforced practice of communion in the hand to communion in the mouth.
Compare the promotion of Natural Family Planning of some birth control substitute to complete abstinence. (most all the original promoters of NFP have were connected with dissidents or radicals)
The hierarchy of the church opened it’s own pandora’s box.
They have the keys to closing that themself box by becoming more orthodox in teaching.
A Pope can not easily maintain endorsing both the Neocatechumenal Way and Priestly Fraternity of St Peter as equally valid orthodox alternative liturgical movements within the Church and expect people to not be confused and question the Church for endorsing two groups which appear to be almost entirely at odds with each other.
P
pnewton
Guest
You slander the Catholic Church, choosing to believe dissenters over the words of our Holy Pontiffs, unless God has personally revealed something to you.
P
pnewton
Guest
This simply is untrue, or at least poorly worded. Each ecumenical council, from Jerusalem to Vatican II has modified our doctrine somewhat, as the Holy Spirit leads. Nothing has been replace though, and to say it is manipulation is downright uncharitable to Holy Mother Church.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The Holy Church is a big place, with room for many different charisms. You say these groups appear to be at odds, but in fact they are both accepted groups who follow the magesterium. Because their prayer life or disciplines are different, does not mean they are at odds - with each other or with the church. Think of the difference between the Trappist and the Dominicans, one an order that keeps almost absolute silence, the other an order decicated to teaching and preaching. Or between Benedictines, who take a vow of stability, and Franciscans, who certainly do not!
With over a billion Catholics, one cannot expect that there would be only one way to do things like private prayer or other devotional practices.
J
JReducation
Guest
The good thing is that the faithful who formed their conscience and practices according to His Excellency’s guidance are not personally responsible for their situation as long as they acted in good faith. His Excellency is subjectively responsible, if he deliberately derailed those entrusted to him. This important. We have to be very careful not to make people feel guilty for things that are not of their making.
Caution is never a bad thing. By the way, I’m not a priest. I’m a religious brother. We just happen to have brothers who are priests and we call them Brother as well. We reserve the title Father for superiors and for St. Francis. It confuses people when they see all of us called Brother and one guy hears confessions and the other is a theology professor and the next one is a maintenance man.
The problem is not the citing of the masters. The problem is when people manipulate the citations in such a way that they make them say what they believe. This happens all too frequently in dealing with the popes. We often find posters that quote councils, Fathers, saints and Doctors as if the popes had never heard of them or have no understanding of what these writings say. Worse, they quote them as if the popes deliberately set out to ignore them and to change them. That’s a very arrogant and dangerous position to take, because one runs the risk of raising himself so high on the ladder of authority that eventually one does not need any other authority except one’s own judgment.
I am not frustrated. I do find it dangerous to argue against those who are entrusted with authority to govern.
That’s a heavy accusation. But if it’s true, then why are you here?
That book is one person’s opinion. In fact, it’s a source that has been discredited by the fruits of the ministry done by EWTN.
J
JReducation
Guest
These are not teachings. Theses are external disciplines. Don’t confuse one with the other. The Church has changed external disciplines many times in 2,000 years. There has been diversity in external disciplines among the 22 Churches that make up the Catholic Church. Disciplines are not etched in stone.
Actually, both of these were approved by Bl. John Paul II. No one would call him a dissident or radical unless it’s someone who also believes that condemnation of abortion, women’s ordination, Communism, and the preservation of celibacy are also radical.
The Church has always welcome a diversity of spiritual families and recognized the work of the Holy Spirit. Take for example the founding of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. Both are mendicant orders founded within a year of each other. However, the Dominicans were founded as a clerical institute for priests who would go about preaching against heresy and teaching other priests. The Franciscans were founded as a brotherhood of men and women, some are priests, where the priesthood was not essential to the mission and identity of the order. They may appear to opposed. The Dominicans are clerical and the Franciscans are non-clerical. The Dominicans are a order of preachers. The Franciscans are an order of brothers who engage in many different ministries and who do not place a stress on the priesthood, but on the fraternal life.
