religious freedom

[A_Catholic]

Again, I know you are wrong. Some Protestants may think many things of Catholics but they do think we worship the one and only God.

If that’s so, then why do some of them calll us the Great Whore of Babylon? Many of them say that the AntiChrist will come out of the Catholic Church. Why are we equated with the Babylonian Mystery Religion? The sad fact is, though, that many Catholics today are basically Protestant in their way of thinking and outlook. So if Protestants are accepting Catholics more, maybe it’s because Catholics are becoming more and more like them. I was recently talking to a convert from the Episcopal Church, and he told me that the Novus Ordo Mass is basically the same as that in the Episcopal church. Take it for what it’s worth.

As to the heretic question, the CCC defines heretic as such:

“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.” [CCC 2089]

Obviously, Luther and other Protestant fathers were heretics according to this definition, as they had been Catholic and had rejected Church teachings. Therefore, the Protestant religion was the result of heresy and is heretical in its teachings. Certainly Protestants born into the faith are not technically heretics because they did not reject the Catholic church. However, they are still cut off from the graces of the Catholic church, and salvation is not possible from Protestant teachings. That is not to say they are automatically lost - God’s mercy is endless. But no one can find salvation in Protestant teachings because first and foremost, they reject the Eucharist.

 

[JReducation]

Language barrier or not, what on earth is there to understand?

Protestantism was error then and it is still error now. Protestants are no longer heretic for sure but they are in ERROR.

Isn’t that obvious? I think the good leaders of the church are confusing ERROR with HERETIC and assuming that since they are no longer HERETICS they are no longer in error.

Not confused at all. The Church’s leadership is trying help the laity, which is confused. Since the explosion of the Internet, people have greater access to free literature. This has been a blessing and a curse. The blessing of course is the availability of knowledge. The curse is that people are reading without the benefit of a teacher to explain what they read. Very often, people generalize what is not meant to be generalized. Many people interpret certain things very literally, without factoring in historical context. Other people simply blow things off, because it’s not an Ex Cathedra decree as if everything that Catholics believe came from Ex Cathedra decrees. If we were to put every Ex Cathedra decree into a book, we would walk away with a books smaller than the Baltimore Catechism. Most of what we believe has never been declared Ex Cathedra, but it’s part of our Catholic tradition.

In light of these many difficulties that the laity often has with these words and documents, the Church is trying to say that there is error, inside and outside of the Church. However, not every error is heresy and not every person in error is a heretic. The Church is not denying the existence of error. She’s trying to get the Catholic laity to tone down the rhetoric.

Pope Paul VI said it best. “We have been using the same words for 500 years. Where is the success?”

When you use words incorrectly or out of arrogance, there is little chance for success. Human beings tends to use labels both ways, either to get back at someone because we’re angry or because we feel superior to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

Not confused at all. The Church’s leadership is trying help the laity, which is confused. Since the explosion of the Internet, people have greater access to free literature. This has been a blessing and a curse. The blessing of course is the availability of knowledge. The curse is that people are reading without the benefit of a teacher to explain what they read. Very often, people generalize what is not meant to be generalized. Many people interpret certain things very literally, without factoring in historical context. Other people simply blow things off, because it’s not an Ex Cathedra decree as if everything that Catholics believe came from Ex Cathedra decrees. If we were to put every Ex Cathedra decree into a book, we would walk away with a books smaller than the Baltimore Catechism. Most of what we believe has never been declared Ex Cathedra, but it’s part of our Catholic tradition.

In light of these many difficulties that the laity often has with these words and documents, the Church is trying to say that there is error, inside and outside of the Church. However, not every error is heresy and not every person in error is a heretic. The Church is not denying the existence of error. She’s trying to get the Catholic laity to tone down the rhetoric.

Pope Paul VI said it best. "We have been using the same words for 500 years. Where is the success?"

When you use words incorrectly or out of arrogance, there is little chance for success. Human beings tends to use labels both ways, either to get back at someone because we’re angry or because we feel superior to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well first, while we are on the topic of success, I would say we have reached a new level of failure with these new policies in 50 years. We have mass exodus of young Catholics in to Protestantism, rampant Atheism and Indifferentism. So I wouldn’t exactly call the new church policies “Success”.

At least back in the day for 500 years, we knew what to believe and protected our faith like it was our life and we were catechized at a young age.

Secondly, there is no teaching errors inside of the church. I am not sure what you are trying to say there. There are errors in the church as in errors with the beliefs of clergy and hierarchy perhaps but NOT in the teachings.

