Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[Brother_John]

This “TLM is better than the OF” routine used to annoy me.

It has now become a source of amusement. Unfortunate. The attitudes displayed by most of the TLM crowd have killed off any interest I would have in Latin.

 

[Jeanette_L]

This “TLM is better than the OF” routine used to annoy me.

It has now become a source of amusement. Unfortunate. The attitudes displayed by most of the TLM crowd have killed off any interest I would have in Latin.

You know, I’m in the same boat. And as a newer Catholic I would like the opportunity to experience it without all the negative vibes I would be bringing with me now.

I come from Fundamentalist Protestantism, this brings that whole negative thing back and I frankly don’t want any part of that anymore. Life is too short, virtue too hard to obtain and keep hold of, it’s not worth all the negative, sour and angry feelings that come along with it.

What I find in the NO is so beautiful to me, I just find it heartbreaking that people try to tear it down as though it is unworthy. I’m glad to hear that this is not widespread, from what I understand, we find it more here than out in the general populace.

 

[JReducation]

As I have posted ad nauseam, the NO has many elements that the average Catholic does not know already existed in the Church for hundreds of years or even thousands. When they put the NO together they borrowed a lot of theology and form from the masters in liturgy. The Catholic Church’s masters in the Latin Rite liturgy are the cloistered Benedictine traditions. They had elements of the Tridentine mass, blended with elements that were handed down to them by St. Benedict in his rule. Later came St. Francis with his modifications, such as communion in the hand and bowing instead of kneeling. Then followed St. Teresa of Avila who taught that one had to rise above the need for the ritual and symbol and reach the spiritual union of the soul with Christ, where there is no room for language, gestures or symbols, but only two natures united in love. After that came the great Jesuit missionaries and mystics such as St. Francis Xavier who took the liturgy to foreign lands and modified the form for the local cultures. Many of these ideas that came out of the liturgical reform that followed Vatican II were not original. They simply made them accessible to the universal Church. There is no denying that new elements were added and older ones taken away. What we must remember, as charity and respect, is that those ideas that were borrowed from the great mystics and religious orders were always there and are part of the Catholic Church. When we speak of them we must make sure that show proper respect for them.

As much as someone may argue that kneeling is more reverent than standing, who of those who say this would dare to compare themselves with the holiness of St. Francis or compare their love of the Eucharist to the love that St. Francis had. Those who speak of the wonders of symbol ritual must also remember the Doctor of the Church, Teresa of Avila’s admonition that we begin at that level and that we rise above that to a point where these are no longer necessary, but only Christ’s presence is essential. The rituals and symbols are starting points. I for one would like to see more of this message from both sides of this discussion, because as St. Edith Stein said, “This is truth.” Who on either side of the discussion would dare question the simplicity of the Benedictine liturgy or a Benedictine monastic Church with its austere interiors and bear sanctuary? Who would dare to say that the Benedictine contribution to the preservation of the liturgy which fed both the Tridentine and the NO is less reverent because of its simplicity? I’d like to hear more of the Benedictine simplicity and Benedict’s focus on the fraternal celebration of the Eucharistic meal or Francis’ focus on the humility of Christ crucified that we see in the Eucharist and the unity of the Church as expressed by unity of his Brothers as they celebrate as one body.

Why is it that craddle Catholics don’t know about these things? I’m a convert from Judaism and I know about Benedict. Francis, Teresa, Francis Xavier and their contribution to liturgy over the centuries. Or is it that we conveniently forget and select what we want to remember?

This discussion is picking pieces here and there, but it’s missing the essence that the great liturgical saints taught us. We can have one form or many forms, but as Luther said, “It’s all straw,” if we fail to see the underlying truth of the liturgy. As Deacon Ed pointed out, there are places in the developing nations where the liturgy is celebrated in huts with as much solemnity and reverence as in great basilicas.

Finally, there is a cultural element that I have mentioned in the past. The Latin Americans make up the largest number of Catholics today. They are very uncomfortable with the TLM, because of its connection with a very oppressive Church and political system. Is it fair to them to make the TLM mandatory, after so many came back to the Church with the disappearance of what they saw as the Church of the rich and powerful. The NO gave them a glimpse of the Church of the poor and simple Christ who comes to all men. If you visit Latin America the great basilicas and cathedrals that the Spaniards built, which are very beautiful, are empty on Sundays. The simple church buildings are full with standing room only. Does anyone here think about these Catholic brothers and sisters?