Then you have the apparent disparity between the Carthusians who are not interested in hearing about sexual abuse of children and clerical abuse, but are solely focused on prayer and silence for the Church, including the abused and the abuser. On the other hand you have FSSP who serve in parishes and promote the EF of the mass. All of them are as flowers in a garden of many colors.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
rben20
Guest
Right on Br. JR. This is exactly one of the problems we have over in the United States. I feel more and more like the priest is just a cultural symbol and nothing more. At least some see him as able to Sanctify. I will admit that I put myself at ends with my priest at times, I take some of his criticism personally but I know he is doing it for my own well being and not because of pride, “a holier than thou” scoff. This is the ultimate problem. If this happens with priests and these are the people we see all the time…how much more would we feel to those higher up that we are out of base with at least on a physical level?…
Another problem that we have is that we have lost sight of the roles of the priest. His function is to teach and to govern, not just to sanctify. We want our clergy to to everything possible to get us to heaven. In other words, we want them to do whatever it takes to sanctify our lives, but we don’t want them to exercise authority over us.
…
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
Or different organs within the body, to use St. Paul’s analogy.. All of them are as flowers in a garden of many colors.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
I disagree that these are mere “external disciplines” of no value.
I believe they reflect profound teachings of the church on the meaning of life and the purpose of the Eucharist. The creation of an offertory prayer that diminishes explicitly teaching that the eucharist is sacrifice. The teaching that we should receive communion in the hands which is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence. The acceptantance of “birth control practices” regardless of it being called “natural” which do contribute to lowered population and profound economic problems. The acceptance of cremation and crematoriums as holy normal means of burial. These are all serious attacks on the faith handed down to us, which i assure you God does not like.
“Christianity is a liturgical religion. The Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second”. It is the Christians of the East, Uniates and dissidents alike, who have best preserved the classical Catholic approach to worship and who consequently have preserved their litugical traditions intact in modern times. The present liturgical chaos in the Western Church is due in no small part to the emphasis that Latin Christians have always placed on dogma, with the consequent tendency to regard the liturgical texts as a mere locus theologicus, a means to an end, rather than a living source of doctrinal truth. Thus orthodoxia, which originally meant ‘right worship’, gives way to orthopistis ‘right believing’, or orthodidascalia ‘right teaching’. When taken to the extreme, this exclusive emphasis on the rational culminates in that heresy which rejects the living components of tradition in favour of the written records of the Early Church, the Bible and Patristic writings, and which we know as Protestantism and full-blown Jansenism. The rejection of the liturgical tradition thus implies a rejection of the Church itself.
po18guy
Well-known member
Where was this even remotely alluded to?
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re welcome to disagree. We’re just not sure with whom are you disagreeing? Who made such a claim?
That is one possible perception. The other possible perception is that the prayer is to reflect the act of offering and therefore, lifts from the Scriptures wording that describes what is happening at that moment. There is no real right or wrong on this point. The old prayer was good and so is the new prayer, since both speak to something that is happening or about to happen in the liturgy.
This is not a teaching and has never been a teaching. There is an indult that says that the diocesan bishop or the major superior of a male religious community may authorize Communion in the hand. There is no teaching that says that one should receive in the hand.
Natural family planning has always been accepted by the Church. The terminology is new, because it is borrowed from the medical community, which introduced the term “family planning.” However, continence, either long-term or short-term has been practiced by Christians for centuries. That’s all that natural family planning is. It is continence at the time when the woman is fertile. The Church is very clear that there are parameters that govern its use. There is no teaching or license to exercise it long-term unless their is a higher moral good to be achieved. Continence itself is neutral. Therefore, one is not using an evil to achieve a good.