When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, or called to repentance and said stuff like ‘either you believe in me or you have no salvation’, do you think he was being too arrogant and helping no one?

So I honestly think there is mass confusion. We seem to like to tell each other everything is ok when we know that the others are in error. I agree that the right thing to do is not to take pride in ourselves. BUT, the right thing to do is also not to say that we both have errors or that we don’t understand if you are in error or not.

The right thing to do, as we do with our children or in any other academic field, is to correct the errors.

If you have the guts to tell fellow Catholics who disagree with your policies that they are in error, why not do that to non-Catholics who are ACTUALLY in serious error?

 

[JReducation]

Well first, while we are on the topic of success, I would say we have reached a new level of failure with these new policies in 50 years. We have mass exodus of young Catholics in to Protestantism, rampant Atheism and Indifferentism. So I wouldn’t exactly call the new church policies “Success”.

At least back in the day for 500 years, we knew what to believe and protected our faith like it was our life and we were catechized at a young age.

Secondly, there is no teaching errors inside of the church. I am not sure what you are trying to say there. There are errors in the church as in errors with the beliefs of clergy and hierarchy perhaps but NOT in the teachings.

When Jesus condemned the Pharisees, or called to repentance and said stuff like ‘either you believe in me or you have no salvation’, do you think he was being too arrogant and helping no one?

So I honestly think there is mass confusion. We seem to like to tell each other everything is ok when we know that the others are in error. I agree that the right thing to do is not to take pride in ourselves. BUT, the right thing to do is also not to say that we both have errors or that we don’t understand if you are in error or not.

The right thing to do, as we do with our children or in any other academic field, is to correct the errors.

If you have the guts to tell fellow Catholics who disagree with your policies that they are in error, why not do that to non-Catholics who are ACTUALLY in serious error?

Let’s take this in small steps.

First, yes there are errors in the Church. They’re not doctrinal or moral errors. They are errors in how we have dealt with Protestantism and people of other faiths. What the popes are saying is that if we look at the Reformation, there were errors on both sides. They are not limiting error to doctrines and morals. They are also looking at other errors that were committed by both sides. Some of these are still being repeated by both sides. They keep people apart and create mistrust. Without trust, you will never have dialogue.

Second, the number of Catholics departing to join Protestant communities is not as high as people make it sound. The truth is that the number of people leaving religion, of any denomination is reaching critical levels. Look at Europe.

Third, the fact is that we need to improve our catechesis. You won’t get any argument from the popes on that. What they want to see included in catechesis is both doctrinal and moral truth and a proper understanding of language such as error and heresy so that today’s generation does not make the same mistakes as the previous generation. The previous generation defended its faith as life itself. That was good. Everyone certainly wants to see this fidelity continue. At the same time, the Church wants Catholics to be the first to take the humble road and back off on the rhetoric… Obviously, the Church cannot command other people to back off on the rhetoric. I’m sure the Vatican wishes that it could do so; but it only has authority over Catholics.

Fourth, the Church sees herself bring others home through dialogue, not through confrontation. This is a matter of approach. Each papacy has its own approach. The rest of us have to go along with it. We don’t have the authority to tell the papacy what its approach should be. As we know, some approaches may work and others do not. But they are all tried in good faith. At the end of the day, God is going to judge the Church, not on its success, but on its fidelity. It may give the appearance that such an approach does not work, but we have to take a closer look.

Last night I was watching a DVD about the Brothers of the Poor. They are a community of religious brothers, very much like Mother Teresa’s Missioanry of Charity Sisters and Missionary of Charity Brothers. What is interesting about all three communities is their incredible growth in a short period of time. Most of their religious are converts from paganism. They don’t make it their job to go out preaching with bible and catechism. Their apostolate is to bring Christ to the poorest of the poor. However, their fidelity and their adherence to the Gospel has moved thousands of men and women to convert and to join them. They are the fastest growing regiligious congregations in the Church with a median age of 31. You have the Franciscans. We are the largest growing religious family in the world with 1.7 million men and women. The median age is 42. Most Franciscans do simply live among the poor and preach to those who ask. The result has been a growing number of men and women converting and joining these religious families either as religious or as lay associates. Others may not even become lay associates, but remain very close and supportive of the work of these communities. In NYC alone, the Franciscans of the Renewal are number almost 200 men and women in a few short years. The newest reports about WYDs is showing a large number of young men and women entering the priesthood, brotherhood and sisterhood who say that they began to discern a vocation at WYD.

