K
Kelley_Green
Guest
Ooops I forgot. Women don’t count save for ornamental vocation. Thanks for the reminder! Best I step out of your way arguing amongst yourselves to infinity and beyond. Acts 5:29 :slapfight: 1 Peter 2:13
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, we now have a new message from the Church, as John Paul II is now among the Blessed.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t consider being wives, mothers, consecrated virgins, hermits, consecrated religious or single women dedicated to the sanctification of the ordinary work of the world as ornamental vocations. I’m a consecrated religious and I don’t consider myself an ornament in the Church. I have a place, a mission and a role that can only be fulfilled by me, just as do sisters and nuns. I can’t be my mother, my daughter or someone’s wife.
The above referenced decree is not a denial of dignity of women, it’s a statement of faith. The Church cannot do what God has not authorized her to do. This takes us back to the whole issue of a humble obedience to the will of God, the kind of obedience that we see in the life of Christ and his mother. Let us never forget Mary’s words, “Do whatever he tells you.” As we come out of Holy Week, let us also remember Christ’s words in the Garden, “Not my will, but your will be done.”
God in his eternal plan and providence has a place and a mission for each of us that no one else can fulfill. What is most interesting about those two citationhs is that the command is being given by Peter. What we’re seeing is Christ speaking through the Petrine Office.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
What we are seeing is important at many levels.
First of all, we’re seeing that God’s will is not going to be deterred by human feelings and opinions. The Church does not make saints. She identifies them. Only God can do signs and wonders.
Second, we are seeing the power of the Office of Peter. Despite some harsh criticisms and despite the fact that some people are going to walk, because they didn’t want this beatification to move forward, the Holy Father stood his ground and did what the Holy Spirit commanded him to do.
Third, we are seeing that the papacy can and does listen. This was not Pope Benedict’s original plan. His original plan was to proceed directly to canonization, as several reports have told us. He agreed to beatify instead of canonize, provided that the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints continues to do its work to verify the other miracles that are under study. On the one hand, he’s compromising and on the other hand he’s telling them to get their work done.
Fourth, it is very telling that Pope Benedict did not allow the promoter of the cause to take time off from his regular duties to prepare the portfolio on Bl. John Paul. Normally, promoters are given a leave of absence from their job to do this, because it’s time consuming. This promoter was commanded to get the research done, do it right, and get it all in on time, but was not given time off to do it. The fact that he accomplished it in six-years is a small miracle in itself.
Fifth, despite the opposition from some corners, there are about 2 million people who have come to Rome from around the world for this day, more than were present for his funeral. Two million people for a beatification is not a number that you blow off. It tells you something about the sense of the faithful. That does not count people like myself and others around the world who have stayed up all night to see this on TV or hear it on radio. Roman (civil) officials thought that the Royal Wedding would take away from the number of pilgrims and had expected a much smaller attendance.
When you put this pieces together, you can see the hand of God at work in our Church. As Pope Benedict has said, this is God’s will. We are always obedient to His will, expressed through the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
I hope you get a chance to hear the homily. Wow!
D
Dale_M
Guest
Here is a transcript of the homily.
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/01/pope-benedict-xvis-homily-of-beatification-for-john-paul-ii/
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Excuse ME? Why quote my signature? What makes you think women (and by the way, hon, I happen to BE A WOMAN) don’t count in the Church I’ve spent 54 happy years in???
T
thirddec
Guest
MMMH maybe im not really I am Mad ; I thought I was praying to The One True God but now i’m being told by Catholic Apologists that I am praying to Allah the God of the Quran as they are the same . Muslims are praying to the same God as me.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501969
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=501969
J
JReducation
Guest
I really liked these two statements.
