S
Pope Francis Asks God to Free Catholics from the ‘Disease’ of Division
- Status
F
Feanor2
Guest
And we see this disease manifested very openly here on CAF.
I
IanM
Guest
Well worth the investment:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0895551675/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_c0rSEbFZFX1V6
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0895551675/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_c0rSEbFZFX1V6
S
StudentMI
Guest
It may well be but there are legitimate non modernist divisions among Catholics, as well as modernist driven divisions, that should be healed instead of exacerbated.
S
stpurl
Guest
We do see authentic division which is hurtful.
We also see, as Pope Francis pointed out clearly, permissible differences in thinking which are not divisive.
The main difficulty is that a person or persons will decide that somebody thinking X (permitted) is doing so to be Y (divisive) even if the person thinking X is not divisive at all.
And simply by starting a whole “you people doing or thinking X are a problem and dividing the church, STOP IT” they are trying to cut off permitted actions and thoughts simply because their perception—a flawed one based on their own ideas and interpretations and experiences leads them to ‘dislike’ X or those who like X.
Plus there is the tendency for so many to assume that an action or a liking of A (say, Latin) means that the person also possesses of approves of B-Z (anything from sedevacantism to anti-Semitism to anti-Pope Francis), again based on flawed assumptions That a group of, say “Trads” who ‘like Latin” also are bound to be sedes, antiSemites, etc.
In medicine, we diagnose diseases based on symptoms. But symptoms such as fever are found in many diseases. You simply cannot see only a fever and say, “this patient has COVID19” because one of the symptoms of COVID19 is fever. First, again, many other diseases such as pneumonia, other viruses, infections, etc. can cause fever; second, while fever is a major ‘symptom” of COVID19 there are a fair number of people who may have COVID19 but do not show fever.
Well, it’s the same with people who ‘like the EF” or ‘like Latin’. Those are simply personal likings. The people who like those things do not ‘automatically’ like the ‘labels’ that are thrown onto ‘Trads’ (those ‘labels’ themselves flawed and wrong for the most part).
It is a shame that one of the main causes of division isn’t addressed at its root: The ‘rush to judgment’ and knee-jerk reactions of people who are eager to see only division and hatred in another based on a quality they personally do not ‘like’.
We also see, as Pope Francis pointed out clearly, permissible differences in thinking which are not divisive.
The main difficulty is that a person or persons will decide that somebody thinking X (permitted) is doing so to be Y (divisive) even if the person thinking X is not divisive at all.
And simply by starting a whole “you people doing or thinking X are a problem and dividing the church, STOP IT” they are trying to cut off permitted actions and thoughts simply because their perception—a flawed one based on their own ideas and interpretations and experiences leads them to ‘dislike’ X or those who like X.
Plus there is the tendency for so many to assume that an action or a liking of A (say, Latin) means that the person also possesses of approves of B-Z (anything from sedevacantism to anti-Semitism to anti-Pope Francis), again based on flawed assumptions That a group of, say “Trads” who ‘like Latin” also are bound to be sedes, antiSemites, etc.
In medicine, we diagnose diseases based on symptoms. But symptoms such as fever are found in many diseases. You simply cannot see only a fever and say, “this patient has COVID19” because one of the symptoms of COVID19 is fever. First, again, many other diseases such as pneumonia, other viruses, infections, etc. can cause fever; second, while fever is a major ‘symptom” of COVID19 there are a fair number of people who may have COVID19 but do not show fever.
Well, it’s the same with people who ‘like the EF” or ‘like Latin’. Those are simply personal likings. The people who like those things do not ‘automatically’ like the ‘labels’ that are thrown onto ‘Trads’ (those ‘labels’ themselves flawed and wrong for the most part).
It is a shame that one of the main causes of division isn’t addressed at its root: The ‘rush to judgment’ and knee-jerk reactions of people who are eager to see only division and hatred in another based on a quality they personally do not ‘like’.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Jesus re: division(s) and unity.
10 and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them.
11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.
- If we WERE more unified BEFORE that Council … maybe we can seek and find that unity again.
Perhaps correcting the liberal excesses in interpretation of the Council that caused many of the subsequent division(s).
Perhaps … putting the tabernacle with the real presence of God back into its front and center position in all Churches (rather than cast to the side or hidden apart from the worshippers who came to worship HIM).
