JPII Stations of the Cross

[childofmary1143]

Perhaps I am not reading your note correctly; are you suggesting that we should intentionally offend Protestants?

No of course not as that would be wrong.

Or that, knowing that Protestants may be attending an event, that we should intentionally do something that is less scripturally based than something that is more scripturally based, knowing that the former is likely to offend?

We should intentionally do what we normally do regardless if it might offend some Protestants.

Or that in the choice between doing two things that are scripturally based, we should do one that we may feel is more likely to offend, than an alternative we already have that is less likely to offend?

We should do what we normally do.

I am not sure I am reading your post correctly, but I get the feeling that your postion is that if they want to attend, fine; but we are going to do it the way we always have whether it offends them or not.

Yes.

It is not as if anyone is suggesting that the Liturgy be changed, and that is not my position at all. But if a private prayer such as the Stations of the Cross is done on a scriptural basis or the Mysteries of the Rosary are said with one set of Mysteries instead of another, is that an accommodation to someone else that is in the least threatening? Neither of them are Articles of Faith. Both of them are a point of common ground based in Scripture. What is the cause of the upset?

It is true that Stations of the Cross are not liturgy but I am not sure if its considered private prayer. I could be wrong about that. However I don’t like reading about using a different Stations of the Cross because the normal one is considered offensive to non-Catholics.

WYD is primarily a Catholic event.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I have absolutely no objection to meditations on Gospel accounts of the Passion. What I have a problem with is the trend toward Sola-Scriptura going on in the Catholic Church right now.

I agree with you 100%. It is another symptom of the false ecumenism, where the Catholics bends over backwards to try to get the Protestants to accept them.

Another factor is probably the despising of Tradition. After all, being “pre-Vatican II” is considere by many to be a bad thing. The liberals are attempting to “sing in” a new Church, and the new Church dispises the old Church with its traditions.

 

[otjm]

I agree with you 100%. It is another symptom of the false ecumenism, where the Catholics bends over backwards to try to get the Protestants to accept them.

Another factor is probably the despising of Tradition. After all, being “pre-Vatican II” is considere by many to be a bad thing. The liberals are attempting to “sing in” a new Church, and the new Church dispises the old Church with its traditions.

Traditions with a small “t” are simply something we have done. Some are more important than others.

Saying the Joyful Mysteries on a day that we normally don’t associate with them is simply saying them on a different day. Anyone who gets their panties in a twist over it is putting form over function.

And anyone who knows even a little bit about the Stations of the Cross should know that we have ahd a plethora of versions since they were first introduced. Raising them up to the level of borderline doctrine, or Tradition with a capital “T” is bemusing at the least.

It is in no way false ecumenism; both of them are private prayers. They are private prayers because they are not part of the official liturgy of the Church - which is primarily contained within the Mass and the LOTH.

Good heave forbid that we shoud do anything with Prtoestants that could draw them closer to Christ; anything that would be scripturally based.

I submit you have a very vaguely formed and thoroughly misinformed idea of what ecumenism is. Putting form over substance is not the mind of the Church, but sadly it is the attitude of some of those in the pews.

If you want to criticize mistakes the Church makes (and it has made some doozies of recent years), you might want to focus on something of substance instead of something of form.

And no, I am not some whacko liberal; I follow the Magisterium of the Church, and I am actively involved in helping people convert to the Church.

How many have you brought in? Or are you just sitting on your throne pontificating about “false ecumenism”?

And while we are at it, this isn’t about despising Tradition as neither of these things are about Tradition - they are about traditions with a small “t”, and traditions which themselves are hardly set in stone.

 

[Walking_Home]

I agree with you 100%. It is another symptom of the false ecumenism, where the Catholics bends over backwards to try to get the Protestants to accept them.

Another factor is probably the despising of Tradition. After all, being “pre-Vatican II” is considere by many to be a bad thing. The liberals are attempting to “sing in” a new Church, and the new Church dispises the old Church with its traditions.

---

Seems like a method of turning the Church into bible only.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have absolutely no objection to meditations on Gospel accounts of the Passion. What I have a problem with is the trend toward Sola-Scriptura going on in the Catholic Church right now.

then why not start a thread for that discussion instead of attacking the Pope for his legitimate introduction of new meditations for a traditional Lenten devotion.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I submit you have a very vaguely formed and thoroughly misinformed idea of what ecumenism is.

Then please inform me. What is ecumenism?

 

[otjm]

Then please inform me. What is ecumenism?

Do you always ask fifty cent questions in a ten cent conversation?

Ecumenism is first and foremost a seeking of unity in Christ, in light of John 17 - “I pray, Father, that all may be one…”

The Church had a good long history since Trent of defending it’s doctrine, often in ways that simply caused the divide between the Catholic Church and Protestants to harden and widen.

It was the intent of John Paul 2 to work on ecumenical relations, and it is further the intent of Benedict 16 to do so. The first goal has, from what one could deduce from the time and work spent, focused on the Orthodox Church, something that seems to be moving forward better under this pope than the last.

