J
Jack007
Guest
what is bump?
- Status
A
AndyP2010
Guest
Our mod is simply trying to encourage this discussion.
In one of the earlier post someone had a phrase “moving the church”, which gets to the core of the issue. If you are trying to move the church instead of being moved by it, that is when you fall into error. When you insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, that attitude not a specific ideology causes division.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Would you please use the complete words instead of acronyms in your posts? Sometimes they are hard to follow. Thanks so much and may God bless you and all who visit this thread.
Amen.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You know it’s kind of interesting there too. This morning I was watching Cardinal George introducing the new archbishop of Chicago. What struck me first was that they were speaking with the flag of the US on the left and the white seal flag of the US on the right. (This is also frequently done for the Speaker of the House, the President, and other politicians.) Maybe in a very subtle way, but there is an attempt at uniting there too, isn’t there? The Great Seal of the U.S., of course, is scripted entirely in Latin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States
So I wouldn’t brush off the use of Latin so quickly. But your moniker seems to say you know that already. It’s a beautiful moniker, by the way.
P
ProVobis
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
One remedy for division is gratitude for the diverse gifts that exist in God’s Church…
P
ProVobis
Guest
C
clem456
Guest
After reading this Sunday’s Gospel Mt 20:1-16a , it says so much about appreciating what God has given to others.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
Thank you.
J
Jack007
Guest
I see
J
Jack007
Guest
icam= i couldnt agree more
J
Jack007
Guest
if you have difficulty in understanding acronyms, you can see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130241
P
ProVobis
Guest
Thanks for that.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I think that there’s a difference between division caused by different ethnic groups who may not want to worship together, and that of those who prefer the TLM and traditional teachings of the Church. The Catholic faith as it was practiced before the 1960’s was quite different then, as opposed to nowadays. Given the difference, it seems only likely that there will be divisions based on which side a Catholic might prefer. But even though the differences are very real, IMO, we can still try to do our best to state our views with charity, which can be a difficult thing to do at times (I speak from experience in lacking at times in charity myself). What we have in common is that we all love the Catholic faith and the Church.
T
Tigg
Guest
I completely agree with you.
I recently read an article written by an FSSP priest on this very subject which made much sense to me. Our catholicity is composed of many levels. I think it is a way of thinking and perceiving – it is almost a way of being that influences our spirituality. Some of his thoughts said that for traditionalists, this identity is not just what is here before us now – it encompasses the historical Church with all her wisdom and struggles and triumphs. If you leave that behind, which he calls ecclesiastical tradition, the mind of the Church is not fully portrayed and the results are that the modern world has not been helped to adapt to the teachings of the Church, in fact coupled with the threats of the secular culture and political correctness, the Church in effect, has been incapacitated to a certain extent.
You don’t need to be a scholar to read earlier encyclicals and know that basic fundamentals contained in them are not in conformity to much of what we hear today, either politically or spiritually. The concept now seems to be that newer is always better. The evidence before our eyes, however, says something has gone terribly wrong somewhere as our numbers decrease and the ones defiant to teaching become louder. The traditionalist, in assessing the state of the Church today, would say that in looking through the eyes of the past, the onus is on the present, not the past, to justify itself.
I do believe though, that the divisions (and who could honestly say there are none) are born from a fierce and protective love of the Church herself and the pain of confusion brought about by the lack of catechesis and clarity in teaching.
J
johnnyc176
Guest
not sure about new theologies…liberalism/modernism is basically protestantism but instead of Luther’s false theological differences now one’s political ideology (more prevalent with liberals) takes precedence over the teachings of Jesus.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I’m not sure that blaming “the other side” for divisions will solve anything.
I also disagree with the notion of political ideology being solely limited to liberals. I see plenty of evidence of political polarization in the US including among some Catholics for who the Republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats are the incarnation of evil.
J
Jack007
Guest
O
otjm
Guest
There appears to be some misunderstanding through parts of this thread. Some of that is a matter of how we define terms.
For example, some people define “unity” as “uniformity”. However, the Church does not define unity as uniformity, and the prime example of that is the last 2000 years of history. From the time the Apostles went out, culture played a part in, for example, liturgy. That is why we have such ancient liturgies as the Maronite liturgy, for example, and the Ruthinian Byzantine liturgy (both of which we have in Portland) as well as the Latin liturgy.
Are the different liturgies divisive? Certainly, in history, there have been implications of that. But the Church recognizes the validity of the historical approaches various cultures have taken, and John Paul 2 moved to stop the “latinization” of the eastern rites.
And within the Latin/Roman rite, we have a poster commenting about the “division” caused by having a Spanish Mass and and English Mass; it appears that his solution is to force both of them to an all Latin Mass, as if diversity were a bad word. I don’t know how far back in the Bible we need to go to show that peoples, as they spread throughout the earth, formed cultures which were different one from another. And without getting sidetracked about false worship, one can have Catholics in different cultures who celebrate the Lord’s Supper in different fashions, and yet all the same Supper.