We should be very careful in our assessments of the present, because there is a lot going on that we don’t see and that we’re not told about unless we ask. Unfortunately, the bad stuff gets out very fast and the good stuff rarely reaches us.

Are there problems? Yes. Is there more to do? Heck yeah. Are we dead in the water? No way. We have to try a different approach, what we tried in the past did not bring the Protestants home, did not endear the Orthodox and certain made a lot of enemies among non Christians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

Let’s take this in small steps.

First, yes there are errors in the Church. They’re not doctrinal or moral errors. They are errors in how we have dealt with Protestantism and people of other faiths. What the popes are saying is that if we look at the Reformation, there were errors on both sides. They are not limiting error to doctrines and morals. They are also looking at other errors that were committed by both sides. Some of these are still being repeated by both sides. They keep people apart and create mistrust. Without trust, you will never have dialogue.

Second, the number of Catholics departing to join Protestant communities is not as high as people make it sound. The truth is that the number of people leaving religion, of any denomination is reaching critical levels. Look at Europe.

Third, the fact is that we need to improve our catechesis. You won’t get any argument from the popes on that. What they want to see included in catechesis is both doctrinal and moral truth and a proper understanding of language such as error and heresy so that today’s generation does not make the same mistakes as the previous generation. The previous generation defended its faith as life itself. That was good. Everyone certainly wants to see this fidelity continue. At the same time, the Church wants Catholics to be the first to take the humble road and back off on the rhetoric… Obviously, the Church cannot command other people to back off on the rhetoric. I’m sure the Vatican wishes that it could do so; but it only has authority over Catholics.

Fourth, the Church sees herself bring others home through dialogue, not through confrontation. This is a matter of approach. Each papacy has its own approach. The rest of us have to go along with it. We don’t have the authority to tell the papacy what its approach should be. As we know, some approaches may work and others do not. But they are all tried in good faith. At the end of the day, God is going to judge the Church, not on its success, but on its fidelity. It may give the appearance that such an approach does not work, but we have to take a closer look.

Last night I was watching a DVD about the Brothers of the Poor. They are a community of religious brothers, very much like Mother Teresa’s Missioanry of Charity Sisters and Missionary of Charity Brothers. What is interesting about all three communities is their incredible growth in a short period of time. Most of their religious are converts from paganism. They don’t make it their job to go out preaching with bible and catechism. Their apostolate is to bring Christ to the poorest of the poor. However, their fidelity and their adherence to the Gospel has moved thousands of men and women to convert and to join them. They are the fastest growing regiligious congregations in the Church with a median age of 31. You have the Franciscans. We are the largest growing religious family in the world with 1.7 million men and women. The median age is 42. Most Franciscans do simply live among the poor and preach to those who ask. The result has been a growing number of men and women converting and joining these religious families either as religious or as lay associates. Others may not even become lay associates, but remain very close and supportive of the work of these communities. In NYC alone, the Franciscans of the Renewal are number almost 200 men and women in a few short years. The newest reports about WYDs is showing a large number of young men and women entering the priesthood, brotherhood and sisterhood who say that they began to discern a vocation at WYD.

We should be very careful in our assessments of the present, because there is a lot going on that we don’t see and that we’re not told about unless we ask. Unfortunately, the bad stuff gets out very fast and the good stuff rarely reaches us.

Are there problems? Yes. Is there more to do? Heck yeah. Are we dead in the water? No way. We have to try a different approach, what we tried in the past did not bring the Protestants home, did not endear the Orthodox and certain made a lot of enemies among non Christians.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think I agree with you that confrontation in the sense of calling each other heretic does not work. That much I agree.

But when the church talks about dialogue today, it goes beyond that. To give you an example, I am currently studying the changes to the Liturgy that will take place shortly in English speaking countries. I read in the Eucharistic prayer section that they reduced the number of saints mentioned in all the prayers except Eucharistic Prayer #1 “in the name of Ecumenism”.

That kind of stuff I find unacceptable.

Then I read the report by the congregation on Ecumenism given on the Vatican website and it highlights “Excess Marian devotion” as an obstacle to Ecumenism. I honestly find that a bit offensive but regardless, that is not something I expected to see on a Vatican site.

Then there are all these “lets worship together with Protestants” abuse. Some of course are legitimate. But its come to the point where priests want to blur the lines. I have heard some say before communion that it is only a matter of time before we let all the others take part in communion etc.

That I fear is not dialogue.

