Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Brennan_Doherty]

I think we are talking past each other because we are not seeing things on the same plain. What you see as statistical and happenstance, I see on a spiritual level, all things working together. Do you think that the Holy Spirit in His infinite wisdom did not see all this coming and had prepared the way?

I guess as long as we are each focused on different plains of reality, one strictly temporal, one a working union between temporal and Spirit, we will never agree as to what was cause and effect.

Once again, I’m seeing a strictly temporal focus, my broader focus is this: what is the Holy Spirit trying to accomplish in this age? He moves in places we can’t see, and beyond our scope of understanding. To be alarmist at every turn is to question whether in fact we have faith that the Spirit is guiding the ship or has abdicated His role.

And to put the sole blame on the Ecumenical movement for the vast migration of Catholics to the Evangelical world I think is a stretch and a disservice to the Church. It is more reasonable and honest to admit that it was more a lapse in true Catholicism being taught and lived out daily in the hearts and minds of several generations of Catholics and the results being the eroding influence of the Faith on their children and grandchildren at the same time the culture around them was in a free fall. These lost generations in turn became enamored of a more vibrant faith lived out in other circles and emigrated there. It is a parent’s responsibility to teach the faith to their children and at the same time live it out in their midst. These cultural Catholics abdicated that responsibility because they gave in to the secular culture’s siren call and left their children at the doorstep of the Church who was ill prepared to fill that vital role entirely.

And don’t altogether discount these fallen away Catholics just yet, many are starting to return to their Mother…it’s too soon to be sounding the funeral march for these souls.

Hi Jeanette,

I agree that at times the Holy Spirit moves in individuals lives in ways we may not see or know about. I also agree that we have definitely seen a lapse in true Catholicism being taught these last decades, and thus would definitely not blame everything on false ecumenism.

However, when it comes to prudential decisions of the Vatican, I want to repost this from Dietrich von Hildebrand from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.”

"Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church."

I really don’t think there is necessarily some hidden wisdom in some prudential decisions of the Vatican, or that prelates are necessarily given greater wisdom when they are ordained (they do have authority, though).

I do believe God does work out everything for good. Yet I look at that as more along the lines of how he treated Israel in the OT. When they strayed he allowed them to come under judgment or persecution to teach them a lesson. Perhaps we are going through the same type of trial.

 

[JReducation]

We as lay people and even religious have a grace that comes with our position in the Body of Christ. But we don’t have a grace to step above that position until we are in fact elevated there by God.

When we try to go beyond what is our role, we not only do ourselves a disservice, but the entire Body a disservice, we have become dysfunctional and tend to spread that dysfunction around.

This is why Christ gave us the Apostles and their successors. They are the authorities. They may make human mistakes. But they also have a promise from Christ himself that those mistakes will not prevail against the Church.

Our role is to grow where we are planted. To not be in harmony is to not be in our proper place focusing on what God has entrusted to us.

Our role is to cooperate with the gifts that God gives us in our time and place. In other words, to fulfill our vocation in life.

With all due respect, I sometimes wonder if Canadians, Americans and Europeans take themselves too serioiusly. These same debates that we’re having here are not common among Catholics in South America, Africa, or Asia. They seem to have a much more practical and probably sane approach to all of this. Those who believe and trust the Church remain and wait patiently to see what the Spirit will do next. Those who do not believe, simply leave. Those who remain do not worry about those who leave. Their belief is that these people were going to leave anyway. They were looking for an excuse and they found one.

When I first came to live on the mainland, I noticed that many of those who have departed from Catholicism didn’t do so because of changes in the liturgy or the ecumenical movement or because the Pope changed something that another pope had written. They left because Canada, the USA, and Europe have become narcissistic societies where people are obsessed with their self-importance and their pleasure.

Look at how many millions of dollars our people spend on their bodies. People want artifical birth control because they want to have more money available for their pleasure. They want disposable husbands and wives instead of lifetime marriages. They want sex without its natural outcome, so they abort their babies. They want to abdicate parental responsibilities so they opt for safe sex for their teenage children. They want an emotional high when they go to church instead of desiring to worship God, so they go to the revivalist churches with the music and emotional sermons.

I don’t hear anyone saying that they don’t want the Catholic Church because it has changed. They say they no longer want to be Catholic because they feel oppressed by the Church’s moral teachings.

Do we agree that the Church is oppressive? I don’t see it that way; but that’s me.