Ecumenism also seeks to work together for the common good; a prime example is the joining forces with evangelical and fundamental churches in the battle against abortion.
There has also been a joining of forces with the Catholic Church and members of Islam to defeat work of the United Nations to destroy marriage and further abortion throughout the world.

One can sit and enumerate all the ways we are divided; one can also, while admitting the divisons, sit an enumerate all the ways we are united. True ecumenism works to the latter.

Saying the Joyful Mysteries on a day on which one normally says the Sorrowful is hardly an earth shaking “change” of things Catholic.

Sharing a scripturally based meditation on the Passion and Death of Christ, whether one calls it the Stations of the Cross, or some other name, is hardly a denial of Transubstantiation or a restatement of Justification.

Calling either of those “false ecumenism” is an absolute hoot - it is putting form of something that is not essential to the Faith over the substance of what Faith is about - in a word, Christ.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I am not opposed to change and for my point of view, it doesn’t matter when or who composed a different version of the Stations of the Cross. Of course scripture is fine.

What my problem would be and its being discussed in another thread is the reasons for using it for WYD 2008 in Sydney so as not to offend the non-Catholics.

Let me use an example. In the Rosary, you have the joyful, sorrowful, glorious and luminous mysteries. Say its become custom for the past few centuries, to say the Sorrowful mysteries on Holy Thursday. Then a Bishop involved with a youth activity says we should say the joyful mysteries instead of the sorrowful mysteries because it might offend the non-catholics.

Now doesn’t that change things a little? It may seem a little thing, but as its said in the Bible, “If you can’t do the little things, how can you do the big things…”

Just something to consider…

I think that’s a valid concern, but I think it’s a slightly different concern than the one the OP mentioned. But it would make an excellent subject for discussion.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Do you always ask fifty cent questions in a ten cent conversation?

Ecumenism is first and foremost a seeking of unity in Christ, in light of John 17 - “I pray, Father, that all may be one…”

Unity in Christ is accomplished by the heretics and schismatics renouncing their errors and returning to the Catholic Church which their unfortunate forerunners left. That is the only way to achieve unity, as explained by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

Pope Pius XI, 1928: “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it”. (Mortalium Animos #10)

The current ecumenical movement no longer seeks to convert the heretics and schismatics. Instead, it seeks to unite with them without thier converting. It seeks to build what I call a “Big Tent” religion - one that “unites” Catholics with heretics and schismatics into one big “Church”. Do you doubt me? If so, allow me to quote the point man for ecumenism, Cardinal Walter Casper. John Paul II appointed him as the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. If anyone would know the mind of the Pope on this matter, it would be him. This is how he described the ecumenical movement since Vatican II

Cardinal Kasper: **“The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. **Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: **each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” **(Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

The model for this is the heretical Tiaze Community, which is a religious community consisting of heretics and Catholics living as “one”. Truth and error, fire and water, Christ and Belial living together in a true modern ecumenical community.

The Church had a good long history since Trent of defending it’s doctrine, often in ways that simply caused the divide between the Catholic Church and Protestants to harden and widen.

Jesus said “I came not to bring peace, but the sword”. What did he mean by that? He meant that the truth he came to bring would divide - it would divide those who accepted it (the Catholics), from those who rejected it (the heretics).

You said that the Catholic Church had a long history since the Council of Trent defending its doctrines. Correction, the Church had a long history since day one defening its doctrines and offending those who rejected them.

The false ecumenical movement seeks to water down the truth in order to not offend the heretics.

It was the intent of John Paul 2 to work on ecumenical relations, and it is further the intent of Benedict 16 to do so. The first goal has, from what one could deduce from the time and work spent, focused on the Orthodox Church, something that seems to be moving forward better under this pope than the last.

So, did the ecumenism of John Paul II sek to bring the Orthodox into the Catholic Church, or did it seek to unite with them without them renouncing their errors?

The answer is found in the Bellamand Agreement, which was accepted by John Paul II. In the Bellamand Agreement, it states that the Orthodox heretics, who deny Papal Infallibility and the past 13 Church councils, are part of the one true Church and do not need to convert. If you doubt me, do a google search for the Bellamand Agreement and read it for yourself. It is much worse that what I have said here, but it fits in perfectly with what Cardincal Kasper said above. I’ll give just one quote:

Balamand Agreement: "Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

One can sit and enumerate all the ways we are divided; one can also, while admitting the divisons, sit an enumerate all the ways we are united. True ecumenism works to the latter.

Why? What divides is what is important if a true unity is being sought. You can start with what is held in common, but for unity to be achieved, the issues that divide must be overcome. Therefore, a true movement for unity will focus on what divides, rather than what is held in common, since what divides is what hinders true unity.

The false ecumenism of today actually began before Vatican II, and was condemned by the Church (see Mortaliums Animos). This is what St. Maximillian Kolbe said about ecumenism:

Maximillian Kolbe: "Only until all schismatics and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata have reached its goals… In other words, there is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy. We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.”