As I said above, the beauty and the reverence can and should be preserved at all costs. My parish is a very simple church, with the NO, but the religious order that staffs it brings a wealth of tradition and spirituality to the liturgy that packs it on Saturday and Sundays.

There are many ways to preserve beauty and solemnity. The saints have shown us this.
JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(This is in response to post #163 above):

First, it should be noted that practices like Communion in the hand and standing were not part of either Sacrosanctum Concilium or Archbishop Bugnini’s reform, rather they were introduced later by Bishops who did it without the authorization of the Holy See (I’m talking specifically about CITH here) and Rome acquiesced to the practice. I have not heard anywhere that these Bishops who disobediently introduced communion in the hand were doing it because they were trying to introduce Franciscan spirituality into the liturgy.

And even if they were, if you take a practice which the Franciscans know, understand, and have practiced for centuries, and just transplant it on the Universal Church, it’s not like people are suddenly going to intuitively understand that of course, this is all part of Franciscan spirituality and liturgical practice. Rather it is an abrupt introduction of a liturgical practice which has been foreign to just about all Catholics as it had not been done for hundreds of years.

I think we should all have a deep respect for the liturgical practices of the Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites and others which have been part of their Orders for hundreds of years. In fact, I wish them all the benefit of going back to the actual liturgy they had been using for hundreds of years; and yes, even if it differs from the TLM.

The externals are foundational. Yes, in matters like contemplative prayer they can be a springboard which one can move beyond if one desires and makes an effort to do so with God’s help. But charity dictates that we realize (as you mention) that most Catholics, particularly those who are laypeople, quite often need and benefit from the help of externals as they don’t have the benefit Religious do in having a day ordered toward set times of prayer. And again, this does not mean we rubber stamp a liturgical and rubrical conformity on every Order as if they all can have only one architectural style and only one rite. No. Let them continue the practices they have used for hundreds of years–it is about a respect for tradition and organic development.

 

[DustinsDad]

As I have posted ad nauseam, the NO has many elements that the average Catholic does not know already existed in the Church for hundreds of years or even thousands. When they put the NO together they borrowed a lot of theology and form from the masters in liturgy… When we speak of them we must make sure that show proper respect for them.

That all sounds pretty good on its face, but do such broad esoteric statements hold up under the light of scrutiny?

Pope Benedict (writing as then Cardinal Ratzinger): What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.
It seems something is amis here. I whish what you said were true, I simply don’t think it is. I’m sorry JR, but you are speaking generalities that simply don’t hold up under scrutiny - you’re not speaking specifics.

As much as someone may argue that kneeling is more reverent than standing, who of those who say this would dare to compare themselves with the holiness of St. Francis or compare their love of the Eucharist to the love that St. Francis had.

Why would the desire to receive Our Lord on our knees be in any way, shape or form contradictory to St. Francis? It was this great Saint after all, who wrote the following words:Meditation of St. Francis of Assisi
Let everyone be struck with fear,
the whole world tremble,
and the heavens exult
when Christ, the Son of the living God,
is present on the altar in the hands of a priest!
O wonderful loftiness
and stupendous dignity!
O sublime humility!
O humble sublimity!
The Lord of the universe,
God and the Son of God,
so humbles Himself
that He hides Himself
for our salvation
under and ordinary piece of bread!
See the humility of God, brothers,
and pour out your hearts before Him!
Humble yourselves that you may be exalted by Him!
Hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves,
that He Who gives Himself totally to you
may receive you totally!

Those who speak of the wonders of symbol ritual must also remember the Doctor of the Church, Teresa of Avila’s admonition that we begin at that level and that we rise above that to a point where these are no longer necessary, but only Christ’s presence is essential. The rituals and symbols are starting points.