JR

 

[Brother_John]

I don’t hear anyone saying that they don’t want the Catholic Church because it has changed. They say they no longer want to be Catholic because they feel oppressed by the Church’s moral teachings.

Do we agree that the Church is oppressive? I don’t see it that way; but that’s me.

JR

To be perfectly candid, I feel far more oppressed on this site, than I ever have at any time in my life in the Catholic Church.

I have yet to read a post of yours that I disagree with.

But, there are many on this forum, who seem to be just waiting to pounce on any little thing that they see as “wrong”, as if it is theirs to judge on behalf of the Church.

Oppressed by the Church? nah

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan,

I appreciate your opinion and agree that many things do not make sense to many people. However, let’s take a broader look a the Church. Many things don’t always make sense at first and then they do with the passing of time.

When Jesus tells the Jews that he will give them his flesh and blood as food and drink, it made no sense to them and they walked away. Later it made perfect sense to the early Church.

As to the oath against Modernism, let’s remember that it is no longer required. Paul VI discontinued this practice in 1967. The reason didn’t make sense at first. Later it made sense. His feeling was that the conditions that required it had changed and that what was really needed was obedience to the Church and tradition, not an oath against anything that modernism proposed, as there has been some good that has come out of the era that we call Modernism, such as progress in science, math, architecture, economics, political science, and a greater awareness of human rights, especially the rights of the oppressed such as women and minorities.

Paul had no conflict with Pius X. He saw the problem from a different perspective. He saw the need for greater obedience, understanding of Church tradition and teaching, and a greater need for trust among people if we are to build up the Kingdom of God. It was his belief that the oath would not achieve this, even if it didn’t impair it. In other words, he saw that it had outlived its usefulness and that the errors that Pius had warned about could be addressed in a different manner.

This is what people need to understand. Paul VI did not undermine Pius. He wanted to take a different approach. This approach may or may not work, only history will tell for sure. Forty years is a relatively short time in the history of humanity. Even as we speak, the Church is tweaking this approach.

In the area of Ecumenism we saw Benedict XVI give Tony Blair communion while he was still an Anglican. His explanation was that it was the charitabe thing to do. We saw him welcome and celebrate Blair’s conversion to Catholicism, but also refrained from requiring Blair to recant his position on abortion or gay marriage. The Vatican’s response to this was that Blair has some growth to do in his spritual development.

Because the Church is not a democracy, it is not up to us to tell the Vatican or Benedict XVI that his idea of charity or spiritual growth is wrong. Nor is it our right to say that Paul VI had no right to discontinue the Oath Against Modernism in favor of obedience and deeper study of faith and tradition.

According to the UK press (these have to be read with caution) people were scandalized that Benedict would give Blair communion. Benedict pulled out an old belief that is in the books, though rarely used or remembered, that says that you can give communion to non-Catholics who truly believe in the Eucharist. To do so is an act of charity. I don’t believe it’s a law. I think it’s a theological concept; but I could be wrong.

Be all this as it may, we are still bound to believe and trust the Church and the Holy Spirit. Charity is what unites us, not the blame game. The blame game has never achieved anything. I’m not saying that you are doing this. But many people do. As a convert, I believe that it’s a shame. I walked into a church where everyone wants to point the finger at everyone else for what goes wrong.

People need to learn to accept that blaming has never solved a problem. Problems are solved when people put their heads together and try to figure out what can be done that is consistent with revealed truth, the direction that the Church wants us to go and consistent with love of God and neighbor.

Thanks for hearing me out.

JR

Hi JR,

Thanks for your response. I would agree that Paul VI certainly has the right and authority to change a prudential decision of a previous Pope, such as revoking the requirement for Priests to take the Oath against Modernism. However, as an aside, the Oath really seems to be about doctrine and not against any future progress in areas such as science or architecture, as if it was a requirement to damn the electric toothbrush when it came on the scene.

I would also agree that regardless of how we may regard a prudential decision of a Pope, in some cases it does no good to harp on it. So, the Pope gave Tony Blair Holy Communion; what’s done is done.

However, there are cases where things can be changed if a poor prudential decision has been made and the laity can make their concerns known respectfully. I think I may have already mentioned this, but the article on the Latin Mass in my signature line is a good example. From what I understand von Hildebrand and his wife Alice personally delivered this article to Pope Paul VI. Good for them. To me this is not engaging in the blame game, but actually providing a benefit to the Church while recognizing that the Pope and the hierarchy ultimately have the authority to make the decisions.