Cremation has always been accepted by the Latin Church with specific conditions. The only thing that changes are the conditions. Cremation itself has always been viewed as neutral. Desecration of the body has always been condemned as a sin and that has not changed. In the past, cremation was accepted during the great plagues in order to protect the health of the populace. Today, cremation is accepted when there is a legitimate reason for it. One good reason is economics. In the USA the cost of cremating a loved one vs burying him or her is about 40% less. In hard economic times, when many people do not have life insurance to pay for very expensive burials, cremation is a licit alternative, provided that the remains are kept together, not scattered over the ocean or some such thing and provided that they are interred with dignity.
One has to be very careful making such assurances. One runs the risk of elevating the self to a position of authority that is almost infallible. We all know that on matters of faith and morals only popes are infallible.
You’re taking the difference in approaches to liturgy between the Latin Church and the Oriental Churches and turning it into an issue, which is not the case. The Latin Church and the Oriental Church leaders understand the differences between us and respect them, not criticize them or tear them apart. By the way, we no longer refer to the Orthodox Christians as “dissidents”. They are Apostolic Churches with valid and licit sacraments. The excommunications were lifted by Pope Paul VI. You’re providing an excellent example of what I call the manipulation of Church teaching. You’re manipulating it to say what you want to say.
I don’t think that Protestantism is very interested in the Eucharist. Secondly, the Bible and the Patristic writings are part of the authoritative sources for Catholic dogma. There is nothing wrong in referring to them. This is the common practice by East and West. As to the “rational”, the Church has always made use of it to each and to organize her faith statements so that they are understandable. That’s what Scholasticism did for the Latin Church.
The errors the you cite have certainly existed and will surface until the Second Coming, but not because we lean on scripture, the Church Fathers and reason. Actually, they usually surface when we deviate away from one of these.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Chris_McAvoy
Guest
My melkite Patriarch Gregorios III would never ever ever ever kiss a quran.
That excuse for his kissing it is nonsense and still makes it an unacceptalbe act.
No christian in the middle east would ever kiss one except under threat of death.
Nor would any christian in Spain or the Balkans any other area that knew about them.
J
JReducation
Guest
These other folks have a right not to do so. Their exercise of this right does not imply that the pope’s choice was a sinful choice.
Why are you even bothering bringing this up? This question was addressed by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and they found nothing immoral in this action. The Congregations’ findings was sent to a committee of Cardinal theologians for verification. They found nothing immoral here. That was sent to the Holy Father. He found nothing immoral here. Popes do not err in making judgments on matters of faith and morals. They sin. But this is Pope Benedict making the final call on something that Bl. John Paul II did. Pope Benedict cannot err on this judgment. If he could, then his judgment on matters of morals is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Just because other people, including Patriarchs would not do it, does not mean that the person who did it committed a sin. Both parties are free to act according to conscience as long as conscience is well informed. This means that conscience must be consistent with the mind of the Church. The mind of the Church on this matter is that there is no objective sin involved in this action, because it was a sign of respect and gratitude for an act of kindness toward the pope. The Holy See’s response to this was very simple and succinct. Bl. John Paul loved humanity. He took advantage of every opportunity to show his love and his appreciation for human beings. Therefore, the Church finds no fault in this.
Even your Patriarch will not join in this disapproval. He may say that it is an action that he would not do. That’s acceptable. He will not say that this is an action on the part of Bl. John Paul of which he disapproves, because that means breaking communion with what the Holy Father has already dismissed. Once the Holy Father dismisses an action as irrelevant, the bishops and patriarchs are bound to do the same.
The question is why are you bringing this up? What do you want us to learn from this? What is it about Bl. John Paul that you’re trying to teach the Universal Church that she does not already know? Do you know something that she does not know or is it that you disapprove and want the Church to join you in your disapproval? If that’s the case, you may want to join another Church that is not the Catholic Church, because she’s not going to join you there.
The latest new out of the Vatican is that the canonization will happen in less than five years. There are several other miracles that are already under study and apparently very credible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
po18guy
Well-known member
From the certified miracle(s), it would appear that the Lord has no problem with JPII’s behavior, either. Should we Catholics then apply a typical anti-Catholic approach and judge someone’s heart or intent based on a single photograph or act? I have struggled with rash judgment for most of my life. Being well acquainted with that sin, such a judgment appears to fall into that category.These other folks have a right not to do so. Their exercise of this right does not imply that the pope’s choice was a sinful choice.