Well then, even if we aren’t taking Teresa of Avila out of context here, then we are still not listening to her because we are taking away so so much of the “starting point.” My friend, we are fallen, we need help. And as Holy Mother Church taught us through the Council of Trent:And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
Are we all so advanced in the Spiritual Life that we no longer have need of such things? I do.

…Finally, there is a cultural element that I have mentioned in the past. The Latin Americans make up the largest number of Catholics today. They are very uncomfortable with the TLM, because of its connection with a very oppressive Church and political system. Is it fair to them to make the TLM mandatory, after so many came back to the Church with the disappearance of what they saw as the Church of the rich and powerful.

So many Latin Americans coming back to the Church? I was under the impression that Holy Mother Church in Latin America is bleeding, and bleeding hard. Satan is attacking the Church hard in Latin America, as evidenced by the mass exodus to Penticosal, Evangilical, and even JW/Mormon missionary efforts. There are a multitude of reasons behind this - (I’d mention some factual masonic influences and efforts here, but shall refrain) - lack of any meaningful catechesis being a big one.

But one I’ve never heard your spin here on Latin America - I have no idea where you are getting this stuff. Please share some sources for these positions - I don’t even know where to begin with it all.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

Pope Benedict (writing as then Cardinal Ratzinger): What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.
We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

I understand what Benedict was saying here. The abuses is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the surprise that some people experience when they find out that some things have been around for a very long time.

It seems something is amis here. I whish what you said were true, I simply don’t think it is. I’m sorry JR, but you are speaking generalities that simply don’t hold up under scrutiny - you’re not speaking specifics.

I gave you specific examples from different religious traditions.

Why would the desire to receive Our Lord on our knees be in any way, shape or form contradictory to St. Francis? It was this great Saint after all, who wrote the following words:Meditation of St. Francis of Assisi

I’m not saying it’s contradictory. I was trying to point out that the standing and the communion in the hand is not new and that it was introduced by the very man who wrote this beautiful admonition that you cited. In other words, observe his love and reverence for the Eucharist, even while he stood and took it in his hand. The point that I am making is that such reverence is possible, not that kneeling is a conflict with St. Francis own practice.

Then, even if we aren’t taking Teresa of Avila out of context here, then we are still not listening to her because we are taking away so so much of the “starting point.”

As one who wrote his Master’s thesis on Teresa’s and Francis’ Spiritual Union I take offense that you would suggest that I’m taking her out of context. I am very familiar with both of their spiritualities. They are very complementary and very much needed today.

My friend, we are fallen, we need help. And as Holy Mother Church taught us through the Council of Trent:And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.
Are we all so advanced in the Spiritual Life that we no longer have need of such things? I do.

This I agree with. We do need beauty, symbol and ritual as a starting point.

So many Latin Americans coming back to the Church? I was under the impression that Holy Mother Church in Latin America is bleeding, and bleeding hard. Satan is attacking the Church hard in Latin America, as evidenced by the mass exodus to Penticosal, Evangilical, and even JW/Mormon missionary efforts. There are a multitude of reasons behind this - (I’d mention some factual masonic influences and efforts here, but shall refrain) - lack of any meaningful catechesis being a big one.

The only one attacking the Catholic Church in Latin America is the US government who sponsors these programs by Mormons and other religions.

However, their number is not that significant, compared to the USA, Canada, or Europe. The number of Catholics is the largest in the world. I spent seven years there as a missionary. I know what I’m talking about.

But one I’ve never heard your spin here on Latin America - I have no idea where you are getting this stuff. Please share some sources for these positions - I don’t even know where to begin with it all.

This is not my spin. This is the reason why Liberation Theology took so much in Latin America, because it was a change from the oppressive Church of the rish and aristocratic. This is what Pope John Paul II tried to correct each time that he visited Latin America and did so very effectively. He put to sleep Liberation Theology, which was a Christian Marxism, if there is such an animal and brought millions back to the mainstreem. You’re not going to get these people to buy into a Church that in their history was so engaged with their oppression. Read their history and visit their countries. What the aristocracy did with the Church there was a shame. They used the Church to oppress their own people. That’s why the beautiful cathedrals are empty and the small simple churches are full. In countries that have been stripped of their wealth and power, the sight of these great basilicas and cathedrals is a reminder of how they were robbed by a small, but powerful and corrupt aristocracy who then donated lots of money to build these beautiful buildings in which the poor were not allowed to sit. These memories are still alive and well. It will take a long time to get over them.