I have said several times today, that this phrase, “I wanted” reminds me of Pope Gregory IX. He had canonized St. Francis 18 months after his death. Then he canonized St. Anthony 11 months after his death. The Cardinals and some of the faithful wanted to kill him. In the first case, he snuck the canonization in behind the cardinal’s backs. He had gone to Assisi, allegedly for a General Chapter of the Franciscans. He asked to have the body exhumed. When they brought the remains to him, he canonized him right there.
When Anthony died he told the cardinals that he was going ahead with the canonization. They wanted the pope to comply with canon law, which required a waiting period and a study of the person’s life. There is that one famous line in Franciscan history, when Pope Gregory IX says, “I knew these men. They were my friends. There is nothing that you can tell me that I don’t already know. In addition, I’m the Pope.”
I see Pope Benedict taking the same stance as Pope Gregory. He knew this man better than most people knew him. Together, they faced some of the world’s and the Church’s difficult crises, alone, when no one else was looking or listening. He probably knew the heart and mind of Pope John Paul on these issues.
Now it’s time for Catholics to assent to the beatification. I know that Pope Benedict wants the canonization to come soon. He has said so on several occasions.
This was a very personal touch. Probably the first prayer to Bl. John Paul. I felt that Pope Benedict was making a profession of faith. He has no doubt that John Paul is in heaven. Popes don’t pray like this off the cuff.
I’m just wondering if people are going to move on or if they’re going to continue to complain about the beatification. That would be sad.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
Kelley_Green
Guest
Pnewton, sorry, that’s far too indulgent. A sales pitch (manipulation) for blind obedience, yet another hair of the dog that bit so regularly throughout history, isn’t ironic enough? Insult to injury using the life of St Catherine of Siena as a sales tool when her very nun’s habit was earned by willful disobedience? Officials “honor” a woman who starved to death by having a feast day? Can you not see something horribly wrong in plain sight? How could the moral of the tale be so horribly mangled and self serving?
It’s impossible to reconcile reason when mankind is engaged in 3,000 yr tradition of ‘letter’… 2 Corinthians 3:6-17.
So, truly, what is the Christian thing to do? I’d rather be hated than bear false witness.
The last thing that occurs to anyone ought to be the first. Somewhere in the pews yesterday was a 7yr old girl in dire need of hearing protection. When she reads the statement of St Catherine of Siena implying that self love is the root of evil in the world she’ll likely deduce that self hatred is to be admired in the eyes of God. St Catherine of Siena will be reduced to the patron saint of anorexia in her mind. Her counterpart, a 7yr old boy, is equally in dire need of hearing protection.
Folks enamored with uniforms above the mission… the lessons appear to be lost entirely to grown adults, and womankind remains a stranger save for the life of Jesus. There is no such thing as “We” without him.
J
JReducation
Guest
You lost me.
Who is promoting anorexia?
Where do we see Catherine being disobedient? Catherine never became a nun. She was Lay Dominican and never wore a nun’s habit. What was it that she earned through disobedience?
2 Corinthians 3:6-17
**
6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. **
I’m not sure where you’re going with this passage. Paul is talking about the fulfillment of the Covenant that was began with Moses and brough to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. I’m not sure how this ties in with what St. Ignatius said.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear po18guy,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for your insightful remarks above.
Our Church nowadays appears to be plagued by an unhealthy idee fixe with regards to adducing irrefutable evidence in support of one’s arguments (not that such evidence is utterly unimportant), which is completely at variance with the whole spirit of traditional Catholicism. Gone indeed are the days when it sufficed to make our appeal to reasoned logic and plain sanctified common sense when addressing diverse issues. Alas, contemporary Catholicism has been infiltrated by the spirit of the age which is driven by a brash market place mentality with its impatience with any reasoned argumentation and appeal to authority. Naturally, all this sits quite comfortably with the rebelliousness and anti-authoritarianism of our secular and irreligious Western culture in which our lot is cast. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon orthodox Catholics, who still walk in the “old paths”, to raise a standard against this spurious mode of thinking and expose it for the shallow belief system that it actually is. Thankfully, CAF affords us an excellent medium for doing just that.
