S
skyryder
Guest
I don’t buy all this Pope, Tradition, Rules, Regs nonsense.
Lets keep it simple: Focus on Christ alone.
- Status
Lets keep it simple: Focus on Christ alone.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Clearly, you reject the Catholic Church, but your conceptions and knowledge of it is full of error. Louis XIV is NOT a saint in the Catholic Church. Each and everytime you post about the Catholic Church, it is nothing but error and falsehood. It is not surprising you reject it. I would also have rejected such a Church. But fortunately for many of us, the Church is not what you claim it to be.
It is truly ironic, because you were the one who said that we needed to open the windows. It is for all to see that the one saying this has kept the windows of truth closed. He lives in a house that is filled with smokes of lies and the windows are so closed that he is choked by them consistently and the rays of light and truth cannot get in.
I suggest for the sake of skyryder, we listen to the wisdom of other posters and not take the “bait” of skyryder until he is willing the mask of misconceptions about the Catholic Church and let Catholics tell him what they believe.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Hi Skyryder,
Don’t you think that for some people the traditional mass is better, and for others, they like a more charismatic parish. Don’t you understand that people on both sides are concerned with experiencing the Love of God and practicing Love of Neighbour? They just have different ways that they want to worship on Sunday. Why does it have to be a big argument about which is better?
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Mr. Anthony, I see you live up to your signature well.
But some of us are not naturals and must struggle with such a thing. While Charismatics and Traditionalists differ on how to worship, they do agree on what to do to worship. Skyryder completely disagrees on the latter and so is believing heresy. I don’t know what to do…
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I think the way to witness to liberals is to show them that the conservative ‘style’ of worship and belief produces fruits - that we become filled with faith and love for God and Neighbour. I have a lot of work to do on that front before I’m going to convert any liberals by my witnessMr. Anthony, I see you live up to your signature well.
But some of us are not naturals and must struggle with such a thing. While Charismatics and Traditionalists differ on how to worship, they do agree on what to do to worship. Skyryder completely disagrees on the latter and so is believing heresy. I don’t know what to do…
I think for liberals to make us conservatives listen to them, they first have to show that they’re willing to submit to authority and to follow rules. Imagine someone who humbly submitted to church rules AND helped the poor and enjoyed having prayer sessions on the beach (or whatever they’re trying to convince us to do). I’d be a lot more willing to take advice from someone who was humble and obedient to church teaching.
There is a parish in my city that combines strict orthodoxy with (reverent) charismatic style worship. You might think it sounds like a contradiction but these people are holy and believe 100% in the faith and are just filled with the Holy Spirit. They found the magic combination, I think, and there are many vocations to the priesthood from this group and they are taking their message with them to other parishes, and the faith is growing because of them. It’s amazing. (By charismatic I don’t mean rock music and irreverent dress and behaviour, I mean that the gifts of the holy spirit are evident during the mass, and the priests and congregation are on fire when they preach and pray. It is hard to explain).
C
catharina
Guest
- Herein lies your faulty (perverted) understanding. God is NOT a person at all.
- “Dumping” the Lectionary and the Latin prayers means no more Mass in any form.
- Doing this for “today’s generation” would be an injustice to today’s generation.
C
catharina
Guest
- That is the purpose of this thread as defined by you.
- Spreading the Good News to all, as Jesus said we should do.
- People like you who want novelty and “good times” - not truth and Good News.
S
Seagirt
Guest
Very Good Post. I have been studying the Liberal/ Conservative dialog in Catholic thought and writings for some time. Its somewhat amusing to read the Wanderer one day and the National Catholic Reporter the next day ! Try it .
Conservatives don’t like Richard Rohr-- but he often frames the problem very well; he has recently been talking about how there are really TWO Journeys in Life. The First half of life and then the Second half of Life. The Church gives us the Rules for the first half-- and has done so very well- just like a parent raising a child would. But then as we enter the Second half of life, and supposedly should be able to walk the Journey in Freedom and Grace and Wisdom---- the Church keeps giving us those same rules; that, he says, is why so many leave the Church as adults-- it doesn’t make any sense to us anymore. Interesting, isn’t it ? Any thoughts , folks, on the Liberal- Conservative thought process and what Modern Americans ( esp. the next generation )will do with it. ?