Making private confession(s) more available … per accessibility and privacy … (i.e. more than say ONE priest in a parish of thousands of families being available for as little as one half hour a week … sometimes with JUST the face-to-face option the ONLY option available < when such could easily be afforded).
MOSTLY I liked what Pope Francis’ Sunday Gospel homily.
Since it WAS however the very Gospel and chapter of John that BEGAN with Jesus speaking of a WALL or fence and saying:
John 10: [1][2] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/T.HTM)
"[Amen], [amen], I [say] to you, whoever does not [enter] a [sheepfold] through the [gate] but [climbs] over elsewhere is a [thief] and a [robber].
[2] But whoever [enters] through the [gate] is the [shepherd] of the [sheep].
[3] The [gatekeeper] [opens] it for him, and the [sheep] [hear] his [voice], as he [calls] his own [sheep] by [name] and [leads] them out.
… it might have been a good time for the Pope to clarify his words regarding illegal immigration … words which have confused some … and hardly addressing the side effects of open immigration without screening (which some think he favors due to the intensity of his words and actions … like the mass he said at the American border prior to the 2016 election).
In a Church almost empty due to a runaway virus pandemic … spread partly due to a “too open” travel screening policy … it might have been the perfect week to add a bit of clarity or tolerance for that part of the body that … permissibly … think differently than … the Pope.
More unity … in the truth of Christ < the Pope DID admirably emphasize otherwise in his sermon Sunday.
52 From now on a [household] of [five] will be [divided], [three] against [two] and [two] against three;
John 17: 9 I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours,
10 and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them.
11 And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are.
- If we WERE more unified BEFORE that Council … maybe we can seek and find that unity again.Perhaps correcting the liberal excesses in interpretation of the Council that caused many of the subsequent division(s).
Perhaps … putting the tabernacle with the real presence of God back into its front and center position in all Churches (rather than cast to the side or hidden apart from the worshippers who came to worship HIM).
Making private confession(s) more available … per accessibility and privacy … (i.e. more than say ONE priest in a parish of thousands of families being available for as little as one half hour a week … sometimes with JUST the face-to-face option the ONLY option available < when such could easily be afforded).
MOSTLY I liked what Pope Francis’ Sunday Gospel homily.
Since it WAS however the very Gospel and chapter of John that BEGAN with Jesus speaking of a WALL or fence and saying:
John 10: [1][2] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/T.HTM)
"[Amen], [amen], I [say] to you, whoever does not [enter] a [sheepfold] through the [gate] but [climbs] over elsewhere is a [thief] and a [robber].
[2] But whoever [enters] through the [gate] is the [shepherd] of the [sheep].
[3] The [gatekeeper] [opens] it for him, and the [sheep] [hear] his [voice], as he [calls] his own [sheep] by [name] and [leads] them out.
… it might have been a good time for the Pope to clarify his words regarding illegal immigration … words which have confused some … and hardly addressing the side effects of open immigration without screening (which some think he favors due to the intensity of his words and actions … like the mass he said at the American border prior to the 2016 election).
In a Church almost empty due to a runaway virus pandemic … spread partly due to a “too open” travel screening policy … it might have been the perfect week to add a bit of clarity or tolerance for that part of the body that … permissibly … think differently than … the Pope.
More unity … in the truth of Christ < the Pope DID admirably emphasize otherwise in his sermon Sunday.
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
it is a divisive Church right now. How does the Pope wish to fix that?
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
But we can’t go back before the Council. It is a part of our history and also it is authoritative teaching.
I don’t know how to overcome the division he speaks of. Just looking at the US right now I see so much division among Catholics in politics and theology and liturgy, it seems insurmountable. And sadly neither side wants to see how they are going against Jesus’ wish that we be one.
C
CaptFun
Guest
I don’t see undoing the Council as the solution. The problem seems to have been the sudden, big changes made in the Church in the NAME of the “spirit of Vatican II” … that were made without citing mandates or specifics but a kind of “we see these changes as being in LINE with that spirit (if not the law) of Vatican II”. < “We” being the people making those sudden changes - that radically did change the culture of the Church in the eyes of some (hence a division between them and the people who love love LOVED the new improved Church of their imagination).
By their fruits you shall know them.
