Criticism of Things Catholic

[Cat]

brotherhrolf, I am extremely sorry that my post came across as condensention. I did NOT intend this at all. I truly do respect your memories. My comments were NOT intended to make you into some kind of fossil.

I work with children a LOT, and I write children’s novels. Children are dear to me. THAT is why I suggested that you consider creating a character and turning your memories into good, wholesome stories for children. I was NOT, I swear, implying that you are in any way an “ecclesial dinosaur” and I was most certainly NOT trivializing your memories. I believe that little children desperately need good, religious stories that help them develop a strong belief in Jesus and their Church.

I realize that you may not be interested in that sort of writing, and that’s OK. It’s just a suggestion.

And yes, I have a really good idea of the anguish you experienced when they removed the altar rails.

How do you think I felt when I read in a Protestant periodical that “church organs should be thrown out, they are worthless in this day and age?”

How do you think I feel now when I read of Protestant churches that offer “communion” at the back of the church on a table–just help yourself to a paper cup of grape juice and a soda cracker.

How do you think I feel when I see wine and beer offered in Baptist homes? (Yes, I know most Catholics have no problem with wine and beer, but when I was growing up, it was absolutely forbidden and I have a very hard time with this change.)

How do you think I feel when I see a church pastored by an “assocation” from a far away city, and there is no “pastor”, but a “video” of his sermons that the people view while they sip latte and sit around tables?

How do you think I feel when youth groups no longer do Bible studies because “no one will come?” (This is what the youth pastor in the last evangelical church we attended told my daughter when she asked him if they could do a Bible study.)

How do you think I feel when children as young as 4 have to “audition” to be in the Christmas pageant!!! The children have to have a “portfolio” that demonstrates “experience with or aptitude in the performing arts.” (I am NOT kidding!)

How do you think I feel when the churches of my childhood march with NARAL, marry gay couples, and ordain women? Even the evangelical churches are making use of women pastors now!

And how do you think I felt when the church that I had faithfully worked in for 7 years KICKED ME AND MY HUSBAND OUT and accused us of heinous sins? One of the “deacons” who was present out our tribunal told me that I was “unloveable and unteachable,” even though he had NEVER MET ME UNTIL THAT EVENING!!! Even though my children’s choirs in that church had grown in three years from 24 children to over 60 children, and more were calling to be included. Even though my own children, teenagers at the time, actually taught a class of VBS children–my daughters were mature and responsible enough to teach their own class instead of just “helping.” Even though my husband was a wise man who donated subscriptions of “Creation Journal” to the Church library and any teenagers who were interested?

Oh, yes, brotherhrolf, I know all about the anquish that you have experienced. I have watched the church of my childhood deteriorate from a “family” to a “club.” At this point, I fear that my childhood church will soon close its doors. So few people attend now, and most of them are old. Everyone is packing into the trendy new “megachurch” and watching the professionally-produced (I am NOT kidding–they put out ads for professional stage managers, sound and light techs, and other production workers!) “worship experiences.”

However, my anguish differs from yours in one very important way. **I now know that my friends in the evangelical churches are possibly on the way to hell. ** THAT’S ANGUISH!

I drive by my childhood church every day, and I realize that they are estranged by choice from the Catholic Church, the Eucharist (the dear Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament) and the other Sacraments, and the TRUTH of the teaching of Catholicism. Their only hope of heaven is God’s mercy.

At least when your Church fell apart all around you, the people were still bona fide Christians with the hope of heaven by virtue of their baptism. You knew that you could hope to see all your friends in heaven some day. Do you know that there are evangelical churches that NO LONGER PRACTICE BAPTISM?!!! It is a “ritual of man,” and they have eliminated it. God have mercy!

I pray that God will be merciful to my dear friends in their ignorance, and I pray with all my heart that the Holy Spirit will lead them home to the Catholic Church. And I pray that if possible, I can be used in some way to help them embrace Catholicism.

I am NOT bashing you or any Catholics who grew up pre-Vatican II. If you can find posts of mine that bash you, please quote them to me so that I can repent and apologize. I respect you and your past. I think your memories and stories are interesting and I enjoy reading your posts about New Orleans especially.