 

[catharina]

JR, Like you and brotherjohn, I’ve never felt oppressed by the Church; on the contrary I’ve felt freeto support the very Truth taught within the Church. I’ve felt a bit oppressed on this site, especially on this forum for my defense of things as diverse as the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ to Peter that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against this Church to other things such as the obvious right of Pope John Paull II to declare the excommunication of M. Lefebvre and others.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I would also note that the Oath against Modernism (papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm) is an Oath that any good priest should wholeheartedly agree with (even if they don’t have to take it); and if they don’t, then there’s a problem, as the Oath concerns what is true for all time, and not just what is good for a certain period of time.

 

[JReducation]

Hi JR,

Thanks for your response. I would agree that Paul VI certainly has the right and authority to change a prudential decision of a previous Pope, such as revoking the requirement for Priests to take the Oath against Modernism. However, as an aside, the Oath really seems to be about doctrine and not against any future progress in areas such as science or architecture, as if it was a requirement to damn the electric toothbrush when it came on the scene.

I would also agree that regardless of how we may regard a prudential decision of a Pope, in some cases it does no good to harp on it. So, the Pope gave Tony Blair Holy Communion; what’s done is done.

However, there are cases where things can be changed if a poor prudential decision has been made and the laity can make their concerns known respectfully. I think I may have already mentioned this, but the article on the Latin Mass in my signature line is a good example. From what I understand von Hildebrand and his wife Alice personally delivered this article to Pope Paul VI. Good for them. To me this is not engaging in the blame game, but actually providing a benefit to the Church while recognizing that the Pope and the hierarchy ultimately have the authority to make the decisions.

Brennan:

I have no problem with what you’re saying, because it is just plain speaking in a very respectful manner. In fact, I like Dr. van Hildebrand. I didn’t grow up with the Latin mass, so I do not miss it. But I like the way Dr. van Hildebrand puts his position. We had to read his work in graduate school. He was always held up as a Catholic who took his duties as a lay person seriously, especially his duty to his conscience and to his Church. He was also a witness of great humility before the authority of Peter and had great faith in the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. I wish we had more people like him, than billigerent (sp?) people.

As to the oath, I am just stating what Paul said when he discontinued the requirement. He was looking for assent to faith and obedience that flows from love without the need for an oath. He was not denying the errors that were found in modernism. He did say that he also found good things in modernism. He tried to take a balanced view.

But remember, he was also some 50 years removed from the beginnings of modernism. He had a bigger picture. This could also account for his change. I can’t say this for a fact, because he never told me.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Hi Jeanette,

I agree that at times the Holy Spirit moves in individuals lives in ways we may not see or know about. I also agree that we have definitely seen a lapse in true Catholicism being taught these last decades, and thus would definitely not blame everything on false ecumenism.

However, when it comes to prudential decisions of the Vatican, I want to repost this from Dietrich von Hildebrand from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.”

"Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church."

I really don’t think there is necessarily some hidden wisdom in some prudential decisions of the Vatican, or that prelates are necessarily given greater wisdom when they are ordained (they do have authority, though).

I do believe God does work out everything for good. Yet I look at that as more along the lines of how he treated Israel in the OT. When they strayed he allowed them to come under judgment or persecution to teach them a lesson. Perhaps we are going through the same type of trial.

What I don’t agree with is a person or group who try to stir up discontent in order to rally the troops behind a cause that is in opposition to the authority that God has ordained. This goes way beyond what is proper, even according to what you have quoted above from Dietrich von Hildebrand.

Stoking the fires of discontent among the flock is not of Christ. Actions or words that cause division among the flock is not of Christ. We become a stumbling block to those around us who are trying their best to live out their faith in a hostile environment, which is our world.

We are way too obsessed with our ‘rights’ to protest and way too careless concerning the havoc that we cause when we do these things improperly and without humility. There seem to be way too many armchair quarterbacks in the pews. They have neither been given the grace nor the wisdom nor the authority to do a better job from where they sit.

This kind of moaning and groaning is disruptive, divisive and not in accordance with Scripture or the spirit of charity and unity. What is in the true spirit of Christ is an attitude of prayer for authority, and charity when speaking of those over us and around us. Humility in the way we live our faith is much more productive in moving the Church forward in her mission.