If we have to force Roman Catholics to give up their cultures by all celebrating the Mass in Latin, in the false assumption that this makes for unity, then logically, we need to force the other 20+ Churches, all Catholic, to be Roman Catholic.
But that is only true if one presumes that diversity automatically means division (in a negative sense), and that uniformity is the same as, or synonymous with unity.
Are there divisions between cultures? Only a fool or a complete ignoramus would deny that. But the divisions are based on our brokenness which fails to see the humanness in others of a different culture. Are there people who do not want to associate with another culture? Of course there are; but that is because of their own brokenness, not because their culture is “better”, or the other culture somehow deficient. The issues between the Italians and the Polish, both Roman Catholic, in part gets to different cultures, and in part gets to tribalism. When attitudes of superiority intrude, then there is divisiveness. But wanting to worship in a Mass that has cultural aspects (such as using the vernacular of that culture) is most certainly not, in and of itself, divisive. Cultural differences can be positive or negative; and it is up to the individuals as to how they approach other cultures.
The same goes for those who consider themselves Traditional Catholics; when they step over the line form “this spirituality fits me best” to “my spirituality is superior to/better than/ more clearly Catholic than” those who prefer the OF, then it becomes divisive. When derogatory terms such as “liberal” or “modernism” are thrown about over matters which the Church allows in diversity, then division is being sown. The contempt that has been shown against those who prefer Gregorian chant, or the organ, or the fiddle back chasuble, or Latin and ad orientem is clearly divisive and not of the mind of the Church - or of Christ.
Both sides have thrown bricks; and both sides have blamed the other as having negative attitudes, and blamed those negative attitudes for the brick throwing they have done. And both sides have forgotten that when one points a finger at another, there are three pointing back.
So to answer the OP; it leads to divisions when one side or the other treats their own position as superior to the other side. It does not have to be so, but we can go clear back to Cain and Able and their differences; and human nature has not changed a whole lot since.
For example, some people define “unity” as “uniformity”. However, the Church does not define unity as uniformity, and the prime example of that is the last 2000 years of history. From the time the Apostles went out, culture played a part in, for example, liturgy. That is why we have such ancient liturgies as the Maronite liturgy, for example, and the Ruthinian Byzantine liturgy (both of which we have in Portland) as well as the Latin liturgy.
Are the different liturgies divisive? Certainly, in history, there have been implications of that. But the Church recognizes the validity of the historical approaches various cultures have taken, and John Paul 2 moved to stop the “latinization” of the eastern rites.
And within the Latin/Roman rite, we have a poster commenting about the “division” caused by having a Spanish Mass and and English Mass; it appears that his solution is to force both of them to an all Latin Mass, as if diversity were a bad word. I don’t know how far back in the Bible we need to go to show that peoples, as they spread throughout the earth, formed cultures which were different one from another. And without getting sidetracked about false worship, one can have Catholics in different cultures who celebrate the Lord’s Supper in different fashions, and yet all the same Supper.
If we have to force Roman Catholics to give up their cultures by all celebrating the Mass in Latin, in the false assumption that this makes for unity, then logically, we need to force the other 20+ Churches, all Catholic, to be Roman Catholic.
But that is only true if one presumes that diversity automatically means division (in a negative sense), and that uniformity is the same as, or synonymous with unity.
Are there divisions between cultures? Only a fool or a complete ignoramus would deny that. But the divisions are based on our brokenness which fails to see the humanness in others of a different culture. Are there people who do not want to associate with another culture? Of course there are; but that is because of their own brokenness, not because their culture is “better”, or the other culture somehow deficient. The issues between the Italians and the Polish, both Roman Catholic, in part gets to different cultures, and in part gets to tribalism. When attitudes of superiority intrude, then there is divisiveness. But wanting to worship in a Mass that has cultural aspects (such as using the vernacular of that culture) is most certainly not, in and of itself, divisive. Cultural differences can be positive or negative; and it is up to the individuals as to how they approach other cultures.
The same goes for those who consider themselves Traditional Catholics; when they step over the line form “this spirituality fits me best” to “my spirituality is superior to/better than/ more clearly Catholic than” those who prefer the OF, then it becomes divisive. When derogatory terms such as “liberal” or “modernism” are thrown about over matters which the Church allows in diversity, then division is being sown. The contempt that has been shown against those who prefer Gregorian chant, or the organ, or the fiddle back chasuble, or Latin and ad orientem is clearly divisive and not of the mind of the Church - or of Christ.
Both sides have thrown bricks; and both sides have blamed the other as having negative attitudes, and blamed those negative attitudes for the brick throwing they have done. And both sides have forgotten that when one points a finger at another, there are three pointing back.
So to answer the OP; it leads to divisions when one side or the other treats their own position as superior to the other side. It does not have to be so, but we can go clear back to Cain and Able and their differences; and human nature has not changed a whole lot since.
- Status