What I DON’T like is when someone (usually NOT you, which is why I was really surprised at your bitter quote earlier in this thread) tells ME that my Catholicism is “not really Catholic” or “lacking in some way” or “heresy.” THOSE kinds of comments represent rebellion against the Church, as far as I can see, and it is the sin of rebellion that felled Satan and his demons.

I really do want to know what you expect of us, brotherhrolf. I still don’t get it. I’m sorry to be so dense.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Oh, Cat. The LAST thing i wanted to start was a controversy. But I can’t deny that 40 years ago, HMC was “on a different planet” and the church into which you were received is not the church I knew. I don’t want to be put into the position of “my old church” is better. I recognize all too well that I have contemporaries who don’t think like I do.

I don’t want to go back to the TLM. I’ve made that clear for along time. On the other hand, I am not willing to throw out that which is an integral part of my being. That ugly issue came to the fore this last week.

It was an absolute joy to me to hear what I heard 40 years ago. I have not sung the Credo in Latin for decades. On the other hand, I all too well understand that there are folks who have been received into HMC who have not a single iota of understanding of what singing that Credo in Latin might mean to me.

I am really tired of being the “bad guy” when such motives don’t exist im my heart. I love the muisic I grew up with. I don’t like the sacro-pop, sacro-salsa, muppet music which was exemplified by the music in DC this week. I am not the only one who feels like this. I don’t have a problem with what you and your confreres belive. I do have a problem with my (and my confreres) being excluded because it does not meet your expectations. It comes down to I am a cradle catholic…I was baptized in 1951; made my first communion in 1957 ; and was confirmed in 1963. The Church in which I grew up was different.

On the other hand, I grieve. I really do. The Church into which you were received is not the chruch into which I was baptized, I made my firsrt commuion and was confirmed. There is an awful lot of water under the bridge. I am a member of my generation. I repeat what I have said for years on this fora. For every number of my generation who where happy with what went on, there was an equal and opposite number who were not

G’night y.al. Let me keep my mouth shut.

.

 

[ProVobis]

As a Eucharistic Apostle of Divine Mercy, I say it daily for all, just as you have mentioned. I especially include all who post on this forum, that the Holy Spirit may guide each of us to his truth.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you very much for your prayers, Deacon Ed B. :getholy:

 

[catharina]

For every number of my generation who where happy with what went on, there was an equal and opposite number who were not.

.

I wonder who did this head count for you.

PS -
Yesterday was yesterday. Today is today. Tommorow will likely be tomorrow.

 

[ProVobis]

The entire purpose of MP is to allow for the celebration either way, not for one to overcome the other. It was attitudes like what you are describing that lead to them prohibitting general use of the older style Mass. Because people felt the one was better then the other.

We won’t probably really know the purpose of the MP, but I doubt that it was because everyone felt his Mass was better than the other.

Just because some parishes have taken the “Spirit of Vatican II” to the extreme doesn’t mean all parishes are that way.

Well, one is probably justified at looking at the New Mass as an “extreme” in itself since Vatican II never called for any new Rites.

 

[ProVobis]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread? Are you asking that traditionalist stop advocating their call to a return to traditional practices native to the Latin rite?

Tell me, is there a place to deposit my brain before entering the Church, perhaps they have a check-out near the coats?

 

[bobzills]

Why do so many find it necessary to criticize things of our Catholic Church. I have seen criticisms of:
…
8. Questioning the wording of the mass

I could keep going on, but am sure you all get the point and probably could add much, much more to this list. I for one am really saddened in seeing so much animosity about the Church Your thoughts please.
…