To me, it seems like the church decided to do everything Mortalium Animos warned against when pursuing Ecumenism. And now we are reaping the exact fruits mentioned in it. Of course, doing what Mortalium Animos warned against is not false teaching or a contradiction with a teaching, but someone or some group of leaders thought they knew better than the document and decided to go ahead and pursue those tactics. Now it seems that the warnings have been realized.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[JReducation]

Our Rev. Mother St. Clare once told Francis that Catholics were the worse Christians in the world, because they knew. In modern English, they know better and still act like dodo birds. She was a very interesting woman. She obeyed the Church blindly. She was very gentle toward non-Catholics; but she never gave the Catholic laity a pass. It got her canonized in less than a year. I think that Pope Alexander IV feared that she would zap him from heaven or something. I bring her up, because I think that she has the answers to your points.

The statement about the Marian devotions is not a new one. Clare made this same statement in the year 1235 or so. She was not opposed to Marian devotions. She was very concerned about the wording that the laity used when speaking about Mary, because it was not theologically correct. It was very heavy on feelings and sentiments. She felt strongly that this language needed to be corrected, because it communicated ideas that the Church has never believed or taught. At the time, there was a lot of dialogue about the Immaculate Conception. The Franciscans defended it. What turned people off, especially Aquinas, was the way that the faithful explained it. It sounded as if they were making Mary equal to Christ. Clare was wise enough to see this. She pointed it out to the Franciscan Friars and asked them to do something about it. Bl. John Scotus tried to do so by simplifying it the language. This is what this document is trying to say. It’s certainly not trying to abolish Marian cult. It’s trying to tell bishops that they have to catechize their people. We’re not doing a good job at this. As a result, some simply blow Mary off and others extol her to a point that it sounds like idolatry.

The reduction of the number of saints in the Eucharistic prayers had less to do with ecumenism and much more to do with religious life. As you know, about 40% of all priests belong to religious communities. One of the complaints that the Church has received by religious communities is that the saints of these communities are not represented in the Eucharistic prayers or in the official form of the Litany of the Saints used in liturgy. Instead of having so many versions of the Eucharistic prayers that it becomes chaotic, it is better to write them in a way that fits everyone.

There is a difference between worshipping together and praying together. There should be no common liturgical act with non-Catholics. However, there is nothing wrong with praying with non-Catholics. I think the problem of the late 20th century is evolution of culture. Not only inside the Church, but in society as a whole, we adopted an attitude of indifferentism. Just look at the sexual revolution. It’s all about indifferentism.

As far as Mortalium Animus, that’s a rather interesting and complex subject. There seems to be a “movement” (notice quotation marks) to handcuff popes. This was not the intent of previous popes when they wrote. A pope is always free to look at something written by his predecessors and pick out what still applies and set aside what does not apply. Continuity means that we preserve tradition; but continuity is different from stagnation. It does not mean that you forget that there is such a thing as historical context. If the context remains the same, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. If there are changes in the world, you adjust your approach and your wording to the context, while trying to achieve the same objective. In other words, the objective or the mission of the Church, must never change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[aquinasg]

Don’t misunderstand me. The Church does address this person and always has. We see these people addressed by people such as Francis, Eugene de Maserat, Alphonse de Ligouri, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict.

There is no specific law that says, “These people over here [insert comment]”. The reason is that these folks have been addressed in Catholic Spiiritual Theology. They should be addressed continuously through catechesis and spiritual direction.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What did Francis, Eugene de Maserat, Alphonse de Ligouri, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila define those born into “heretical sects” as??

 

[passer_by]

Our Rev. Mother St. Clare once told Francis that Catholics were the worse Christians in the world, because they knew. In modern English, they know better and still act like dodo birds. She was a very interesting woman. She obeyed the Church blindly. She was very gentle toward non-Catholics; but she never gave the Catholic laity a pass. It got her canonized in less than a year. I think that Pope Alexander IV feared that she would zap him from heaven or something. I bring her up, because I think that she has the answers to your points.

The statement about the Marian devotions is not a new one. Clare made this same statement in the year 1235 or so. She was not opposed to Marian devotions. She was very concerned about the wording that the laity used when speaking about Mary, because it was not theologically correct. It was very heavy on feelings and sentiments. She felt strongly that this language needed to be corrected, because it communicated ideas that the Church has never believed or taught. At the time, there was a lot of dialogue about the Immaculate Conception. The Franciscans defended it. What turned people off, especially Aquinas, was the way that the faithful explained it. It sounded as if they were making Mary equal to Christ. Clare was wise enough to see this. She pointed it out to the Franciscan Friars and asked them to do something about it. Bl. John Scotus tried to do so by simplifying it the language. This is what this document is trying to say. It’s certainly not trying to abolish Marian cult. It’s trying to tell bishops that they have to catechize their people. We’re not doing a good job at this. As a result, some simply blow Mary off and others extol her to a point that it sounds like idolatry.

