Defining Orthodox Catholic

[Catholic2003]

Here is a typical Michael Rose statement:

“Most of us here recall many of the shrill warnings that we’ve been bombarded with over the past few decades,” said Rose, “‘The priest shortage calls for a solution!’ ‘The vocations crisis calls for a solution!’ And what are the solutions that are popularly put forth? Ending the discipline of celibacy – ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood – and essentially replacing priests with deacons, nuns, or lay pastoral ministers. But does anyone here really believe that these proposed solutions will end the priest shortage? Will they solve the vocations crisis? How, for instance, does replacing priests with lay pastors solve the priest shortage? These solutions, posited repeatedly by the liberal talking heads, are geared toward learning to live without the traditional Catholic priesthood. It’s that simple. But I’ve got news for everyone here. There is no vocations crisis. That’s right. There is no vocations crisis.”

It seems clear to me that Michael Rose considers (1) ending the discipline of celibacy, (2) ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood, and (3) replacing priests with deacons, nuns or lay pastoral ministers, as three unacceptable proposals to redefine or “re-envision” the priesthood.

 

[VociMike]

otm:

In another thread, about getting a website to define which churches are “orthodox” and which are not, I mentioned Archbishop Chaput’s public comment on the issue of holding hands during the Our Father…

Thanks for this example. It seems to me that it should not be difficult to determine whether holding hands is allowed or prohibited. I personally don’t like it, but I will abide by the ruling of the Church on the matter.

Perhaps this is a case where “orthodox” and “traditional” do not mean the same things.

 

[VociMike]

Here is a typical Michael Rose statement:

It seems clear to me that Michael Rose considers (1) ending the discipline of celibacy, (2) ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood, and (3) replacing priests with deacons, nuns or lay pastoral ministers, as three unacceptable proposals to redefine or “re-envision” the priesthood.

But the issue here is not Michael Rose, but the proposed definition, whatever its source. I continue to note that the Catholic Church’s understanding of the priesthood already allows for married priests.

But anyway, this is not an argument I need to continue to pursue.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Here is a typical Michael Rose statement:

It seems clear to me that Michael Rose considers (1) ending the discipline of celibacy, (2) ordaining women to the Catholic priesthood, and (3) replacing priests with deacons, nuns or lay pastoral ministers, as three unacceptable proposals to redefine or “re-envision” the priesthood.

I believe you may have mistakenly taken it out of context. Michael Rose is merely pointing out what “others” say is causing the priest shortage - namely, the celibacy issue and women’s ordination (or lack thereof). I’m certain your interpretation is mistaken. In the material I’ve been reading he is exactly the opposite because he promotes leaving the priesthood as is.

Michael Rose also gets into strange happenings at seminaries and I’ll provide the links below in the next post I make. He has written several books, including ***Good Bye, Good Men ***where he discusses the de-priesting of the priesthood. Many seminarians who had orthodox or traditional tendencies were either weeded out or made so uncomfortable that they had no choice but to find a new order or just leave altogether. Good young men were turned away from the priesthood and his book gets into the “how”. It is utterly disgusting. I’ll add several links below that provide info on this.

Priest Decline is Proportionate to Faithful (weekly attenders)Decline

I understand precisely what he is talking about when he says that there is no crisis. In my own archdiocese alone, we can take and shut down more than half the parishes and simply move those families to other parishes, and redistribute the priests among them. My old parish, which had standing room only by 10 minutes before mass time, with people lining up along the walls had to remove a good number of pews due to lack of attendance. There were 5-6 masses each weekend and all were filled. Today, we barely see one Easter Mass come somewhat close as they bring in chairs for the people. This is the case in as many as 6 parishes within a 5 mile radius of my home and in other neighborhoods I visit. The people just aren’t there and the solution is simple - shut down the parishes and redistribute the priests. Or, the faithful themselves need to accept responsibility and get back into the pews where they belong instead of making a million and one excuses why they can’t.

The priesthood is reduced in numbers but the faithful are lacking just as well - they went down proportionately. When we close a bunch of parishes, you will see that there are plenty of priests to serve the families well, they are just poorly distributed as diocese across the country deal with the need to close the buildings and the emotions that will cry out with it.

Why are the pews so empty?

But, where are the faithful? They are sleeping, golfing, playing ball, doing their nails, etc., etc., Some are working because they have to, but that’s why we have Saturday offerings and there are really a minority that can’t meet one day or the other. Some are working overtime to make ends meet while many are working overtime in order to buy more toys. These are the Catholics who know God is loving and merciful, but forget He is also just! For the life of me I do not understand why one cannot find just **one hour **per week to give themselves to him. Just one hour! They can’t because too many false gods have entered their lives and they don’t see it.

The Numbers Mean Something

While all of the parishes in my neighborhood are losing numbers - those typical modern day parishes, the orthodox parishes are being flooded en masse with people from all over Southeast Michigan. Both Assumption Grotto and Sts. Cyril and Methodius in the Archdioces of Detroit are jam packed and have lots of masses, lots of priests, lots of confession that people take advantage of, lots of devotions that people take advantage of, and I have never in my life seen such a virtuous group of people. They are patient and kind beyond, enough so that I could actually detect a difference in attitudes. I don’t have to worry about getting run over at Assumption Grotto, but I have to guard my 73 year old mother like a hawk all the way to the car. Those people who are still left in church AFTER the priest leaves are just as much in a hurry to get out that my mother has been almost knocked over I don’t know how many times. At the Grotto, people smile and yield to each other and they are not in a hurry. A much larger percentage of people wait until the priest has gone and the music has stopped before exiting their pews and a fair number stay behind. My other parishes have been half empty before the priest can bow and they have tried to talk to people.