It is not so much a criticism as a question as to whether or not the Catholic Church is really one Church? According to what I was taught, the true Church has four marks: one, holy catholic and apostolic, so it is a legitimate question to ask about whether or not the Catholic Church teaches one and the same doctrine everywhere in in every Catholic Church or not? Now in some Catholic Churches at Mass they proclaim that the Blood of Christ was shed for you and for many that sins may be forgiven, but at this papal Mass, the Pooe proclaims that the Blood of Christ is shed for you and for all. Now this was in the English language, and in our English class, in our philosophy class, in our logic class and in our mathematics class, all of which were taught in the English language, and in all of the dictionaries that we have been using, it is asserted with certainty that there is a large and essential difference between the meaning of the word all and the meaning of the word many. In brief, they don’t mean the same thing. So, the question is how can anyone say that the Catholic Church teaches one and only one doctrine, when at some Masses it is proclaimed that the Blood of Christ is shed for all, while at other Masses it is proclaimed that the Blood of Christ is shed for many? Or do you say that the teachers in our English class, the teachers in our philosophy class, the teachers in our logic class, the teachers in our mathematics class and the dictionaries that we use are all lying or are in serious error concerning this point?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It is not so much a criticism as a question as to whether or not the Catholic Church is really one Church? According to what I was taught, the true Church has four marks: one, holy catholic and apostolic, so it is a legitimate question to ask about whether or not the Catholic Church teaches one and the same doctrine everywhere in in every Catholic Church or not? Now in some Catholic Churches at Mass they proclaim that the Blood of Christ was shed for you and for many that sins may be forgiven, but at this papal Mass, the Pooe proclaims that the Blood of Christ is shed for you and for all. Now this was in the English language, and in our English class, in our philosophy class, in our logic class and in our mathematics class, all of which were taught in the English language, and in all of the dictionaries that we have been using, it is asserted with certainty that there is a large and essential difference between the meaning of the word all and the meaning of the word many. In brief, they don’t mean the same thing. So, the question is how can anyone say that the Catholic Church teaches one and only one doctrine, when at some Masses it is proclaimed that the Blood of Christ is shed for all, while at other Masses it is proclaimed that the Blood of Christ is shed for many? Or do you say that the teachers in our English class, the teachers in our philosophy class, the teachers in our logic class, the teachers in our mathematics class and the dictionaries that we use are all lying or are in serious error concerning this point?

False dichotomy. The word “many” does not preclude “all”, just as in formal logic “some” does not preclude “all”, likewise in modal logic <> (possibility) does not preclude ] (necessity).

 

[bobzills]

False dichotomy. The word “many” does not preclude “all”, just as in formal logic “some” does not preclude “all”, likewise in modal logic <> (possibility) does not preclude ] (necessity).

My point has to do with whether the teaching is one and the same or not. There are two teachings in the Catholic Church today:

1. The Blood is shed for all.
2. The Blood is shed for many.
   As the Catechism of the Council of Trent has noted, it is appropriate here to use the word many, and not all.

Let me give another example.
Many of the people who reside in Rhode Island are eligible to vote.
It would be false to say that all of the people who reside in R.I. are eligible to vote, but it is correct to say that many who reside in RI are eligible to vote.
Actually, the present teaching of the Church, as enunciated by His holiness Pope John Paul II in his message to the Abbess General of the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget that Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13),is the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation, appears to be at variance with the pre-Vatican II condemnation of Apokatastasis.

 

[Marauder]

My point has to do with whether the teaching is one and the same or not. There are two teachings in the Catholic Church today:

1. The Blood is shed for all.
2. The Blood is shed for many.
   As the Catechism of the Council of Trent has noted, it is appropriate here to use the word many, and not all.

This is one of those topics best left to the theologians to discuss and trust Holy Mother Church on their opinion. It has been debated and discussed for a long time. Some people say that Christ shed his blood for all, whether they choose to accept it or not is their choice due to free will. Other people say that he shed his blood for many because he via his divine will already knew who would accept it and he shed it for so he knew he didn’t shed it for all.

Let the hierachy decide which word to choose, it doesn’t prove much to debate it.

 

[latinmasslover]

This is one of those topics best left to the theologians to discuss and trust Holy Mother Church on their opinion. It has been debated and discussed for a long time. Some people say that Christ shed his blood for all, whether they choose to accept it or not is their choice due to free will. Other people say that he shed his blood for many because he via his divine will already knew who would accept it and he shed it for so he knew he didn’t shed it for all.

Let the hierachy decide which word to choose, it doesn’t prove much to debate it.

There is no debate. Christ said “for many.” Case closed. It seems it’s some in the hierarchy that has a problem with obedience. Too bad.

 

[Ron21]

As a Eucharistic Apostle of Divine Mercy, I say it daily for all, just as you have mentioned. I especially include all who post on this forum, that the Holy Spirit may guide each of us to his truth.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thanks Deacon Ed for praying for us…Sometimes i wonder off in sin without realizing it…and then the Spirit of God reminds and disciplines me again

Thanks Deacon and may God continue to bless you…

 

[Jacquelinem]

Thank you Deacon Ed for all your prayers. Would it be an imposition to message you about Eucharist Ministers of Divine Mercy?