JR

 

[DustinsDad]

I understand what Benedict was saying here. The abuses is not what I’m talking about.

And neither was Pope Benedict. I fact, I think he was describing negatively exactly what you are describing positively. That is, a committee or a group of individuals with a specific agenda, sitting in a room somewhere, picking and choosing unrelated things out of context and conjuring up - fabricating - a liturgy from bits and pieces here and there in a disjointed fasion.

I gave you specific examples from different religious traditions.

Actually, you tried to address only one (the reception of Communion) - I’ll address the Franciscan thing again below. Other than this you vague generalities and applied them to vague notions.

…I was trying to point out that the standing and the communion in the hand is not new and that it was introduced by the very man who wrote this beautiful admonition that you cited. In other words, observe his love and reverence for the Eucharist, even while he stood and took it in his hand.

Perhaps it would be well to look into this St. Francis question in detail - what is your source for this perspective of yours so I can look at what he wrote on the matter, etc.? It would seem that defenders of Communion in the Hand (and there is no short supply) would be proudly and effectively using your argument all over the place - but I can’t find it anywhere. In fact, when googling “Communion in the hand” and “St. Francis”, I find nothing but the opposite See below, quoting Dietrich von Hildebrand:
…Arguments for Communion in the hand based upon the fact that this practice can be found among the early Christians is not really valid. They overlook the dangers and the inadequacy of re-introducing the practice today. Pope Pius XII spoke in very clear and unmistakable terms against the idea that one could re-introduce today customs from the times of the catacombs. Certainly we should try to renew in the souls of Catholics today the spirit, fervor, and heroic devotion found in the faith of the early Christians and the many martyrs from among their ranks. But simply adopting their customs is something else again; customs can assume a completely new function today, and we cannot and should not simply try to re-introduce them.

In the days of the catacombs the danger of desacralization and irreverence which threatens today was not present. The contrast between the saeculum [secular] and the holy Church was constantly in the minds of Christians. Thus a custom which was not danger in those times can constitute a grave pastoral danger in our day.

Consider how St. Francis regarded the extraordinary dignity of the priest which consists exactly in the fact that he is allowed to touch the Body of Christ with his anointed hands. St. Francis said: “If I were to meet at the same time a saint from heaven and a poor priest, I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence, for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good far surpasses everything that is human.’”
(see http://www.tldm.org/News6/von-Hildebrand.htm)

…The point that I am making is that such reverence is possible, not that kneeling is a conflict with St. Francis own practice.

Again, I’d have to look at your source for St. Frnacis’practice and the context of it. But also, I am not saying reverent reception is impossible standing and in the hand - so that is really a straw man argument.

…As one who wrote his Master’s thesis on Teresa’s and Francis’ Spiritual Union I take offense that you would suggest that I’m taking her out of context. I am very familiar with both of their spiritualities. They are very complementary and very much needed today.

No need to take offence - and please don’t with what I’m about to say. Hold your breath and try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment before you get mad…

Thing is, I’ve just learned over time to be a little more cautious and suspect in these sort of discussions (especially on Internet discussion boards). Usually the more educated a person insists they are, and the more they remind others of their level of education, the more cautious and suspect the listener should be because such claims always manifest themselves when specifics are asked for. If you are as educated as you say you are, and if the facts are on your side, you should have no problem articulating convincing evidence for your position. Assurances of your expertise are not really condusive to Internet discussion boards…such are a dime a dozen.

I’ve noticed alot of this of late here on the board. We’ve become a magnate for scholars it seems…all of the less traditional variety .

…This I agree with. We do need beauty, symbol and ritual as a starting point.

Well, you say you agree with these things - but I have yet to hear you argue for these things…throughout the thread you seem to be arguing that such things are superflous…perhaps even impediments to “true” spirituality.

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(Continued from above…)

…The only one attacking the Catholic Church in Latin America is the US government who sponsors these programs by Mormons and other religions.

Heh…you think any attack on the Church does not have the Enemy behind it? You said more above than you realize.