I think you are missing the point here.

The problem is not IDOLATRY or that the people are theologically incorrect. It is just that they have excess Marian devotions. Note, it does not say “Incorrect Marian devotions”.

The reduction of the number of saints in the Eucharistic prayers had less to do with ecumenism and much more to do with religious life. As you know, about 40% of all priests belong to religious communities. One of the complaints that the Church has received by religious communities is that the saints of these communities are not represented in the Eucharistic prayers or in the official form of the Litany of the Saints used in liturgy. Instead of having so many versions of the Eucharistic prayers that it becomes chaotic, it is better to write them in a way that fits everyone.

That is honestly not what it says in this book by Paul Turner called “At the supper of the Lamb”. It clearly states that it was done for Ecumenical reasons.

So to me, it looks like the Catholic Church wants to start removing things in her traditions that are uncomfortable to Protestants to try and make them come to the church. I don’t think that is an acceptable way of pursuing it.

There is a difference between worshipping together and praying together. There should be no common liturgical act with non-Catholics. However, there is nothing wrong with praying with non-Catholics. I think the problem of the late 20th century is evolution of culture. Not only inside the Church, but in society as a whole, we adopted an attitude of indifferentism. Just look at the sexual revolution. It’s all about indifferentism.

Of course. Right now some of the statements made in the name of Ecumenism seem to fall right in line with Indifferentism. This is why I feel that the church has taken a questionable route on policy.

As far as Mortalium Animus, that’s a rather interesting and complex subject. There seems to be a “movement” (notice quotation marks) to handcuff popes. This was not the intent of previous popes when they wrote. A pope is always free to look at something written by his predecessors and pick out what still applies and set aside what does not apply. Continuity means that we preserve tradition; but continuity is different from stagnation. It does not mean that you forget that there is such a thing as historical context. If the context remains the same, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. If there are changes in the world, you adjust your approach and your wording to the context, while trying to achieve the same objective. In other words, the objective or the mission of the Church, must never change.

I think you misunderstand. I am not claiming that the Pope contradicted teachings of Mortalium Animos. I think that would be more of a SSPX claim.

No, on the other hand, I claim something much simpler.

The warnings of Mortalium Animos were simply superseded (as could be done by consequent Popes and leaders) assuming that now these warnings did not apply. But what do you know, we see the very effects of that which was warned against in that encyclical.

So all I am saying is that, the church might have made a grave mistake in not heeding the warnings of that encyclical. Some good will of course come out of it as God will bring about good from everything. But the church right now is not in a good shape. Sexual Revolution might have contributed its share. But the Church didn’t help it-self by adopting these policies either which lead to modernism and indifferentism WITHIN the church today.

You have to admit, when priest start being indifferent and act like Catholicism is just another religion in the vast space of religions and there is no way to know for sure whose right, things have started to get out of hand.

 

[severus68]

Yep. As an ex Protestant who for some years was quite anti-Catholic, you speak the truth, Sir.

And by anti-Catholic, I actually prayed for Catholics. In fact, I agonized over the soul of Catholics and rejoiced when one became “saved.”

Later on I became more liberal, but when I did believe Catholics added man-made things to Christianity, never once did I think Catholics worshiped the God of the River Styx or anything like that.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[severus68]

Catholic;8494923]If that’s so, then why do some of them calll us the Great Whore of Babylon? Many of them say that the AntiChrist will come out of the Catholic Church. Why are we equated with the Babylonian Mystery Religion? The sad fact is, though, that many Catholics today are basically Protestant in their way of thinking and outlook. So if Protestants are accepting Catholics more, maybe it’s because Catholics are becoming more and more like them. I was recently talking to a convert from the Episcopal Church, and he told me that the Novus Ordo Mass is basically the same as that in the Episcopal church. Take it for what it’s worth.

As to the heretic question, the CCC defines heretic as such:

It is a few of them who say the Pope is the AntiChrist etc. Today, these are usually to be found within some evangelical “Christians”. There is a church founded by a crazy man in the US. I have watched his ddaughter say happily that they hate Jews, Blacks, Scandanavians and of course Catholics. I say ‘crazy’ as I think their thinking is so warped that it is lunacy.