I guess in the end we will all be convinced one way or the other which approach has been pleasing or displeasing to our Lord, he’s the only Judge we have to be concerned about. I’m going to bank on the Way of the Cross, and the examples of the Saints who seemed to always choose humility and obedience, even when it didn’t seem fair - until Providence chose in His perfect time to change their circumstances.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Brennan:

I have no problem with what you’re saying, because it is just plain speaking in a very respectful manner. In fact, I like Dr. van Hildebrand. I didn’t grow up with the Latin mass, so I do not miss it. But I like the way Dr. van Hildebrand puts his position. We had to read his work in graduate school. He was always held up as a Catholic who took his duties as a lay person seriously, especially his duty to his conscience and to his Church. He was also a witness of great humility before the authority of Peter and had great faith in the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. I wish we had more people like him, than billigerent (sp?) people.

As to the oath, I am just stating what Paul said when he discontinued the requirement. He was looking for assent to faith and obedience that flows from love without the need for an oath. He was not denying the errors that were found in modernism. He did say that he also found good things in modernism. He tried to take a balanced view.

But remember, he was also some 50 years removed from the beginnings of modernism. He had a bigger picture. This could also account for his change. I can’t say this for a fact, because he never told me.

JR

It seems that the Oath against Modernism is specific enough that what the Priests take an oath against will never, and can never, be good. If you’re talking about the fact that some good things have come about in modern times, then I don’t think there is any disagreement there (though what those things are, exactly, escapes me at the moment ).

Along with von Hildebrand I would place Dr. William Marra, Cardinal Ottaviani, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, and other authors (some of whom are published by Ignatius Press) who recognize that yes, the Church is indefectible. The gates of Hell will never prevail against it. However, they also rightly recognize that there is no guarantee that prudential decisions of any particular Pope are necessarily going to be good, wise, or useful. Not every prudential decision of a Pope or the Vatican is prompted or guided by the Holy Spirit. Fr. John Parsons has made a good point that if we want to take that view then we should also take the view that the allowance of torture by the Vatican in the past was a “move of the Holy Spirit” or the calling of a Crusade was what the Spirit was speaking for that time. Not so (christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_bonus_dec01.html)

Thus, it seems, some get upset when they come on a forum like this and see traditionalists disagreeing with prudential decisions like communion in the hand or changes to the liturgy, as if we are rebuking the Holy Spirit Himself.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

What I don’t agree with is a person or group who try to stir up discontent in order to rally the troops behind a cause that is in opposition to the authority that God has ordained. This goes way beyond what is proper, even according to what you have quoted above from Dietrich von Hildebrand.

Stoking the fires of discontent among the flock is not of Christ. Actions or words that cause division among the flock is not of Christ. We become a stumbling block to those around us who are trying their best to live out their faith in a hostile environment, which is our world.

We are way too obsessed with our ‘rights’ to protest and way too careless concerning the havoc that we cause when we do these things improperly and without humility. There seem to be way too many armchair quarterbacks in the pews. They have neither been given the grace nor the wisdom nor the authority to do a better job from where they sit.

This kind of moaning and groaning is disruptive, divisive and not in accordance with Scripture or the spirit of charity and unity. What is in the true spirit of Christ is an attitude of prayer for authority, and charity when speaking of those over us and around us. Humility in the way we live our faith is much more productive in moving the Church forward in her mission.

I guess in the end we will all be convinced one way or the other which approach has been pleasing or displeasing to our Lord, he’s the only Judge we have to be concerned about. I’m going to bank on the Way of the Cross, and the examples of the Saints who seemed to always choose humility and obedience, even when it didn’t seem fair - until Providence chose in His perfect time to change their circumstances.

Hi Jeanette,

I have no disagreement that voicing concerns over some prudential decisions should be done properly and with humility. I don’t see most traditionalists I know going beyond what I quoted from von Hildebrand or what is contained in the article in my signature line (though most aren’t capable of writing as well as he does):

“If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

In fact, there is no author I would refer people to, such as Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. John Parsons, Fr. Brian Harrison, or Dr. William Marra that I would characterize as “moaning and groaning.” Far from it. And while the level of discourse on a blog is certainly not necessarily going to be of the caliber of a book published by Ignatius Press, I think the result of prudential decisions concerns all Catholics who care about the Faith and how it is portrayed today. I think it is good if Catholics who care about it let the hierarchy know that all is not swell in the Church and that some prudential decisions are the cause of this.

Saints such as Catherine of Siena also certainly did not mince words when she told the Pope, for instance, that he really ought to get out of France and go back to Rome.

The division has already been caused primarily by introducing changes to the liturgy itself and practices like communion in the hand and altar girls. Of course there is going to be disagreement about those decisions and people will be divided over it (liberals like the changes, traditionalists disagree with them).