It is my firm opinion that this very un-Catholic thinking has incresingly become the bane of our Church since Vatican II in the early sixties. It has especially found currency in neo-Catholic orthodox circles, which has for the most part adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religion inasmuch as it does not overly concern itself with sanctity and separation from the godless world. Whilst, neo-Catholic orthodoxy is mostly sound as regards the fundamentals of Catholic dogma (which is why it is so apt to deceive), it would, nevertheless, have no big problem with debased sensory material such as rock/pop music, immodest fashions and culturally unhealthy literature (e.g. the Harry Potter series of books). When engaging in debate on any of these thorny topics it will demand, usually in an adversarial manner, “hard evidence” from those who feel compelled to negatively appraise such unwholesome leisure activities and trends, because they hinder the faithful in their pursuit of holiness. Sound argumentation and appeal to authorities within the Church are arrogantly dismissed as being worthless because they are at loggerheads with their ‘Catholicism Lite’ and their recalcitrant refusal to keep themselves “unstained by the world” (Jam. 1: 27). Sadly, they are convinced that because their opponents cannot always appeal to chapter and verse (be it in Sacred Scripture or the Catechism) in support of their position, then they have somehow won the debate and have exposed their antagonists as irrational reactionaries, unworthy of being heard. However, the insistence upon chapter and verse and other ‘hard evidence’ is a form of Evangelicalism and decidedly not authentic Catholicism, which makes its appeal to logical reasoned argument based on guiding principles, the demands of holiness and the avoidance of all occasions of sin.
The Church must grapple with this erroneous thinking in its midst, as it is severely damaging its credibility in the eyes of the world. The urgent need of the hour is not for Catholics to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. Moreover, they must dare to be different by offering a vibrant Christian counter-culture that will encourage men to assume the mantel of our most holy Faith. The Church will have the greatest impact upon the world when it is most unlike the world, as history repeatedly attests.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
PJM
Guest
WHY? Because the Bible is the One Document they MIGHT recogonize as having authority. I have also used the Catechism and Code of Canon law when approiate, as well as “the Fathers.”
It makes me nervous given what happened through "The SPIRIT of Vatican II.’. BUT God is in charge. AMEN!
I have quoted Canon Law of this MANY times: #747-754… It’s not well understood.
If yor asking are Catholics doing this ny intent; I don’r think so; Is happening; SURE.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
God Bless GREAT POST!
P
pnewton
Guest
That makes two of us. I have no idea what she/he is going on about. My post was just a one liner that John Paul II is now Blessed and she took issue with my signature. I guess the next response will be about gardening, astrophysics of Tom Cruise, for all the continuity there.You lost me.
A
acarlson
Guest
I agree. Any time I’ve asked or heard someone ask a question about conscience versus the Church’s authority, I’ve heard this answer. I also think there’s a general misunderstanding of what papal infallibility is that leads to this problem.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that the problem is that Europeans and Americans have lost all respect and trust for authority. It’s understandable. We have lived through horrible situations. However, understandable does not mean justifiable. At some point, we have to work through our insecurity regarding authority.
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.
In the end, much of our questioning has little to do with faith a lot to do with our mistrust of authority. However, this presents a rather serious problem in the Church. When Christ founded the Church he did not establish a democracy. One of the most revealing studies are the Patristics. The Fathers were very authoritarian. The question was not whether they were speaking infallibly. When it came time to command, they commanded and they expected obedience. They even demanded it. We see this in Paul’s writings as well. Paul takes the Eastern Churches to task, not for doctrinal issues, but over everyday issues, such as working, being nosy, not taking to heart what he has told them before. He reminds them that he is an apostle.
However, when a pope or a bishop reminds us that he is an Apostle, we get uncomfortable. I just read a post on another thread where a poster was upset because Pope Benedict said that he had deliberately accelerated the beatification of Pope John Paul, because HE, the pope, believed that it was pleasing to God.