E
edwest2
Guest
I would hope that all Catholics would simply be Catholics who follow Church teaching. Political labels have no place in the Catholic Church. In fact, for some, politics has replaced God in their lives. This country is not run by footbal teams called Democrats or Republicans or Liberals or Conservatives.
Anyone who falls for the deceptive idea that they need to join one of the political camps is doing harm to themselves and all they come in contact with. People should say, “I am a Roman Catholic,” not, “I’m a Conservative Catholic” or “I’m a Liberal Catholic.” It is divisive. The Bible tells us we are all members of one body in Christ. This is the truth
Catholic Theologians are tasked with interpreting and clarifying scripture but their work is not, and never has been, purely intellectual. It has a dynamic spiritual dimension that conveys truth as well.
I know it is difficult for some who have been indoctrinated to politics. We all worship the same God. The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostalic Church. While discussing politics is fine, being separated from your brothers and sisters in Christ is not. God is no respector of persons, whether they are Presidents or homeless.
God bless,
Ed
Anyone who falls for the deceptive idea that they need to join one of the political camps is doing harm to themselves and all they come in contact with. People should say, “I am a Roman Catholic,” not, “I’m a Conservative Catholic” or “I’m a Liberal Catholic.” It is divisive. The Bible tells us we are all members of one body in Christ. This is the truth
Catholic Theologians are tasked with interpreting and clarifying scripture but their work is not, and never has been, purely intellectual. It has a dynamic spiritual dimension that conveys truth as well.
I know it is difficult for some who have been indoctrinated to politics. We all worship the same God. The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostalic Church. While discussing politics is fine, being separated from your brothers and sisters in Christ is not. God is no respector of persons, whether they are Presidents or homeless.
God bless,
Ed
S
skyryder
Guest
*Sorry I got my roman numberals wrong. Here’s the info:*Yes a French King and saint lead the crusades. See below. Yer I still believe given preceident that Diedrich Bonhoeffer qualifys as a Catholic saint while Pope Pius XII does not. By the way, have you read his books? They’re great!
The French King, and later saint, Louis IX (b.1215-1270) was among the most important figures of the crusading era. He personally led two of the eight major crusades and his support for the crusades may be the reason for their continuation into the second half of the thirteenth-century. The crusades secured
relics and shrines in the Middle East for .Christendom.
Born the son of Louis VIII and Blanche of Castille, the young Louis IX was only eleven years old when the death of his father made him King. His mother served as regent.
In 1248 Louis IX set out for the Holy Land on what later became known as the Seventh Crusade…
Yet the Seventh Crusade became a disaster when the King was captured by his Muslim opponents.After the ransom he returned to France in 1252 where he devoted himself to making improvements to his Kingdom and with the Treaty of Paris in 1259he secured peace with King Henry III of England.
With things going well in his Kingdom, Louis IX then set out on what was the Eighth Crusade, but he died shortly later near Tunis when a plague broke ou. Louis IX was declared a saint by Pope Boniface VIII.
One of the best books for further reading on the subject of St. Louis and the crusades is Dr. William Chester Jordan’s Louis IX and the Challege of the Crusade: A Study in Rulership. Princeton University Press, 1980.
S
skyryder
Guest
[Don’t you think that for some people the traditional mass is better, and for others, they like a more charismatic parish. Don’t you understand that people on both sides are concerned with experiencing the Love of God and practicing Love of Neighbour? They just have different ways that they want to worship on Sunday. Why does it have to be a big argument about which is better?
[/QUOTE]
I think the issue here is a stubborn German Pope and his extreme conservative followers. Ratzinger has kicked teens out of the sanctuary, banned guitar mass, crammed Latin down throats of those that don’t want it, banned liturgical dance, banned skits, banned laity preaching, banned changes to both the lectionary and book of prayer, banned use of electronic art and video, banned use of clay chalices or vestments made by kids, banned outdoor worship (without permission of the local bishop) etc etc.