In fact, much of what you state below as “fact”, I would say, is part of the propeganda to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church in Latin America. And this propeganda comes from many sources - but all with a sinister element behind it. And yet, here in your attempt to “reform” the Church, do you not run the risk of buying into the propeganda of the enemy?

At best, it relishes in scandal (bad behavior of individuals within the Church) and advertises them and as a result, turns people away from Truth - the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

At worst, it insults and helps to spread outright lies and distortions of the Bride of Christ with the malicious intent of snatching souls away from Our Lord.

Be careful.

…This is the reason why Liberation Theology took so much in Latin America, because it was a change from the oppressive Church of the rish and aristocratic.

In what way was the Church oppresive? And when? You are making so many claims and accusations without offering any evidence except that you’ve been there.

…This is what Pope John Paul II tried to correct each time that he visited Latin America and did so very effectively. He put to sleep Liberation Theology, which was a Christian Marxism, if there is such an animal and brought millions back to the mainstreem. You’re not going to get these people to buy into a Church that in their history was so engaged with their oppression.

You are not speaking coherently my friend. Is the Church growing ever stronger with millions coming back home? Or are we not going to get these people to buy into a Church that was so oppresive in the past? Are we not talking about the same Church? Is the Catholic Church thriving or in crisis mode in Latin America?

…Read their history and visit their countries. What the aristocracy did with the Church there was a shame. They used the Church to oppress their own people.

If such is the case, did this all change post VII? If not, then the new liturgy would be no different than the traditional liturgy since both come from the same “oppressive” Catholic Church.

I mean, if this is what you say - then the crisis should have come prior to VII, and then alleviated in the wake of the Council. But is this reality? Or do we have something opposite taking place?

…That’s why the beautiful cathedrals are empty and the small simple churches are full. In countries that have been stripped of their wealth and power, the sight of these great basilicas and cathedrals is a reminder of how they were robbed by a small, but powerful and corrupt aristocracy who then donated lots of money to build these beautiful buildings in which the poor were not allowed to sit. These memories are still alive and well. It will take a long time to get over them.

Well, that’s an interesting theory. I’m not sure its grounded in reality - or grounded in protestant (and other sources) propeganda…but interesting nonetheless. I’ll take it with a grain of salt if you don’t mind.

And peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Jeanette_L]

It seems that part of the problem with the overall mindset of the anti VII crowd is no sense of God’s hand in Church history and the global Church overall. They seem to focus on their own small cultural preferences, and this in very small windows of time - can’t step back and see a larger picture.

There is a wonderful analogy we get from gardening, that sometimes a painful pruning is necessary in order to maintain the health of the tree and ensure future growth and fruitfulness. The fruit is still a ways off in this stage. And the pruning is painful. And so it is with the Church. The show isn’t over friends. Just because we don’t see the abundance of fruit in our own lifetime doesn’t mean it’s not coming in a glorious way. And I can’t help but wonder why some aren’t seeing the new budding already appearing as others of us do? Blind from pain more likely than not and angry that others have been able to move beyond it as if the hurt means nothing.

This is in fact part of the problem with the Fundamentalist Protestantism we see currently - and Protestantism overall from the beginning - no sense of the bigger work of God in growing, nurturing and perfecting His Bride, only an emotional knee jerk reaction to current disappointments and personal preferences. And with all this, an alarmingly arrogent sense that they have more wisdom and a better idea of what God has in mind than everyone else around them, including those whom God has given as an authority over them.

But, we really are just talking past each other here, aren’t we? When the arguments turn to personal attacks on the credibility of the history of the debater, and the spirit of charity has been forfeited, it seems we have gone beyond what’s reasonable to try to gain points, that’s never a good sign.

 

[eelpis]

No The Church is not a democracy but laypeople have the right to speak up against abuses, this right is in canon law, and also to form associations.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Well, then, so do the people in Call To Action or Catholics for Choice, or whatever. Those groups think that by lobbying and seeking out sympathetic priests, they’ll get the Vatican to do what they want.