Whether it is pleasing to God or not is only known to God himself. But that it was pleasing to Pope Benedict, that he has the authority to do it, that he was unapologetic about it, that he acknowledged that he bypassed canon law because he has the power to do it and that he is pushing for the next step to happen quickly is within his right as the person in the highest position of authority.
The question becomes, what does the average Catholic get out of questioning or complaining about decisions that he or she cannot control, has no right to control, and raising objections that the Church is not interested in hearing? What does one get out of it?
I think that we have to remember that the Church is like any other mother. She loves us and cares about our welfare. However, like other mothers, there are times when she too says, “I don’t want to hear it. Save it.”
We need to learn what Mother wants to hear and what she’s going to ignore.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Brother,I think that the problem is that Europeans and Americans have lost all respect and trust for authority. It’s understandable. We have lived through horrible situations. However, understandable does not mean justifiable. At some point, we have to work through our insecurity regarding authority.
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.
In the end, much of our questioning has little to do with faith a lot to do with our mistrust of authority. However, this presents a rather serious problem in the Church. When Christ founded the Church he did not establish a democracy. One of the most revealing studies are the Patristics. The Fathers were very authoritarian. The question was not whether they were speaking infallibly. When it came time to command, they commanded and they expected obedience. They even demanded it. We see this in Paul’s writings as well. Paul takes the Eastern Churches to task, not for doctrinal issues, but over everyday issues, such as working, being nosy, not taking to heart what he has told them before. He reminds them that he is an apostle.
However, when a pope or a bishop reminds us that he is an Apostle, we get uncomfortable. I just read a post on another thread where a poster was upset because Pope Benedict said that he had deliberately accelerated the beatification of Pope John Paul, because HE, the pope, believed that it was pleasing to God.
Whether it is pleasing to God or not is only known to God himself. But that it was pleasing to Pope Benedict, that he has the authority to do it, that he was unapologetic about it, that he acknowledged that he bypassed canon law because he has the power to do it and that he is pushing for the next step to happen quickly is within his right as the person in the highest position of authority.
The question becomes, what does the average Catholic get out of questioning or complaining about decisions that he or she cannot control, has no right to control, and raising objections that the Church is not interested in hearing? What does one get out of it?
I think that we have to remember that the Church is like any other mother. She loves us and cares about our welfare. However, like other mothers, there are times when she too says, “I don’t want to hear it. Save it.”
We need to learn what Mother wants to hear and what she’s going to ignore.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Cordial greetings and thankyou for your timely posts, which are very much needed in the anti-authoritarian times in which our lot is cast.
Alas, the aggressive secular mindset, with its anti-authoritarianism and intense dislike of the traditional world-view, has infiltrated the Church and this surely is the fundamental problem with which we are now beset. As I stated in my previous post, this secular mindset profoundly affects the way in which men evaluate the various issues over which there is dispute - dispute oftentimes brought about, I may add, because of a egregious failure to think with an authentic Christian mind. This is why you now have the deplorable and sorrowful spectacle of professing Catholics bending over backwards and seeking to defend to the death such unwholesome things as rock/pop music, TV programmes containg unsavoury content and the Harry Potter series of books. Such persons never tire of bringing our attention to the fact that because the Church has not made any official pronoucements vis-a-vis these matters, it is all down to a question of one’s individual prudential judgement. In one sense that is quite true, but if men are imbued with secularism and have become worldly in their manner of living, then surely this will necessarily affect their judgements, which are likely to awry. All of this would have been perfectly plain to previous generations of Catholics, who’s moral theology and reasoning was informed by an authentic Christian mind and sanctified common sense. How times have changed!
Many (mostly youth, but exclusively) within our Church today have embraced a sort of comfortable Catholicism which makes no demands upon them in terms of self-denial and abstinence from questionable leisure pursuits. At the heart of all this is a worldly spirit that refuses to manfully face up to the call to sanctity and separation from the world, something which our Church unquestionably does demand from the faithful.