Benedict 16 aka Ratzinger’s books Feast of Faith, and The Spirit of the Liturgy basically outline a plan to end reforms of Vatican 2
and return to the bad old days of Pius XII. I don’t think this is a fight the Liberals started.
[/QUOTE]
I think the issue here is a stubborn German Pope and his extreme conservative followers. Ratzinger has kicked teens out of the sanctuary, banned guitar mass, crammed Latin down throats of those that don’t want it, banned liturgical dance, banned skits, banned laity preaching, banned changes to both the lectionary and book of prayer, banned use of electronic art and video, banned use of clay chalices or vestments made by kids, banned outdoor worship (without permission of the local bishop) etc etc.
Benedict 16 aka Ratzinger’s books Feast of Faith, and The Spirit of the Liturgy basically outline a plan to end reforms of Vatican 2
and return to the bad old days of Pius XII. I don’t think this is a fight the Liberals started.
S
skyryder
Guest
I think we need to submit to God’s authority but not the authority of self appointed Bishops, Cardinals and Popes. The reason why the Catholic Church has so many problems is that it has drifted from its original democratic roots. (See previous posts.) That Ratzinger is a dictator can be seen in his ignoring a signed petition from WE ARE CHURCH numbering in the millions of signatures, asking that the ancient rite of lay election of bishops be followed for all new appointments.I think the way to witness to liberals is to show them that the conservative ‘style’ of worship and belief produces fruits - that we become filled with faith and love for God and Neighbour. I have a lot of work to do on that front before I’m going to convert any liberals by my witness
I think for liberals to make us conservatives listen to them, they first have to show that they’re willing to submit to authority and to follow rules. Imagine someone who humbly submitted to church rules AND helped the poor and enjoyed having prayer sessions on the beach (or whatever they’re trying to convince us to do). I’d be a lot more willing to take advice from someone who was humble and obedient to church teaching.
There is a parish in my city that combines strict orthodoxy with (reverent) charismatic style worship. You might think it sounds like a contradiction but these people are holy and believe 100% in the faith and are just filled with the Holy Spirit. They found the magic combination, I think, and there are many vocations to the priesthood from this group and they are taking their message with them to other parishes, and the faith is growing because of them. It’s amazing. (By charismatic I don’t mean rock music and irreverent dress and behaviour, I mean that the gifts of the holy spirit are evident during the mass, and the priests and congregation are on fire when they preach and pray. It is hard to explain).
The relationship between laity and clergy is that of employer and employee. As defined in the Council of Constance 1414-1418:
all popes, cardinals, and bishops can be dismissed by a general council of laity and teachers,who are their superiors.
The council of Constance, from the very beginning, proposed the following three topics:
- To bring unity back to the church and to make an end to the schism which had divided the church since 1378. When the council of Constance opened, Christians owed obedience to three different popes: some owed obedience to Gregory XII of the Roman party others to Benedict XIII of the Avignon party, and others to John XXIII of Pisa. All three men resigned under pressure from the emporer. It was decided that none of them could be re elected and that a wide variety of edicts issued by all three popes were null and void . Martin V was elected pope on 11 November 1417 and he was regarded as the legitimate pontiff by the church as a whole.
- To eradicate heresies, especially those spread by John Wyclif in Britain and by John Hus and Jerome of Prague in Bohemia.
- To reform the corrupt morals of the church.
Martin V have recognized the authority of this council as binding.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
You have yet to prove that they are self-appointed and that God’s authority is not enacted through the Holy Church.
You also have yet to prove that the Church was ever democratic in nature.
I think that with any thought you can see that the Pope should not be acquiescing to the demands of heretics like We Are Church. Truth, interestingly, is not determined by vote. So it does not matter how many signatures they might have.
The above is not to be found in the documents of the Council of Constance.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM
So, no, the relationship is not that of employer and employee nor has it ever been. The Church is not a corporation. Clergy are not some kind of salary earners. They are ordained by God, which has been recognized since the very beginning of the Church and continued to be so in the Council of Constance.