Why are you even bothering bringing this up? This question was addressed by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and they found nothing immoral in this action. The Congregations’ findings was sent to a committee of Cardinal theologians for verification. They found nothing immoral here. That was sent to the Holy Father. He found nothing immoral here. Popes do not err in making judgments on matters of faith and morals. They sin. But this is Pope Benedict making the final call on something that Bl. John Paul II did. Pope Benedict cannot err on this judgment. If he could, then his judgment on matters of morals is not protected by the Holy Spirit.
Just because other people, including Patriarchs would not do it, does not mean that the person who did it committed a sin. Both parties are free to act according to conscience as long as conscience is well informed. This means that conscience must be consistent with the mind of the Church. The mind of the Church on this matter is that there is no objective sin involved in this action, because it was a sign of respect and gratitude for an act of kindness toward the pope. The Holy See’s response to this was very simple and succinct. Bl. John Paul loved humanity. He took advantage of every opportunity to show his love and his appreciation for human beings. Therefore, the Church finds no fault in this.
Even your Patriarch will not join in this disapproval. He may say that it is an action that he would not do. That’s acceptable. He will not say that this is an action on the part of Bl. John Paul of which he disapproves, because that means breaking communion with what the Holy Father has already dismissed. Once the Holy Father dismisses an action as irrelevant, the bishops and patriarchs are bound to do the same.
The question is why are you bringing this up? What do you want us to learn from this? What is it about Bl. John Paul that you’re trying to teach the Universal Church that she does not already know? Do you know something that she does not know or is it that you disapprove and want the Church to join you in your disapproval? If that’s the case, you may want to join another Church that is not the Catholic Church, because she’s not going to join you there.
The latest new out of the Vatican is that the canonization will happen in less than five years. There are several other miracles that are already under study and apparently very credible.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
This is a dangerous line to tread. Once we begin to condemn, where do we stop? Can we stop? If we cannot stop, is our only moral choice to leave the communion? Uncomfortable questions, to be sure.
J
JReducation
Guest
Everything that you have said is correct. It’s extremely important not to raise ourselves up as an independent magisterium. This is what Protestantism did. I don’t believe it was the intention of the Reformers to go as far as Protestants have gone today. But when you take away all restraints and people feel free to judge, to question and even to try to teach the Church what she should say, not say, condemn and condone, you end up with conflicting positions all claiming to be true and all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know that the Holy Spirit will not inspire one person to believe that the sky is up and another to believe that it is down.
It is also important to understand cultural context here. The people whom Chris mentions all have a long history of conflict with Muslims. Not kissing the Qur’an is for them more than just a religious issue. It’s a political issue as well. There is an old ax to grind between them and the Muslims.
Bl. John Paul II, being Polish had no ax to grind with the Muslims. If anyone, he had an ax to grind with the Communists. We can’t impose on him the same sentiments as those Christians living in that context. To do so would be dishonest and manipulative.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
po18guy
Well-known member
Understanding context is the key, not only to contemporary events, but to scripture, as it was composed within a certain context. The divisions in Christendom are due, in large part, to out-of-context interpretation, which then begets misunderstanding, mistrust and finally bigotry. Once a division occurs, no matter how tiny, a passing spirit is only too happy to lead even the elect astray.Everything that you have said is correct. It’s extremely important not to raise ourselves up as an independent magisterium. This is what Protestantism did. I don’t believe it was the intention of the Reformers to go as far as Protestants have gone today. But when you take away all restraints and people feel free to judge, to question and even to try to teach the Church what she should say, not say, condemn and condone, you end up with conflicting positions all claiming to be true and all claiming to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. We know that the Holy Spirit will not inspire one person to believe that the sky is up and another to believe that it is down.