Apologies Brother, if this is not entirely on all fours with what you had in mind, but I do feel that it is, nevertheless, pertinent to the topic presently under review, in so far as it treats of mens disobedience to the Church and their demand for ‘hard evidence’ on every disputed issue. It is my contention that such persons do have major problems with authority in that they refuse to live up to the arduous demands of our most holy religion.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
M
markomalley
Guest
I haven’t read everybody’s response to this thread, so if I duplicate a response, you will pardon me for interjecting these thoughts on the subject.I’d like to invite everyone to search their souls and their consciences and to ask ourselves, are our questions and demands for authoritative statements always reasonable or even honest or are we just looking to find a loophole to support our position? In other words, when we ask for authoritative proof, is it possible that some may be trying to manipulate Church teachings?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I think you make some very valid points. We have both an extraordinary Magesterium and an ordinary Magesterium. It is important to understand both and to form our consciences according to the teachings of the Church.
The recent example of Bishop Morris gives us an example of why it is important to have authoritative pronouncements. He, (improperly) exercising his teaching authority as a bishop, advocated much that was totally out of bounds. I am certain that many in his flock may be utterly confused in their consciences due to his errors.
Then think about the inadequate catechesis that most have received in their upbringing. How many people have heard heterodox ideas being advanced from the pulpit, from the CCD classes, and even in Catholic high school/college theology classes? (Consider the reaction of so many theology departments to Ex Corde Ecclesiae a few years ago: “this will stifle academic freedom!!!”). Even in my parish religious ed department, I take huge hits from the DRE when I, as a catechist, dare to require my students to memorize some facts in the old Baltimore Catechism fashion. (And my parish is pretty good, compared to a few of the neighboring parishes in my area)
Having said that, the Internet and forums like this one present some pretty unique challenges. You, Br JR, OSF, are nothing but a nameless, faceless voice in the ether. I do not know for a fact who you are. I do not know that if a person who claims to be an ordained priest on an Internet forum is, in fact, an ordained priest. Or if a degreed moral theologian (John Doe, STD) is who he says he is. You are all essentially phantoms. Don’t take that as an insult: I am not accusing you of being a fraud; rather, I am simply exercising prudent caution when dealing on the 'net.
Even more, if you look at anonymous posters like myself, there is even less authority from my words on the 'net. Who is this O’Malley character? Where is his training? Why should I believe him? Nobody knows.
That, personally, is why I make an effort to source any statements I give. I know that sometimes my long quotes get a little irritating, but I figure that people know who Chrysostom is, people know who Augustine is, people know who Ratzinger is. And their words should have some authority. And while they have every reason in the world to distrust O’Malley’s words, hopefully some will give some confidence to the words of those they may have heard of.
While I think you are absolutely right to be frustrated when a quote from the CDF is discounted because it wasn’t spoken ex cathedra, but I think that none of us on the net should be expected to be able to argue from a position of authority based on our claims of who we are.
T
TinkerJoan
Guest
No, catholic answers is trying to manipulate church teachings to destroy, that is why they don’t like people asking for “direct proof”. The fruits of Vatican II have created a "new church"by trying destroy the Catholic Church and anyone who questions them gets wrong answers or is politely criticized as being “judgemental” or a “doubting Thomas”. Read the book EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong and you will understand the infiltration of heresies in all that is catholic, and there links to Catholic Answers. Ffrtunately the Pope is on to it, the fruits of Vatican II is so obviously terrible that he is reversing course. It will take a long time. The Third Secret of Fatima,which the church hierachy lied about, warned us of this but the Sacret Heart of Mary will crush it, She Promised.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Personally, O’ Malley, every time I read your name I am reminded of the Disney movie Aristocats! I think you are really a street-smart alley cat walking across someone’s keyboard! 
- Status