As Father Edward Hanahoe, a superb theologian from the 1950’s said, false ecumenism, whcih focuses on what is common rather than what divides, is * “perpetuating the state of separation, serving rather to keep people out of Church than to bring them into it.”*

The false ecumenism of our day was described perfectly by Blessed Ann Catheirn Emmerick:

Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerick: "**They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock. There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise

 

[patrick457]

It is true that Stations of the Cross are not liturgy but I am not sure if its considered private prayer. I could be wrong about that. However I don’t like reading about using a different Stations of the Cross because the normal one is considered offensive to non-Catholics.

WYD is primarily a Catholic event.

Why would the ‘normal’ (more accurate term would be ‘standardized’) Stations be offensive to Non-Catholics? Sure, it has Jesus falling around and meeting a couple of persons in events not covered by the Bible, but as to why would anyone be offended by it is beyond me.

For the record, the Via Crucis is a private (personal) devotion, as opposed to the Liturgy (such as the Divine Office and the Mass), which is the public devotion of the Church; due to its status as a private devotion, it is not required for Catholics to pray the Stations, though it is commendable to do so, or any other private devotion for that matter (such as the Rosary).

IMHO a ‘private’ devotion is still called private even if done publicly; just like how private Revelation remains ‘private’ even if revealed to the general public.

 

[Jacafamala]

I went to my parish during Lent for the Stations of the Cross and they turned out to be this new version. It’s Ok, but it’s just not what I’m used to; not what I grew up with. I’m too attached to the old Stations. Next year I’ll be looking around to find a parish that does the Stations the old way.

 

[JReducation]

It is true that Stations of the Cross are not liturgy but I am not sure if its considered private prayer. I could be wrong about that. However I don’t like reading about using a different Stations of the Cross because the normal one is considered offensive to non-Catholics.

WYD is primarily a Catholic event.

If I can I’d like to try to help with this question.

1. The Catholic Church has only one form of public prayer and that is liturgical prayer. By public the Church does not mean prayer that is said in the open. A monk praying the Liturgy of the Hours in his hermitate is saying a public prayer, because he is celebrating liturgy or a lay person who prays the Liturgy of the Hours in the privacy of their room at home. The same applies to the solitary priest who celebrates mass when no one else is there. Only liturgical prayer is public prayer. If only one person prays the liturgy, the entire Church is praying.
2. There are also public devotions such as Benediction. These are public because they stem from the liturgy of the Church.
3. The rosary, stations of the cross, novenas, even adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is private prayer, because it is not prayed in the name of the Church. You may offer them for the Church, but it is you who are doing the praying, not the universal Church. When a group such as the youngsters during WYD gather to pray the stations, they are not praying in the name of the Church. The represent themselves, not the universal Church. It is a public event, but the praying itself is done by the individual, not the Universal Church.
4. For a form of prayer to be public it mus receive approval from the Holy See and be declared a prayer of the Universal Church. The stations are approved by the Church for individual use. When a group prays the stations, they are still a group of individuals, they do not pray in the name of the universal Church. They may pray for the universal Church.
5. For any prayer to be considered public, it must be considered liturgical. It must be considered essential to the prayer life of the Church. To date the Church teaches that the celebration of the sacraments and the Liturgy of the Hours fulfill all the prayer requiements that the Church needs. Therefore, any other prayer is not essential to the prayer life of the Church. It is good for the soul, but it does not enrich the Church because the Church already has the perfect prayer combination: Mass and Liturgy of the Hours. Nothing is more perfect than that combo.

As to why the stations may be offensive to non Catholics.

1. In some parts of the world there are still Catholics with strong anti-semitic beliefs. Despite the fact that the Church has made it clear that it does not hold the Jews responsible for Jesus’ death, but only the corrupt leadership of his time, there are Catholics who have not accepted this.
2. What the Bishop in Australia is concerned about is feeding the anti-semitic fervor of these Catholics in a nation that has a very large Jewish population and where the relations between Jews and Catholics were very fragile until John Paul’s last visit there. He mended many fences between the Catholic hierarchy and Jewish leadership, to the point that together they have worked on developing many programs to help Jews and Catholics live and work together peacefully for the good of those who are most in need. Jews, Catholics and Anglicans in Australia control most of the contry’s wealth and make up less than half of the country’s population.
3. Anti-semiticim on the part of a small group of Catholics can be very offensive to other Catholics, Jews, and the Anglicans. The idea of using another form of the stations that toned down the Jewish role in the passion seemed appropriate to the Bishop. Whether it will work or not is another matter. This is just the Bishop’s hope.
4. The stations were written by a Franciscan Friar. They were not pulled out of someone’s sleeve. These stations were written by religious who have introduced the stations as we know them to the Catholic Church and have introduced many variations. The source is a trusworthy source.

Hope this helps.

JR