Conservative Catholics clueless?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
quote: AlanFromWitchita
…then I’d be as happy and bright-eyed (read that “devoid of depth”)…
You* do* have a way with words…😃

quote: AlanFromWitchita
Decades ago I was told my “problem” with the Church was I was trying to think about it too much and figure it out.
*More…*of the a Kempis “mind-set”?

aka:

quote: reen12
“I’d rather practice … X_…] than know the definition of same.”
Lord, have mercy.

reen :tiphat:
 
quote: reen12
The respect for the Eucharistic Presence was…enormous.
quote: BarbaraTherese
I do wonder about the depth of this devotion Reen…it was certainly ‘observable phenomena’ and those I was most in awe of left attending Sunday and weekday Masses with the mass exodus post Vatican2. I often wonder about that.
Thanks for this observation, Barb. I’ve given it some thought.
How about this?

I have noticed that some of the elder Boomers that I know,
who haven’t attended Mass on Sunday, for forty years,
displayed…shock!..when they first encountered the
Novus Ordo.

Their sense of the sacred remains, from what I can observe -
which is why their religious sensibilties were in upheaval…
when they encountered the new “liturgy” at a funeral Mass
or at a Confirmation ceremony.

I truely, truely think that it was the catechesis - of the time-
and the ethos that surrounded same - that drove any number of
these indivduals from the Church.

Only one, that I am aware of, has embraced another faith.

And any attempt - at a cavalier dismal of their departure as:
-remarriage
-birth control

constitutes more than a little mis-reading, of the “signs
of the times,” in my estimation.

These souls loved God. Who will accept responsibility,
before Him, for these individuals?

Some of these persons seem to have an inarticulate sense
that the CC is the “true Church” “Holy Mother Church.”

Yet I find myself asking: What kind of Mother had she
been to them?

Just my assessment.

Best,

reen
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I know that before 1950 when my mother was young, she was taught (in Catholic schools in Houston, in case that’s relevant) that all her friends were absolutely going to hell and many other heresies.
Heresies? Those who reject Christ’s church are definitely at risk of losing salvation. Saying that everybody gets saved, whatever they believe or do, is the heresy.
My FIL here in Kansas has stories of the intolerance with which angry priests would physically harm the altar boys for even the slightest slip-up. There was no concern back then nor understanding for altar boys who had to shut up, button up, and take it no matter what.
Please! At that time EVERYBODY used corporal punishment, at leat here in the UK. Secular teachers, policemen, shopkeepers. Everyone was free to give kids a clip round the ear or worse. Corporal punishment has NOTHING to do with Liberal or Conservative Catholicism.
Due to this and similar testimony I’ve heard from those days, before the 60s when I was too young to know about the cultural change going on, there was much fear and stupidity being taught within the Catholic schools as Catholicism.
What do you call “fear and stupidity?” Believing that sin will often bring punishment?
If the Church actually taught the things now they taught 50 years ago – and by Church I mean Catholic institutions whether run by religious or lay people included – then I don’t think we would have members at all because I don’t think people would put up with the stupid fearmongering misinformation for very long. I’m almost surprised we have a church at all given some of what I heard used to pass.
You are very vague about this “fearmongering”. Strange that in that age most Catholics went to mass and confesion, and believed in the Real Presence and other teachings. The problem now is that everyone is told to believe virtually what they want, and there is no solid faith to hold to. So people get demoralised and stop practising.
 
40.png
BarbaraTherese:
The Tridintine Mass was…gorgeous. Agree it reflected the mystery of the Mass in the Liturgy, especially Latin - a most majestic sounding and mysterious language.
There were other differences apart from the language. The reverence. The dignity. The emphasis on sacrifice. The priest facing east with the congregation, one with them praying toward God, not facing them as an audience to a memorial.
The respect for the Eucharistic Presence was…enormous. I do wonder about the depth of this devotion Reen…it was certainly ‘observable phenomena’ and those I was most in awe of left attending Sunday and weekday Masses with the mass exodus post Vatican2. I often wonder about that.
The depth of people’s devotion was attested in their belief, nowadays apparently most Catholics don’t really believe in the Eucharistic presence. This has been brought about by
  1. Poor liberal teaching.
  2. Not ACTING as if King Jesus was present. Decline in benediction. Decline in Eucharistic Adoration. Locked Churches contrary to Canon Law. Removal of the Tabernacle to a hidden corner. Celebration on bare tables. No kneeling to receive. Unvested eucharistic ministers.
Many people stopped attending masses simply BECAUSE the reverence and meaning were reduced. Similarly, liberalism taught that outward observance was not important. This was a message that quickly got across as more and more people stayed at home.