In my opinion many liberal (mis) applications of “the spirit of Vatican II” worked to the end of attractive modernist errors being favored over tried and true … but less attractive teachings and practices like sacrificing, reverence for the Eucharist, genuflections, kneeling, and the vertical worship reverence of the “old” mass.
Many of the changes I experienced in the 1960s as a young adult … and I either accepted the newness (if the Church said it was OK, it now WAS OK) … or I really LIKED it. We KIDS were taught the new songs … and now knew them better than the older Catholics that did not have them introduced to them at School. I do remember some older folks looking back at us singing in the choir loft with scowls. Either they thought it culturally irreverent, or felt alienated in not knowing ANY of the songs that punctuated the Mass … and so could not sing as they used to or …?
I personally DID lose, I must admit, a personal reverence for God as, bit by bit, worship became more and more casual than the Church that I’d KNELT in at a Communion rail waiting for the Priest with consecrated hands to bring me the body and blood of Christ while a quiet and reverent altar boy held a paten beneath my chin lest a BIT of the precious Eucharist be stupidly dropped per human clumsiness.
I sometimes meant well, on the other hand, in taking much license with adding songs to young adult retreat masses … that were clearly more secular than consecrated … like playing “Let it Be” as a liturgical substitution when Luke 1 was one of the readings.
That drew less negative comment (none at all) than when we played “America the Beautiful” one Veteran’s Day Sunday as an exit processional (where THAT was in the parish’s approved songs in our missal … and we DID know how to play it).
Like Francis, St. Paul spoke a warning or two about having needless Divisions in the Church. Paul, it must be noted, did not teach that one teaching was as worthy as another … but did confront other Church leaders at times. Mostly in those divisions, Paul used his authority to correct some disagreeing parties. At other times, when others objected to people not in his Church teaching about Jesus … Paul, like Moses before him, rejoiced that God (Jesus) was being taught by others elsewhere presumably not in OPPOSITION to the Church.
(continued)
By their fruits you shall know them.
In my opinion many liberal (mis) applications of “the spirit of Vatican II” worked to the end of attractive modernist errors being favored over tried and true … but less attractive teachings and practices like sacrificing, reverence for the Eucharist, genuflections, kneeling, and the vertical worship reverence of the “old” mass.
Many of the changes I experienced in the 1960s as a young adult … and I either accepted the newness (if the Church said it was OK, it now WAS OK) … or I really LIKED it. We KIDS were taught the new songs … and now knew them better than the older Catholics that did not have them introduced to them at School. I do remember some older folks looking back at us singing in the choir loft with scowls. Either they thought it culturally irreverent, or felt alienated in not knowing ANY of the songs that punctuated the Mass … and so could not sing as they used to or …?
I personally DID lose, I must admit, a personal reverence for God as, bit by bit, worship became more and more casual than the Church that I’d KNELT in at a Communion rail waiting for the Priest with consecrated hands to bring me the body and blood of Christ while a quiet and reverent altar boy held a paten beneath my chin lest a BIT of the precious Eucharist be stupidly dropped per human clumsiness.
I sometimes meant well, on the other hand, in taking much license with adding songs to young adult retreat masses … that were clearly more secular than consecrated … like playing “Let it Be” as a liturgical substitution when Luke 1 was one of the readings.
That drew less negative comment (none at all) than when we played “America the Beautiful” one Veteran’s Day Sunday as an exit processional (where THAT was in the parish’s approved songs in our missal … and we DID know how to play it).
Like Francis, St. Paul spoke a warning or two about having needless Divisions in the Church. Paul, it must be noted, did not teach that one teaching was as worthy as another … but did confront other Church leaders at times. Mostly in those divisions, Paul used his authority to correct some disagreeing parties. At other times, when others objected to people not in his Church teaching about Jesus … Paul, like Moses before him, rejoiced that God (Jesus) was being taught by others elsewhere presumably not in OPPOSITION to the Church.
(continued)
Last edited:
C
CaptFun
Guest
(continued)
Things DO change in the Church. Last Sunday’s FIRST reading recounted St. Peter ruling on “new” changes in the old kosher laws … in that case HE was instructed in a dream by an Angel … and reluctantly (per his emotions) obeyed and taught and settled the controversial divisions at that Council.
The FIRST communion ever distributed was at the Last Supper.