While the Pope and the Vatican of course have the authority to make prudential decisions, and we have to obey those decisions, there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that states that prelates receive any special wisdom or grace to make good prudential decisions. We hope and pray that they do make good prudential decisions, but there is no guarantee.

 

[JReducation]

What I don’t agree with is a person or group who try to stir up discontent in order to rally the troops behind a cause that is in opposition to the authority that God has ordained.

I support this. We have the right to disagree. We do not have the right to stir up trouble.

We are way too obsessed with our ‘rights’ to protest and way too careless concerning the havoc that we cause when we do these things improperly and without humility.

I believe that I said this before. I was stunned when I came to the mainland and found the same nonsense as I had seen in Canada and Europe. You don’t see all of this entitlement among South American, African and Asian Catholics. They are more practical. Those who trust the Church just pray and follow with humility. Those who were going to leave anyway, just find an excuse and leave. Those who don’t want to join, just don’t. The Catholics are very relaxed and sane about this. Their feeling is that God will do what God will do.

I’m going to bank on the Way of the Cross, and the examples of the Saints who seemed to always choose humility and obedience, even when it didn’t seem fair - until Providence chose in His perfect time to change their circumstances.

I believe you have chosen the better path. If I may suggest that you look at two saints who lived with a great deal of confusion in their time and retained their peace of mind and internal silence, I would suggest that you read Chesterton’s Francis of Assisi and du Boulay’s Teresa of Avila.

These were two people who saw the need for reform in the Church, but never once spoke against anything that the Church said or did. Yet, they are probably the most influential people in Church history. So influential that the Church gave Francis the title of Mirror of Perfection and declared Teresa a Doctor of the Church.

If anyone wants to learn how to transform the Church, here are two masters on this toppic.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

I support this. We have the right to disagree. We do not have the right to stir up trouble.

I’m not sure how to approach this statement. On the one hand, there is a proper - dare I say traditional - way to approach a major crisis situation in the Church. In the end, we are to hold fast to the three pronged tenant of Scripture/Tradition/Magesterial Teaching. Removal of any one of these three things and the stool comes crashing down. Sometimes, when one tries to do that, one is accused of stirring up trouble. When those in authority are neglecting their duty to hold up these things, it can be especially ugly, and the higher up the neglect, the higher up the ugliness. I think the only thing that can even come close to comparing to today is the Arian heresy of centuries ago. And yet, were not those who resisted the heresy accused of “stirring up trouble?”

And for that St. Athanasius gives us the following consoling words:May God comfort you. I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. (After a little) But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, 'Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but ‘My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And test, speaking without the Scriptures, I should seem to speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them?
For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and gain no advantage by the church alone. For the truth of things is judged…

Those who trust the Church just pray and follow with humility. Those who were going to leave anyway, just find an excuse and leave. Those who don’t want to join, just don’t. The Catholics are very relaxed and sane about this. Their feeling is that God will do what God will do.

Of course, prayer is central to it all. Always was and always will be. But sometimes the Good Lord expects more of the Church Militant. And sometimes just praying can be an excuse for luke-warmness - undue “fear of men” rather than “fear of God.” Sometimes we gotta unmute ourselves for the good of others. Instructing the ignorant is still a virtue - even if the ignorant accuse you of stirring up trouble.

… These were two people who saw the need for reform in the Church, but never once spoke against anything that the Church said or did…

I’'m not so sure it is true that they never spoke out against anything individuals within the Church were doing - that’s a bit of a stretch. But this is crucial - they did admit a need for reform, and did much to counter it. I’m not much familiar with St. Teresa of Avila’s story, but St. Francis of Assisi’s is more well known. He did much, very much, toward restoring the faith in a troubled era.

That such efforts should be approached with prayer and charity is absolutely true. When the Lord enlightens one’s mind to recognize the* reality of the crisis* at hand, prayer and charity are of the utmost importance - lest despite the mountain of evidence on our side, we become an empty clanging symbol.

I like the motto of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest: Veritatem facientes in caritate. That is, operate the truth in charity (this from St. Francis de Sales, one of the three co-patrons of the Institute).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t recall where I said this. But if I did, I don’t mean that we learn from Protestants. In fact, Proestantism never attracted my attention because it’s too chaotic from my Jewish perspective.

I know Jews who have converted to Protestantism, because they were looking for this kind of freedom to have a private line with God. I don’t mean this at all.