Just like with the Second Vatican Council, you apply ideas here to the Council of Constance which are not there. Perhaps next time you cite a Council you ought to actually read its documents.
Also, Constance was not a council of laity. It was a council primarily of Cardinals, Abbots, Bishops, and Archbishops. There were around a hundred scholars of theology in attendance, which does not make it a council of laity by any stretch.
And who verified the presence of the Holy Spirit? It was the authority of the Bishops of the Church. You seem to think that there were just some random people about saying, “Oh, yes, I really feel the Spirit here.” The reason they could say the Spirit was present was because the Church’s Bishops were gathered in that place.
Further, the Council did not seek to “reform the corrupt morals of the Church” because the Church itself was not corrupt, never has been, nor ever will be. Individual members did commit abuses and thus disciplinary measures were declared. However, that is not at all what you portrayed it.
Generally, I am content to let you sink your own ship under the weight of your own absurdity. However, when you cite Councils incorrectly I do feel I ought to set the record straight.
S
skyryder
Guest
Again we need to distringuish between Relgious Records of the Council of Constance and Secular Records. The later are probably more accurate. No the council was not just a church body. It was called by a king, and laity were very active in it.
Had Emperor Sigismund not forced a solution on the 3 popes we would not have a Vatican today.
To be Italian is to be inconsistant. The problem that Ratzinger and company have with The Council of Constance is that it makes Vatican 1 stance on papal infallibilty untenable (which it is)
You cannot simultaneouly embrace both Councils. But then again previous rulings against Papal Infallibility prior to 1000 were ignored also.
You need to take some secular courses in comparative religion.
That the Vatican was corrupt is unquestionable. In 1517 Western Europe began the Reformation because the Church couldn’t be cleaned up.
Again let’s return the Church to Democracy and end Monarchy.
We will probably need Vatican III to resolve this matter.
Had Emperor Sigismund not forced a solution on the 3 popes we would not have a Vatican today.
To be Italian is to be inconsistant. The problem that Ratzinger and company have with The Council of Constance is that it makes Vatican 1 stance on papal infallibilty untenable (which it is)
You cannot simultaneouly embrace both Councils. But then again previous rulings against Papal Infallibility prior to 1000 were ignored also.
You need to take some secular courses in comparative religion.
That the Vatican was corrupt is unquestionable. In 1517 Western Europe began the Reformation because the Church couldn’t be cleaned up.
Again let’s return the Church to Democracy and end Monarchy.
We will probably need Vatican III to resolve this matter.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
Sorry, no trying to weasel out of it. Provide sources or admit your error.
Credible sources.
S
skyryder
Guest
I think God uses all forms of human art and expression to both glorify him and spread his message.I hope hippie masses are gone with the wind.
Suggest going to YouTube and watching
Can God use Christian Metal
This is good witness. Consider what you are tossing out.
U
una_fides
Guest
Ed,
I think this is an excellent post and it really gets to the heart of the problem in American politics, which is that the people’s interests really are not completely represented by the two party system. There are elements of Catholic truth in both parties that should be embraced.
I would like to clarify that today the reason there is so much labeling going on within the Church such as “traditional Catholics” and “liberal catholics” is because many today who claim to be “Catholic” truly are not. They disguise their plan for destroying Catholicism by saying they are “liberal Catholics” when in reality they oppose fully and openly the true Catholic faith. All true Catholics are Traditional in the sense that they follow the unchanging truths of the Church as revealed and handed on throughout her history. To depart from the Traditional infallibly defined teachings of the Church, which the Church herself has declared are necessary to believe for salvation, is to place one’s self outside of the Church. What we need is for the Pope to emphasize this truth and challenge those who claim to be Catholic to make a choice: either accept the teachings of the Church or stop calling yourself Catholic and stop receiving the sacraments until you place yourself under her teaching authority.
As you said, the Church is one, but her teachings are also one. We cannot claim to be part of the fold of Christ and oppose his teachings at the same time. Scripture and Tradition have made this truth abundantly clear.
Again, great post Ed. Just wanted to add my two cents as to why we see all the labeling today.