Those receiving it RECLINED at table. Details are scant, but presumably the apostles did not receive it kneeling at a communion rail with a reverently presented tongue (but likely took it in their hands).
That did not make MY first communion irreverent or wrong in any way.
But if I get too angry about others receiving in their hands instead of on the tongue … my focus’d be elsewhere than the Jesus I was receiving.
I remember one otherwise outstanding lay Church leader proclaiming loudly that he would not take communion from a woman. Just from the priest. As the Church was allowing women to be extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist … I was OK with that. And reasoned that the Eucharist did not lose its/(His) reality when distributed by a member of the body of Christ that was not a priest … but was deputized by that key bearing body.
I still think that the vertical emphasis of giving GOD focused worship for an hour … is a very good and less emphasized thing these days. And that another extension of
" … community-is-just-about-EQUAL-to-God
… so loving your neighbor
… with constant attention, hand-holding, hugs, and walking
… across aisles to hug <( mea culpa for these venial sins, I think)
… are just as good as devoting vertical reverence to the Lord alone
… during HIS hour of the week. < It’s NOT just as good. IMOpinion.
But beyond sharing my opinion FYI … I don’t plan to start a quarrel over it.
Things DO change in the Church. Last Sunday’s FIRST reading recounted St. Peter ruling on “new” changes in the old kosher laws … in that case HE was instructed in a dream by an Angel … and reluctantly (per his emotions) obeyed and taught and settled the controversial divisions at that Council.
The FIRST communion ever distributed was at the Last Supper.
Those receiving it RECLINED at table. Details are scant, but presumably the apostles did not receive it kneeling at a communion rail with a reverently presented tongue (but likely took it in their hands).
That did not make MY first communion irreverent or wrong in any way.
But if I get too angry about others receiving in their hands instead of on the tongue … my focus’d be elsewhere than the Jesus I was receiving.
I remember one otherwise outstanding lay Church leader proclaiming loudly that he would not take communion from a woman. Just from the priest. As the Church was allowing women to be extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist … I was OK with that. And reasoned that the Eucharist did not lose its/(His) reality when distributed by a member of the body of Christ that was not a priest … but was deputized by that key bearing body.
I still think that the vertical emphasis of giving GOD focused worship for an hour … is a very good and less emphasized thing these days. And that another extension of
" … community-is-just-about-EQUAL-to-God
… so loving your neighbor
… with constant attention, hand-holding, hugs, and walking
… across aisles to hug <( mea culpa for these venial sins, I think)
… are just as good as devoting vertical reverence to the Lord alone
… during HIS hour of the week. < It’s NOT just as good. IMOpinion.
But beyond sharing my opinion FYI … I don’t plan to start a quarrel over it.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
That’s cool man. Not trying to quarrel.But beyond sharing my opinion FYI … I don’t plan to start a quarrel over it.
Emeraldlady
New member
“There are ideas, positions that create division, to the point that the division is more important than unity,” the pope said May 4. People think “my idea is more important than the Holy Spirit who guides us.”
It is so vital that in all things we never forget that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of unity and participating in division is in it’s own way a denial of the Holy Spirit. I find it requires a daily reorientation in Catholic discussions.
It is so vital that in all things we never forget that the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of unity and participating in division is in it’s own way a denial of the Holy Spirit. I find it requires a daily reorientation in Catholic discussions.
C
christofirst
Guest
Personally, I see a lot of acceptable leeway in how we live out our Catholic faith, ways which some might consider to be more liberal, and ways which others might consider to be more conservative, but all of them legitimate as long as they don’t go too far one way or the other. I think the problem arises when we take a “my way or the highway” approach to the legitimate ways of expressing our faith with which we happen to disagree.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Spirit ensures that the pendulum swings one way and then the other. For a time, we have a pope like Pope Benedict, and then we get a pope like Pope Francis. I try to receive and accept the teachings of each as well as I can in obedience, even when I personally prefer the style and emphasis of one over the other.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Spirit ensures that the pendulum swings one way and then the other. For a time, we have a pope like Pope Benedict, and then we get a pope like Pope Francis. I try to receive and accept the teachings of each as well as I can in obedience, even when I personally prefer the style and emphasis of one over the other.
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
says who? Just wanna know.
- Status