People are practical. If receiving the sacrament is not strictly necessary. If its reality is reduced, then people will say - if its not that important, I won’t bother.
People took no food, after midnight, when receiving the Eucharist.The threat o’erhanging one if one didn’t was Hell!
“Meatless” Friday’s were mandatory. Threat of Hell again. Personally I find optional penance on Fridays far more meaningful for as soon as it dawns on me that it is indeed a Friday my next thought is “What penance today?”…not “whiting or garfish tonight?”…
The “threat” is that if one puts veniality and sensual lusts above devotion, then there is some significant loss. Start teaching that everything is optional, and you’ll still receive mansions in paradise, and you’ll find that, contrary to expectation, people believe LESS, and become less committed.

Intellectuals and highly spiritual people may not need practices such as communal fasting to develope and entrench their faith. BUT MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE DO. This is the big mistake of Liberals and intellectuals who say “People shouldn’t need fasts, pictures, beautiful churches, celebrations.”

For ordinary people, who aren’t super spiritual, these things.
  1. Reunite people with their Faith and its reality by making SPECIFIC demands on them.
  2. Develop a sense of community belonging among Catholics.
  3. Make people think about the reality of the Eucharist and of Christ’s sacrifice.
  4. Act as a WITNESS to non-Catholics, that show Catholics take their faith seriously, and are prepared to give up things for their faith. Even now everyone still knows about Catholics eating fish of Fridays. It was an effective witness.

Yes, the old catechism was taught by rote. That was bad. But the alternative, where the Catechism is hardly or wishy-washily taught is worse.
 
Axion

Just forget it.

I do not think it’s worth going through your disparagement of my family again.

I’m sorry you are sooo far from understanding why people tell stories.

Alan

PS>> Maybe you’d better brush up on Church teachings and find out more about the heresies being taught in the 50s by Harvard (or was it Yale) religious faculties before you tell me that my stories are factually incorrect instead in addition to being irrelevant. For you, I suppose it’s OK that everyone of your friendly acquaintance who isn’t a member of the Catholic Church is going to go burn in hell forever.
 
I have determined that certain Conservative Catholics are clueless. This is through no fault of their own.

Nothing because they are conservative, but because they listened to the teachings of heresies that were widespread in the Church a few decades ago.

One such heresy that has been condemned by the magisterium (according to ewtn) is that anyone who wasn’t specifically a member of the Catholic Church would go to hell.

From an EWTN article:
These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.
Alan
 
40.png
Axion:
Please! At that time EVERYBODY used corporal punishment, at leat here in the UK. Secular teachers, policemen, shopkeepers. Everyone was free to give kids a clip round the ear or worse. Corporal punishment has NOTHING to do with Liberal or Conservative Catholicism.
This is an example of the brainwashing that goes on. Certain conservative Catholics have been brought up thinking that any behavior that is common outside of the Church is ALSO an OK behavior for inside the Church.

The Church had one advantage in that its institutional secrecy allowed the abuse to go on for longer and to a worse extent than in any other institutions. You notice that we got rid of physical abuse of students in the school well prior to doing so in the Church. Someone with a clue, IMO, might expect the Church to be a leader in these areas; it was, but for the wrong side.

One who is brainwashed thinks that everything is OK when it clearly isn’t. I have no desire to speak ill of the Church, but anyone who cannot acknowledge the shortcomings of her leadership all across the board, and the devastating social impact some of it had, is simply asking for their own Church to be torn apart because they don’t even know a satanic attack when it totally ingulfs them and a whole room of the faithful.

Or do you think the Holy Spirit used to divinely inspire these priests to do the awful things they did?

Again, I am totally OK with the Church, and I see how some of the modern architecture and even certain practices within Mass (can you say “liturgical dancing”) can be very difficult for people who were brought up with tradition.