Can we learn respect for authority and obedience from other people, regardless of their faith, of course we can. Good can be learned from anyone.

I’m not so sure that modernism is correctly understood by the average person. Originally, modernism referred to the age of scientific skepticism and inquiry. This is not longer the case in the scientific community. I believe that most scientists agree that the supernatural is not within the domain of science and refrain for analyzing it. Einstein said it best when he said, “I only want to know how God did it. The rest are just details.” He paved the way for a new generation of scientific inquiry that was very different from modernism.

I believe that what people refer to as modernism, is really the modern age or the contemporary age. It goes to show how poorly educated we are that we can’t even use terms correctly. It is little wonder how we fail at logic.

My question on this thread has little to do with the modern age, more with logic.

Logic says that if we spend more time and energy cultivating prayer, penance, asceticism, detachment from material things and prestige, practicing mercy and compassion toward everyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe, we would be much closer to being the people that Christ calls us to be.

As a convert I have a special attachment to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Edith Stein (Benedicta). Once they discovered the wealth of Catholcism they threw themselves fully into prayer, penance, charity, the Sacraments, sharing their joy and their experience with others.

Neither of these women lacked intelligence. Stein was a PhD in philosophy and Elizabeth well educated in Episcopalian theology. They saw the weaknesses of the Church, but they also saw the Holy Spirit at work through the clouds. They clung to that vision. They nurtured it in their hearts in and in everyone whom they encountered. Above all, they never uttered a complaint against the Church. Their conversion was so profound that they believed in the power of the Spirit to heal the weaknesses of the Chuch. They embraced the Holy Spirit’s healing power by beginning with their own souls, because they saw themselves as weak links in Church, as links that needed strengthening. There was no sense of entitlement on their part. They had been brought to the Church through the merits of Christ, not their own.

Regardless of the conditions of the house, they knew they were home. They dedicated their lives to hearing the voice of the master of the house, rather than debating withth housekeeper.

JR

No, it is not like this. I grew up in the Church, educated in it, and lived its life. I never, ever, have seen such dissension I have seen on these Traditionalist threads.

I don’t know what people are afraid of. They try to run off any orthodox Christian from the site because they seem threatened.

After I first read my first post on SV’s - that people actually believe that several of our recent popes were heretics, I was in shock. I shut my computer down for several days, and wrote several posts to myself on how that this is impossible, canonically, and theologically.

I fought and fought, and was called all kinds of names; attempts were made to humiliate me, and I felt the unfairness, that this was a Catholic site. I learned soon enough that the Moderators are here to take care of problems like this. SV’s sites have now been banned. I am happily blamed for that.

SSPX is next. They abandoned the Church because they love the Traditional Mass; but the good Holy Father met with one of these excommunicated bishops - an act of tremendous charity and humility - and promised a return to the option of a latin mass.
But that is not enough for the SSPX, which proves they are interested in power, not in liturgy.

I can send you to another thread where you and I and a unnamed third person are villified. That we form some sort of hate group against them. I just let them rail on and on. They are not getting anywhere, but sending their b.p. through the roof.

Now we hear of these miniscule problems that set these people off: communion in the hand, restoration of the altar rail, kneeling for communion, latin language, and a few other issues. I am stunned by them, since these changes were set in motion 40 years ago, but they won’t let go. I never heard of people being upset about this stuff. I love the latin mass,.- I understand it thoroughly - but if I don’t see it again, it will not bother me.

Time and God will take care of this problem. We are learning more of charity, and patience, so the Forum is serving a purpose.

Prayers and charity for all who post here

peace

 

[Brother_John]

No, it is not like this. I grew up in the Church, educated in it, and lived its life. I never, ever, have seen such dissension I have seen on these Traditionalist threads.

I don’t know what people are afraid of. They try to run off any orthodox Christian from the site because they seem threatened.

After I first read my first post on SV’s - that people actually believe that several of our recent popes were heretics, I was in shock. I shut my computer down for several days, and wrote several posts to myself on how that this is impossible, canonically, and theologically.

I fought and fought, and was called all kinds of names; attempts were made to humiliate me, and I felt the unfairness, that this was a Catholic site. I learned soon enough that the Moderators are here to take care of problems like this. SV’s sites have now been banned. I am happily blamed for that.

SSPX is next. They abandoned the Church because they love the Traditional Mass; but the good Holy Father met with one of these excommunicated bishops - an act of tremendous charity and humility - and promised a return to the option of a latin mass.
But that is not enough for the SSPX, which proves they are interested in power, not in liturgy.