It is also important to understand cultural context here. The people whom Chris mentions all have a long history of conflict with Muslims. Not kissing the Qur’an is for them more than just a religious issue. It’s a political issue as well. There is an old ax to grind between them and the Muslims.
Bl. John Paul II, being Polish had no ax to grind with the Muslims. If anyone, he had an ax to grind with the Communists. We can’t impose on him the same sentiments as those Christians living in that context. To do so would be dishonest and manipulative.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
cho_pilo
Guest
IMO, dissenting opinion is not a norm but rather brings injury to the unity of the Church. The Catholic faithful must therefore realize whether things about faith and morals has already been answered definitively and must therefore give positive assent to those answers to remain faithful.
J
JReducation
Guest
I truly believe that many Catholics in the developed nations of the world are struggling with fidelity to their Church and preserving their way of life. Sometimes, it’s possible to be faithful to the Church and preserve a way of life. There are times when it’s not possible and one has to choose, either the Church or our way of life. You cannot have it both. Either you take the Church on her terms or you walk and find something else. You cannot always be equal to authority and you cannot always tell authority how you want it govern. This has become part of our democratic way of life; however, in the Church, this mindset does not always work. At times equality is reasonable and at times it is not.IMO, dissenting opinion is not a norm but rather brings injury to the unity of the Church. The Catholic faithful must therefore realize whether things about faith and morals has already been answered definitively and must therefore give positive assent to those answers to remain faithful.
To argue “this is not infallible”; “that’s not dogma”; “it’s just the pope’s opinion” or “saints make mistakes” are all statements of the obvious, but they don’t change the reality. Authority has spoken. In order to remain united to a family, one must stop competing with legitimate authority in that family. To continue to compete is to act like an adolescent. Adolescents compete with legitimate authority at home and school. It’s part of the process of growing up. Eventually they learn that they have only two choices, assent or move out. Rational authority is not going to cave in to their unreasonable demands.
We cannot always have our “egalitarian democracy”. Democracy and equality are a means, not an end. When they become an end, we’re in trouble. That’s the struggle between our faith and our way of life. There are times when our democratic and egalitarian way does not work. At that point, we have to choose the path of the saints, submit and to try to understand what the Church is saying to us. When we don’t understand, we trust God’s wisdom.
This desire for holiness in our dealings with the Church has always been part of our Catholic Tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
cho_pilo
Guest
Yes, but there are truths that will remain a mystery to humans. Being that, resolution is not possible.I truly believe that many Catholics in the developed nations of the world are struggling with fidelity to their Church and preserving their way of life. Sometimes, it’s possible to be faithful to the Church and preserve a way of life. There are times when it’s not possible and one has to choose, either the Church or our way of life. You cannot have it both. Either you take the Church on her terms or you walk and find something else. You cannot always be equal to authority and you cannot always tell authority how you want it govern. This has become part of our democratic way of life; however, in the Church, this mindset does not always work. At times equality is reasonable and at times it is not.
To argue “this is not infallible”; “that’s not dogma”; “it’s just the pope’s opinion” or “saints make mistakes” are all statements of the obvious, but they don’t change the reality. Authority has spoken. In order to remain united to a family, one must stop competing with legitimate authority in that family. To continue to compete is to act like an adolescent. Adolescents compete with legitimate authority at home and school. It’s part of the process of growing up. Eventually they learn that they have only two choices, assent or move out. Rational authority is not going to cave in to their unreasonable demands.
We cannot always have our “egalitarian democracy”. Democracy and equality are a means, not an end. When they become an end, we’re in trouble. That’s the struggle between our faith and our way of life. There are times when our democratic and egalitarian way does not work. At that point, we have to choose the path of the saints, submit and to try to understand what the Church is saying to us. When we don’t understand, we trust God’s wisdom.
This desire for holiness in our dealings with the Church has always been part of our Catholic Tradition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Yet, there are truths that are within the grasp of human understanding. Being that, resolution is probable and possible.
Around Catholic apologetics circles, there is this quote attributed to St. Augustine that we must keep in mind : in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.
- Status