Thank you

 

[Marauder]

There is no debate. Christ said “for many.” Case closed. It seems it’s some in the hierarchy that has a problem with obedience. Too bad.

Christ didn’t use the word “all” or “many” he was not talking in English. Like I said, I will trust HMC in whatever they say is the proper English translation.

 

[MrS]

This is one of those topics best left to the theologians to discuss and trust Holy Mother Church on their opinion. It has been debated and discussed for a long time. Some people say that Christ shed his blood for all, whether they choose to accept it or not is their choice due to free will. Other people say that he shed his blood for many because he via his divine will already knew who would accept it and he shed it for so he knew he didn’t shed it for all.

Let the hierachy decide which word to choose, it doesn’t prove much to debate it.

Good point.

The hierarchy made the change some years back…big mistake (little mistake to those whose interests are not so theological).

And they recognized their mistake…most likely because of the complaints, or criticisms, about the distinctions of all and many.

The new translations have acknowledged the error, And the wording is returning to say many, not all.

As is the Creed… Credo never was translated other than "we believe" until some innovator got his way. Now, the same new translations will return to the correct "I believe" which is a profession of what each of us is required to believe … not in a .group-think

Two examples of “Correction” of Things Catholic.

.

 

[bobzills]

This is one of those topics best left to the theologians to discuss and trust Holy Mother Church on their opinion. It has been debated and discussed for a long time. Some people say that Christ shed his blood for all, whether they choose to accept it or not is their choice due to free will. Other people say that he shed his blood for many because he via his divine will already knew who would accept it and he shed it for so he knew he didn’t shed it for all.

Let the hierachy decide which word to choose, it doesn’t prove much to debate it.

I am not debating it. I am simply saying that there are two teachings here. Is this not contrary to the previous idea that the Catholic Church is one and has one and the same teaching everywhere ?

 

[latinmasslover]

Christ didn’t use the word “all” or “many” he was not talking in English. Like I said, I will trust HMC in whatever they say is the proper English translation.

I know you couldn’t have possibly thrown out such a lame argument. Oh my goodness.

The translation is: for many, not for all. Everyone knows that “for all” is an incorrect translation of “pro multis.” Good grief!

Find another argument against the words of Jesus Christ.

 

[Marauder]

Is this not contrary to the previous idea that the Catholic Church is one and has one and the same teaching everywhere ?

Not really it is just the debate over what is the proper translation and meaning of one word. Yes the word can be different but all vs. many is a minor difference if you look at it the way the different camps are looking at it. Did Jesus shed his blood for all? Yes Did everyone accept it? No Both words work in the true context of what was done. In the end it comes down to which is the better translation of what was actually said in the original form of the document.

 

[bobzills]

Good point.

The hierarchy made the change some years back…big mistake (little mistake to those whose interests are not so theological).

And they recognized their mistake…most likely because of the complaints, or criticisms, about the distinctions of all and many.

The new translations have acknowledged the error, And the wording is returning to say many, not all.

As is the Creed… Credo never was translated other than "we believe" until some innovator got his way. Now, the same new translations will return to the correct "I believe" which is a profession of what each of us is required to believe … not in a .group-think

Two examples of “Correction” of Things Catholic.

.

However, at the papal Mass, the Pope has said “for all”. Now the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. So what are people supposed to think if the Pope himself says “for all”?
I don;t know, but it looks to me like there are two teachings in the Catholic Church today on this point and that both are accepted.

1. The Blood is shed for all.
2. The Blood is shed for many.
   However, if there are two teachings and not one, then it looks like there might be a problem with the pre-Vatican II teaching that the doctrines and teaching of the Catholic Church are one and the same everywhere. A mark of the Church is that it is one, which includes the idea that it is one in belief.

 

[Marauder]

I know you couldn’t have possibly thrown out such a lame argument. Oh my goodness.

The translation is: for many, not for all. Everyone knows that “for all” is an incorrect translation of “pro multis.” Good grief!

Find another argument against the words of Jesus Christ.

Sorry but Latin wasn’t the original language either.