So why are so many people flocking to the churches of orthodox nature, including yours truly?

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Links as promised

goodbyegoodmen.com/

Next is an article from the parish bulletin of Assumption Grotto Pastor, Fr. Eduard Perrone on the book in 2002. Fr. Perrone is also the founder and spiritual director of Call to Holiness calltoholiness.com/ and is also spiritual director to local T.O. Carmelites and is a T.O.C. himself in addition to being a diocesan priest.

Scroll down to Pastor’s Descant

diocesereport.com/the_record/2002_10_06_archive.shtml

He is also featured as one of 10 priests in the book Priest - Portraits of Ten Good Men Serving the Church Today where his trials in the seminary and in the early days of his priesthood are told.

goodbyegoodmen.com/priest.html

There is a small excerpt about him in my next link below, but the excerpt doesn’t do the story justice. He stuck to his guns and survived it all, but sadly others just couldn’t hang on. He describes what got him through it all and what kinds of things were happening. I just about cried as I read it. What is even more a shame is that in the short time I’ve known him I can say he is one of the most dedicated, finest priests I have ever met. It took no time at all for me to gain trust in him, unlike my many other experiences. I have witnessed a profoundly prayerful man as you will read. It is hard to look someone like this in the face and say you don’t have an hour per week for Mass or 15 or 30 minutes a day for prayer. Do without one favorite TV program per week and there it is.

Scroll down to Hello, Good Men

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409revw.asp

BTW - I advise people to read the entire article put up by VociMike in the link he provided in his post, not just a paragraph.

 

[Catholic2003]

Lux_et_veritas:

I believe you may have mistakenly taken it out of context. Michael Rose is merely pointing out what “others” say is causing the priest shortage - namely, the celibacy issue and women’s ordination (or lack thereof). I’m certain your interpretation is mistaken. In the material I’ve been reading he is exactly the opposite because he promotes leaving the priesthood as is.

I don’t see how you are saying anything different that what I said. Michael Rose promotes leaving the priesthood as it is, to the point where he labels as unorthodox those who advocate rethinking the discipline of priestly celibacy. In fact, from his statements it is not clear that he sees any significant difference between those who call for optional priestly celibacy and those who call for the ordination of women priests.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Catholic2003:

I don’t see how you are saying anything different that what I said. Michael Rose promotes leaving the priesthood as it is, to the point where he labels as unorthodox those who advocate rethinking the discipline of priestly celibacy. In fact, from his statements it is not clear that he sees any significant difference between those who call for optional priestly celibacy and those who call for the ordination of women priests.

I apologize - I should have read the very last statment where you said that Michael Rose considers those three things unacceptable. Next time I won’t be in such a hurry. Yes! We are on the same page in that regard, but I can’t make a comment on whether I feel he goes too far yet. I have his books and intend to read them with comments later down the road.

Pope Benedict XVI suggests that some aspects of Vatican II remain not implemented yet and I took that to mean that people had misinterpreted certain things. If that is the case, then we need to keep an open mind and follow the church’s instruction. Some of those changes may make the “looser” end of the church uptight, but may also drive changes that could possibly make the “tighter” end of the church uptight.

Anyway, I do apologize for not reading your statement more carefully.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Guys,

**An Orthodox Catholic is the one who doesn’t have to say: “I’m a Catholic but…” **

Orthodox Catholics are those who accept everything the Pope and the Roman Curia teaches. They also accept the Vatican II council and the new mass. The word Orthodox does not at all mean that you are from the schismatic Eastern Churches. It just means “Right belief.” So when you say Orthodox Catholic, you’re saying: “The Universal Truth.” Orthodox Catholics are those who are in full communion with Rome.

If you prefer the Tridintine mass over the new mass, you can say “Traditional Catholic.” The Tridintine mass is in communion with Rome. Those who are not in communion with Rome and prefer the pre-Vatican II mass and say that Vatican II professed heresy and the current Pope is heretic, are called “Radical Traditionalists.” They are only near Catholic.

Those who are liberal and want religion their own way and want to challenge Church teachings are called “Progressive Catholics.” Most progressive Catholics are in physical communion with Rome, but are spiritually excommunicated, since they believe in heresy.

**So, Mr. Rose was right in that statement. Orthodox Catholics are in full communion with the Vatican and don’t challenge official Church teachings. So, I’d use the term Orthodox Catholic, and if someone doesn’t understand what that means, I’ll just explain it to them. **

The distinctions you make are good here, for me anyway. We may not like labels, but the bottom line is that there are varying ideologies floating among the Catholic people in how they treat the teachings and doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is the “full communion” part that makes me an orthodox Catholic.

I’ve got enough trust in the Holy Spirit that if He wants a change in direction, it won’t require protestors showing up in Rome with rainbow sashes on or signs demanding ordination of women to the priesthood. The Holy Spirit is far bigger than that and the biggest burr under my saddle is when people think they know themselves what God wants and don’t realize the voice they hear is their own.

Their mantra reads like this:

"Holy Spirit please do the will of the Lord…

---

and always appended with:

provided it is aligned with my will"