 

[eelpis]

CTA and CFAFC are simply wrong let them chatter all they want, it won’t alter the fact, just so much wind.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What I have read about these two groups truly is described in the phrase unicorn in the sanctuary. One book “Call to action, Call to Apostasy” describes CTA very well and its fruits, all of which are bad.These groups do nothing but lead others to apostasy. Avoid them like a plague.
Deacon Ed B

 

[DustinsDad]

It seems that part of the problem with the overall mindset of the anti VII crowd is no sense of God’s hand in Church history and the global Church overall…There is a wonderful analogy we get from gardening, that sometimes a painful pruning is necessary in order to maintain the health of the tree and ensure future growth and fruitfulness. The fruit is still a ways off in this stage. And the pruning is painful. And so it is with the Church.

Where in all the documents of the Council or from the words of any of the popes since is there any reference to “pruning” away anything?

If fact, the more one is attuned to and recognizes the God’s hand in Church history, the more one appreciates tradition - both big “T” and little “t”. I’m not so sure your position here works my friend.

It is, as Pope Benedict so eloquently stated,
“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.”
(Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops)

The show isn’t over friends.

Of course not. Our Lord has not and can not abandon His Church.

But, we really are just talking past each other here, aren’t we? When the arguments turn to personal attacks on the credibility of the history of the debater, and the spirit of charity has been forfeited, it seems we have gone beyond what’s reasonable to try to gain points, that’s never a good sign.

I would say that when any disagreement is seen as a personal attack, we certainly aren’t going to get anywhere anytime soon.

Lord have mercy,

And peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[panoikei]

You should do a pole.

Catholicism is not a Democracy. However, much of the government we enjoy today comes from Christianity from the Church. Cafateria Catholics make their own religions by discarding those things they do not want and adding non-Catholic traditions born out of the sinful hearts of man to their pallete of beleifs and practices. It’s part of the modern culture and the reason we are all required, not optional, to form our consciences in light of Church teaching.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

You should do a pole.

I can’t. I’m too clumsy.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Where in all the documents of the Council or from the words of any of the popes since is there any reference to “pruning” away anything?

DustinsDad

I wasn’t quoting documents of Councils or words of popes. You are missing the point altogether. A person cannot be effectively reasoned with if their nose is glued to pages examining words and not able to discern the Spirit behind them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The letter of the law without a clue to it’s Spirit. Just because that word “Spirit” has been misused by either well meaning misguided people or people with ill intention, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a truth behind a Spiritual reform, whether the words are in documents or not.

Can you honestly live a joy filled Catholic life with such strife in your spirit over all this? This is not what any of us are called to. Strife and the spreading of it amongst the faithful is not from God.

 

[Brother_John]

Can you honestly live a joy filled Catholic life with such strife in your spirit over all this? This is not what any of us are called to. Strife and the spreading of it amongst the faithful is not from God.

Amen to that! I see the same thing in so many threads. Some get so caught up in looking for what’s wrong with the Church, that they completely lose sight of what’s right.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Can you honestly live a joy filled Catholic life with such strife in your spirit over all this? This is not what any of us are called to. Strife and the spreading of it amongst the faithful is not from God.

True 'dat.

(Which is also why I disregard scary doomsday messages urging me to stock up on food, water, and blessed candles that were supposedly revealed privately by Our Lady.

Don’t worry… if the sun goes out and I can’t get the hurricane lamp to light, I’ll remember not to let anybody in the house no matter how much they beg. But, I do have one question: if nothing will burn but blessed candles, how are we gonna light them? Sorry… I couldn’t resist)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I actually find it heartening when people describe the state of the Church as it really is and don’t appeal to some hidden Gnostic wisdom of the hierarchy in regards to prudential decisions regarding items like the liturgy. This is heartening because it means people are thus looking for and seeking solutions.

Hence it was such a great boon to have Cardinal Ratzinger elected Pope because from his previous writings one knew he thought that the past forty years had not been good for the Church and that he regarded the state of the liturgy as one of the prime reasons and hence he has taken steps to rectify that.

Conversely, what can be less heartening is when people act as if the hierarchy have some hidden wisdom that turns what looks like poor prudential decisions into wise ones, because it is much more encouraging to have people recognize a genuine problem than not.

God bless.