The cluelessness comes in when that difficulty manifests itself in the people thinking that everything was beautiful way back when, when it was beautiful on the surface but in relationship to today it was at least as ugly as ever because below the surface those people that we Catholics used to pedestalized were human just like us.

How many youngsters went to school in the 50s and did NOT completely and thoroughly fear their teachers and pastors? Not a healthy fear of sin, but really honestly could not behave in any relaxed (relatively anxiety-free) fashion when these people were around because they were somehow super-human or at least regarded as such?

Alan
 
40.png
Axion:
The priest facing east with the congregation, one with them praying toward God, not facing them as an audience to a memorial.
How about “not facing them so they can participate in a memorial?”

At the last supper, did Jesus turn his back to his friends while he offered the sacrifice to God?

I guess it was worth responding to your post. We’ve finally gotten some issues out on the table so we can fully explore the subject of this thread’s title.

Please keep in mind that I do not intend to disparage any of your devotions or liturgical preferences. What I do disparage is your logic and your explanations of how things were wonderful then and they are bad now, as if after 2000 years all of a sudden the Church turned against her mission.

Here is a sincere question now: do you actually believe that God is offended because we no longer sit behind the priest during Mass? What sort of awe was there for God then that there isn’t now?

Do you believe it is healthy for the faithful to call upon our leaders to be credible, holy witnesses of God, or is it more like we should unconditionally follow and honor them even when they are doing things that our sensibilities tell us “no! I don’t know the chapter or verse but I know this is very wrong!”

Alan
 
40.png
Donald45:
I’d be interested in some thoughtful responses to this statement by author Michael Cuneo, in his book The Smoke of Satan:

"Living as they do in an insular, 1950s-style Catholicism largely of their own making, conservatives in general seem almost willfully out of touch with the complex political and cultural dynamics of the contemporary church" (p. 57).

Let me know what you think. Does Cuneo’s comment contain some truth?

God bless,
Don
I ask you did you even read the first chapter of the book?

It calls teh Church insufferably archaic in, one line then he lits hard only on American Catholicism as if there were no reprocussions anywhere else in the world except the United States…

There have been ABUSES of VII all over the world not just America, so therefore to single us out makes no sense…

I do find this book highly biased to one way of thinking therefore not credible enough for reading material … It is one man’s opinion because he seems to be a from the first chapter himself a trad that is enflamed at the ultra trads that have taken it over the line and then is blaming the VII Council for it all … When it is not the Council’s fault but that of men that have openly abused their authority in the spirit of that Council…

If one reads through the Council as I have actually take the time to do then they come to understand that nothing expressed in VII is somehow all of the sudden a new thing but a collection of the old that was taken and reformed to form something that could be used for the modern times, as times had changed and therefore the Church needed to change too… The doctrines Dogmas and Morals are all the same though … All of them taken from the old just expanded upon as we do with Doctrine all the time in order to explain it to people for a time and age where it is applicable…

Some people do not take to change very well and as with all things throughout History in the Church progression is slow moving… The problem is that we now live in a time and age where we expect it NOW… Unfortunately that is not how the Church works and that is not how God works …

Much has been done since that Council that has invoked a great deal of change that people are either unwilling to see or simply blind to for their own reasons but I will say this, nowhere in the Church has Satan prevailed …

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I shall believe CHRIST over any fallible HUMAN any day of the week as HE is GOD!
 
40.png
MysticRose:
Much has been done since that Council that has invoke a great deal of change that people are either unwilling to see or simply blind to for their own reasons but I will say this, nowhere in the Church has Satan prevailed …

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I shall believe CHRIST over any fallible HUMAN any day of the wekk as HE is GOD!
:amen:

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
How about “not facing them so they can participate in a memorial?”

At the last supper, did Jesus turn his back to his friends while he offered the sacrifice to God?

I guess it was worth responding to your post. We’ve finally gotten some issues out on the table so we can fully explore the subject of this thread’s title.

Please keep in mind that I do not intend to disparage any of your devotions or liturgical preferences. What I do disparage is your logic and your explanations of how things were wonderful then and they are bad now, as if after 2000 years all of a sudden the Church turned against her mission.

Here is a sincere question now: do you actually believe that God is offended because we no longer sit behind the priest during Mass? What sort of awe was there for God then that there isn’t now?