I can send you to another thread where you and I and a unnamed third person are villified. That we form some sort of hate group against them. I just let them rail on and on. They are not getting anywhere, but sending their b.p. through the roof.

Now we hear of these miniscule problems that set these people off: communion in the hand, restoration of the altar rail, kneeling for communion, latin language, and a few other issues. I am stunned by them, since these changes were set in motion 40 years ago, but they won’t let go. I never heard of people being upset about this stuff. I love the latin mass,.- I understand it thoroughly - but if I don’t see it again, it will not bother me.

Time and God will take care of this problem. We are learning more of charity, and patience, so the Forum is serving a purpose.

Prayers and charity for all who post here

peace

:extrahappy:

 

[Jeanette_L]

For some odd reason I am reminded of Peter, who when he saw Christ was threatened by the soldiers who came for Him, drew his sword and cut off the ear of a perceived agressor. Christ chastised him for this, and healed the wound that Peter caused. “He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.”

Christ’s ways are not our ways and our ways many, many times are certainly not His. We tend to be blinded by our own fears and passions and our lack of trust that God really is in control. We think He needs our “help”, when in fact, we can be more of a hindrance than anything at times.

The high road is one of prayer, living the example of Christ the servant in love, peace and humility, and trusting in the plan of God, even when it looks as though all is going to hades in a handbasket.

“He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword.”

I’d frankly rather live and die on the path of prayer and obedience, let the Holy Spirit guide the ship.

 

[DustinsDad]

…I don’t know what people are afraid of. They try to run off any orthodox Christian from the site because they seem threatened.

The confusion is obviously that orthodox Christians are accused of being schismatics/against the pope/against VII/ etc. by others.

…After I first read my first post on SV’s - that people actually believe that several of our recent popes were heretics, I was in shock.

For someone who is always reminding us of your extensive education, I am in shock that you are in shock at discovering the SV error.

The SVs and the "progressive liberal’ Catholics actually are two sides of the same problem - both take the ambeguities in VII documents and erroneously believe the Church has bound the faithful to unorthodox interpretations thereof.

• The SVs think the Church actually tried to bind the unorthodox interpretations of the ambeguities and hence say the pope ain’t the pope and that Vatican II wasn’t a valid council.
• The “progressive-liberal-modernist” catholics (for lack of a better term) thinks the unorthodox interrpretations are bound dogma, that the old dogmas were thrown out or overturned, that Apostolic Truth can contradict Apostolic Truth. And there is an added note on these folks (no names mentioned of course) that anyone who dare say something in the VII documents are ambiguous is automatically deemed schismatic/disloyal/sedevacantist themselves, etc. In short, calumny.
  How to avoid either of the above errors - read VII in light of Apostolic Tradition. Like we do with all Church Councils. Truth cannot contradict Truth.

And pray.

…I fought and fought, and was called all kinds of names; attempts were made to humiliate me, and I felt the unfairness, that this was a Catholic site.

Well you certainly did entangle yourself in many difficulties and “fights” - seems you sort of liked the spectacle if I do say so myself. And actually, I recall you falsely accusing numerous regulars here of holding to the sedevacantist positon (myself included) - which is very sad, very unfair.

…SSPX is next. They abandoned the Church because they love the Traditional Mass; but the good Holy Father met with one of these excommunicated bishops - an act of tremendous charity and humility - and promised a return to the option of a latin mass. But that is not enough for the SSPX, which proves they are interested in power, not in liturgy.

I am not a member of the SSPX, but your comments here show a gross misunderstanding of the whole sad situation, both in its origin and in its present situation. And it also lacks the barest minimum of charity - I urge you to prayerfully study up on the situation if it bothers you so much. Educating yourself on the situation will better equip you to work to rectify it - if that is indeed your intention.

…I can send you to another thread where you and I and a unnamed third person are villified. That we form some sort of hate group against them. I just let them rail on and on. They are not getting anywhere, but sending their b.p. through the roof.

Some would say that outrageous comments were made by several individuals - bait if you will - in efforts to derail topics into…what was that word…rabbit holes. Pretty successfully I might add.

…Now we hear of these miniscule problems that set these people off: communion in the hand, restoration of the altar rail, kneeling for communion, latin language, and a few other issues. I am stunned by them, since these changes were set in motion 40 years ago, but they won’t let go.