E
edwest2
Guest
Thank you. “savage wolves” have indeed come into the Church. Pope Benedict is instituting a series of reforms that will strengthen the Church, return the mass to a universally holy celebration, and encourage people to be holy in all they do.
Wisdom, enlightenment and knowledge did not pour into anyone’s head when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 2st Century.
God bless,
Ed
Wisdom, enlightenment and knowledge did not pour into anyone’s head when the calendar changed from the 20th to the 2st Century.
God bless,
Ed
S
skyryder
Guest
Read Stumps Book: The Reforms of the Council of Constance.also suggest Encyclopedia Britanica. Catholic Encyclopedia needs to be read critically as it is censored and biased.
The Council of Constance is a unique event in the church. There were actually several Councils of Constance all having the same men on them, saying basically the same thing to 3 different groups of popes. For political reasons some of these meetings were considered irregular, others regular but the facts remain that two popes resigned under lay pressure and the third was put on trial and deposed when the Avignon Pope lost the political backing of French and Spanish Monarchs . In agreeing to be the new Pope; Martin V signed what is could be considered a binding church constitution with the Council, which he spent the rest of his reign trying to ignore and subvert. This constitution basically outlines how popes are to be elected. It addressed a variety of financial and moral problems within the hierarchy, and dealt with dissidents. It also states that there will be a regular eccumenical council of laith and clergy who will meet on a regular basis to supervise the papacy. Martin agreed he was under the authority of said councils in exchange for his election to the office of Pope and that said acts would be binding on all successors. When Ratzinger refused to listen to a petition from laity for reform, this is grounds for calling a new eccumenical council under the provisions of Constance. Please note that even if one accepts Eubiusus list of ancient popes (which most historians feel is ingenuous) Papal Succession ends with the Great Schism. All three popes and several colleges of cardinals were terminated. The chain is broken. New electors picked a new pope and voided previous lines as antipopes. Apostolic Succession from that time on was deemed to run from laity and not clergy…which it always had under the original democratic organization of the Early Church. Traditionalists seeking to have everyone bow to Papal Authority are citing nonsense from Vatican I. As Catholics we bow to the authority of Christ alone and a duly elected ecumenical council. We do not bow to the pope, or bishops which laity has the right to elect, discipline or remove as established by the Council of Constance…
S
skyryder
Guest
Read Stumps Book: The Reforms of the Council of Constance.also suggest Encyclopedia Britanica. Catholic Encyclopedia needs to be read critically as it is censored and biased.
The Council of Constance is a unique event in the church. There were actually several Councils of Constance all having the same men on them, saying basically the same thing to 3 different groups of popes. For political reasons some of these meetings were considered irregular, others regular but the facts remain that two popes resigned under lay pressure and the third was put on trial and deposed when the Avignon Pope lost the political backing of French and Spanish Monarchs . In agreeing to be the new Pope; Martin V signed what is could be considered a binding church constitution with the Council, which he spent the rest of his reign trying to ignore and subvert. This constitution basically outlines how popes are to be elected. It addressed a variety of financial and moral problems within the hierarchy, and dealt with dissidents. It also states that there will be a regular eccumenical council of laith and clergy who will meet on a regular basis to supervise the papacy. Martin agreed he was under the authority of said councils in exchange for his election to the office of Pope and that said acts would be binding on all successors. When Ratzinger refused to listen to a petition from laity for reform, this is grounds for calling a new eccumenical council under the provisions of Constance. Please note that even if one accepts Eubiusus list of ancient popes (which most historians feel is ingenuous) Papal Succession ends with the Great Schism. All three popes and several colleges of cardinals were terminated. The chain is broken. New electors picked a new pope and voided previous lines as antipopes. Apostolic Succession from that time on was deemed to run from laity and not clergy…which it always had under the original democratic organization of the Early Church. Traditionalists seeking to have everyone bow to Papal Authority are citing nonsense from Vatican I. As Catholics we bow to the authority of Christ alone and a duly elected ecumenical council. We need not bow to the pope, or bishops which laity has the right to elect, discipline or remove as established by the Council of Constance…
- Status