Alan
The question is not so much how does God feel, but how do we feel. For it is us that need to worship much more than God needs to recieve it. The worship is not a show put on for us, but to give worship to God. By having the priest not facing the people, it takes the emphasis off of the priest and I tend to think does a much better job on putting it on who we are worshipping.
 
40.png
jman507:
The question is not so much how does God feel, but how do we feel. For it is us that need to worship much more than God needs to recieve it. The worship is not a show put on for us, but to give worship to God. By having the priest not facing the people, it takes the emphasis off of the priest and I tend to think does a much better job on putting it on who we are worshipping.
Thank you. That is a very nice answer. 🙂

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Axion

Just forget it.

I do not think it’s worth going through your disparagement of my family again.

I’m sorry you are sooo far from understanding why people tell stories.

Alan
Calm down. I haven’t disparaged your family. I have taken a different position to you.
PS>> Maybe you’d better brush up on Church teachings and find out more about the heresies being taught in the 50s by Harvard (or was it Yale) religious faculties before you tell me that my stories are factually incorrect instead in addition to being irrelevant. For you, I suppose it’s OK that everyone of your friendly acquaintance who isn’t a member of the Catholic Church is going to go burn in hell forever.
That’s not what i said, and you know it.
 
40.png
Axion:
Calm down. I haven’t disparaged your family. I have taken a different position to you.

That’s not what i said, and you know it.
mind reading now. 😃

Alan
 
Tridentine Mass:

…as the priest mounted the steps, toward the altar:

“I will go unto the altar of God…”

Servers:
“To God, who giveth joy, to my youth.”

“Ad Deum, qui laetificat juventutum meum…”

Compare that, with the current “translation” of the Christmas
gospel:

“…and they stopped at the place where traveller’s stay.”

Leaving the faithful - gathered - wondering:

Are they searching for a word?? You know, as in…inn…???

[And the really irreverant thought crossed my mind*: motel*???*]

And then there are the “prayers of the faithful”…

which I tense up for, every time, wondering if I can give “assent”
to what’s being prayed* for* ! A feeble: “Lord, hear our prayer…”]
I never know whether this “prayer” is going to contain some
PC political ‘request.’ 😃

Lord, hear my prayer: Restore Thy Church, O Lord, to some
semblance of…the serious.

I’m outta here, before I really start “winging it”…

reen12
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
This is an example of the brainwashing that goes on. Certain conservative Catholics have been brought up thinking that any behavior that is common outside of the Church is ALSO an OK behavior for inside the Church.
What is wrong with the use of corporal punnishment?
 
40.png
mosher:
What is wrong with the use of corporal punnishment?
Even the Church knows the line between the use of corporal punishment as perscribedin the Bible and abuse and does not encourage abuse…

It encourages that this methodology only be used in the extreme case now and for just causes and that we are not doing it in fits of anger ourselves… If we are then we should not be using it because then even by them if their is anger or hatred present we are engaging in abuse …

It is supposed to be a tool used for reprimand of our Children and nothing more …
 
I personally would like to point out that this method should not need to be used if you cultivate with your children proper morals and teachings so that in fact they come to respect you and have a healthy fear of you as a parental figure and that authority base … Please note I said healthy fear … this does not mean an unhealthy one that would be that of they run away from you because they are literally scared to death of you and the consequences … Honest and open communication should always be endorsed between you and your children …
 
40.png
MysticRose:
Even the Church knows the line between the use of corporal punishment as perscribedin the Bible and abuse and does not encourage abuse…

It encourages that this methodology only be used in the extreme case now and for just causes and that we are not doing it in fits of anger ourselves… If we are then we should not be using it because then even by them if their is anger or hatred present we are engaging in abuse …

It is supposed to be a tool used for reprimand of our Children and nothing more …
Given … but that doesn’t answer my question. There seems to be a wholesale rejection of the use of corporal punnishment. I think that perhaps if we were to return to a day in the secular and ecclesial world where more real discipline was used we may find society changed for the better in at least a small way.
 
40.png
Donald45:
"Living as they do in an insular, 1950s-style Catholicism largely of their own making…"
I don’t even know what this means. What style of Catholicism is 1950s? I was born after Vatican II convened, and Vatican II Catholicism is what I was taught and live. And yet I’m thinking this author would label me “conservative” because all Fridays are still days of penance for me, as is prescribed by current canon law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top