All these traditional postures and practices help to foster a deeper devotion, reverence and understanding of the faith…and these are miniscule? The Council of Trent didn’t think so, Vatican I didn’t think so, and Vatican II didn’t didn’t even think so (Vatican II didn’t call for the abolition of any of the things you mentioned). Pope Benedict XVI don’t think so either if you took the time to listen to him and read what he has written.

And yes, holding to these treasures of the faith are more or less what idetifies traditional catholicism - so one should not come into a traditional catholicism sub-forum and become “shocked” that the folks here hold to them - such is the epitomy of being disingenuous.

In all candor, I think what is so shocking to you is that you see such things “coming back”. And, for some strange and sad reason, I think it scares you.

You remain in my prayers,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

I can believe that some people are afraid of seeing some things return, such as communion rails or the priest facinng the wall instead of the people. To be honest, when I attended a TLM it bothered me. I tried at another church and it bothered me again, so I never returned.

But on the other hand, I think that what is more bothersome about some traditionalists as well as the extremists post Vatican II folks is the militancy with which they express themselves. I do find this disturbing.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to celebrate liturgy using the TLM format, as long as they don’t tell me that my participation in the NO is less reverent and less Catholic. After all, both were given to us by the Church for our sanctification, not to debate over.

I’ve read several biographies on John Paul II and one on Benedict XVI. They are both very inspiring men. There is no doubt in my mind that John Paul will be canonized sooner than we think. But the one thing that calls your attention when you read their biographies is the relationship between them. They were not always in agreement, but there was such a deep love and respect between them, that neither of them would ever agree to our casting aspersions on one side or the other. They didn’t do it with each other.

John Paul hoped that Ratzinger would be elected his successor. Benedict’s writings on John Paul suggest that he believes the man is a saint Yet, they are as different in many ways as the TLM and the NO. They built a fraternal relationship based on what they had in common and on respect for each other’s gifts.

This is what both sides of liturgical debate must emulate, this kind of love and respect between both groups of worshippers.

I also am uncomfortable when many of the traditionalist (I hate that word) even refuse to quote Vatican II or any of the popes from Vatican II to the present. It’s as if the Church stopped in 1963. This is a wrong attitude to take. Just as wrong as limiting yourself to Vatican II and not looking at what Vatican II used as its basis to make the changes they did or to produce the documents that they produced.

Extremes are dangerous. They always have been. We need to be careful.

Those are my two cents.

JR

 

[catharina]

I can believe that some people are afraid of seeing some things return, such as communion rails or the priest facinng the wall instead of the people. To be honest, when I attended a TLM it bothered me. I tried at another church and it bothered me again, so I never returned.

But on the other hand, I think that what is more bothersome about some traditionalists as well as the extremists post Vatican II folks is the militancy with which they express themselves. I do find this disturbing.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to celebrate liturgy using the TLM format, as long as they don’t tell me that my participation in the NO is less reverent and less Catholic. After all, both were given to us by the Church for our sanctification, not to debate over.

I’ve read several biographies on John Paul II and one on Benedict XVI. They are both very inspiring men. There is no doubt in my mind that John Paul will be canonized sooner than we think. But the one thing that calls your attention when you read their biographies is the relationship between them. They were not always in agreement, but there was such a deep love and respect between them, that neither of them would ever agree to our casting aspersions on one side or the other. They didn’t do it with each other.

John Paul hoped that Ratzinger would be elected his successor. Benedict’s writings on John Paul suggest that he believes the man is a saint Yet, they are as different in many ways as the TLM and the NO. They built a fraternal relationship based on what they had in common and on respect for each other’s gifts.

This is what both sides of liturgical debate must emulate, this kind of love and respect between both groups of worshippers.

I also am uncomfortable when many of the traditionalist (I hate that word) even refuse to quote Vatican II or any of the popes from Vatican II to the present. It’s as if the Church stopped in 1963. This is a wrong attitude to take. Just as wrong as limiting yourself to Vatican II and not looking at what Vatican II used as its basis to make the changes they did or to produce the documents that they produced.

Extremes are dangerous. They always have been. We need to be careful.

Those are my two cents.

JR

Agree with your post.
Here’s my two cents.
Now you have four cents.

 

[Brother_John]

Agree with your post.
Here’s my two cents.
Now you have four cents.

A dialogue on another thread has convinced me to back off using the “T” word…well, ok, I’ll try

 

[Jeanette_L]

Agree with your post.
Here’s my two cents.
Now you have four cents.

:twocents:

Do I hear six?