Please do not go to the ‘Catholics becoming more Protestant’ thing. The proper term is the OF or Ordinary Form, I believe.

The Episcopal Church is basically the Church of England outside the UK. When Henry IV founded the C of E, he was angry with the Pope for not annuling his marriage to Katherine of Aragon. So his was basically a personal reason and not a dogmatic reason for breaking away. There were other developments later of course. I am told that Catholic monks were asked to compile the King James version of the bible.

In the Anglican Church, they have the high church and the low church. High church services would appear very familiar to us. Some Anglicans also believe in the realPresense in the Eucharist.

I have only set out a few bits. If I am wrong in any way, perhaps Brother Jr could do the corrections.

 

[JReducation]

I think you are missing the point here.

The problem is not IDOLATRY or that the people are theologically incorrect. It is just that they have excess Marian devotions. Note, it does not say “Incorrect Marian devotions”.

One would have to ask what is excess and to whom are they referring. Because there really are not that many Marian devotions or that many Marian Holy Days.

My interpretation of this statement is that they’re talking about excesses, but not in the number, but in the quality.

That is honestly not what it says in this book by Paul Turner called “At the supper of the Lamb”. It clearly states that it was done for Ecumenical reasons.

I read that too; but I believe that he is mistaken. I have also read the questions by General Chapters concerning this point.

So to me, it looks like the Catholic Church wants to start removing things in her traditions that are uncomfortable to Protestants to try and make them come to the church. I don’t think that is an acceptable way of pursuing it.

There are barriers that we can remove and there are other elements that should be left alone, because they’re part of our spiritual life as Catholics. The process of discerning what can go and what should stay is a delicate one. I certainly don’t want to be the person in charge of this. Would you?

Of course. Right now some of the statements made in the name of Ecumenism seem to fall right in line with Indifferentism. This is why I feel that the church has taken a questionable route on policy.

I think some of the interpretations give to them are reactionary too. That is not to say that there is never room for improving how we say things. The Church has been human since day one. There have always been bloopers, things that could have been said differently. But there are also many reactions too. I think this is why I joined the Franciscan family. One of the attractions, for me, was that Franciscans always take what the Church says and try their best to help people understand where the Church is going with these statements rather than react in horror to these statements. We are always reminded by Francis’ own teaching that our place is not to react, but to understand and help others understand. There is no room for reaction in our lives, because reaction is a movement of the enemy. Watch the friars on EWTN or friars such as Benedict G and Andrew Apostoli. They never react. They explain. “This is for this reason” or “This means this”, etc.

So all I am saying is that, the church might have made a grave mistake in not heeding the warnings of that encyclical. Some good will of course come out of it as God will bring about good from everything. But the church right now is not in a good shape. Sexual Revolution might have contributed its share. But the Church didn’t help it-self by adopting these policies either which lead to modernism and indifferentism WITHIN the church today.

We have to be very careful. A lot has been attributed to the Church, which was not the Church, but individuals and different schools of thought.

You have to admit, when priest start being indifferent and act like Catholicism is just another religion in the vast space of religions and there is no way to know for sure whose right, things have started to get out of hand.

I have never seen this. I have seen people just give up and say, “We can’t do anything about it,” but that’s another kind of indifferentism. By the way, I disagree with this statement. We can do something about it, but we must proceed gently and with great discernment. I think we need to take lessons from someone like Mother Teresa. Mother always said that you can’t teach about God unless you first take care of people’s temporal needs. She said that you first evangelize by your example.

If you look at these sisters, you will find that the poor always come around to asking the sisters about their faith. We have a tendency to try to skip the first step. We want to jump right into the catechism.

I run a program for fathers in crisis pregnancies. Most of my dads are very poor and non-Catholic. We provide education, material assistance, counseling and we promise these dads that we will walk with them. They don’t have to be afraid of fatherhood. They can embrace it instead of aborting their babies. I always get the same question. “What’s a brother?”

When they ask that question, that’s when I know that they are ready and willing to listen to Catholicism. We have five centers and we have found that they prefer the brothers over the lay volunteers. It’s not that the brothers are better at what we do. Our lay volunteers are nurses, doctors, social workers, teachers and other professionals. At times, they are too eager. They push. The brothers, on the other hand, go in with Francis’ command in mind, “Preach always, but only when necessary use words,” and “Let your walking do your talking,” or “Avoid all forms of arguments” and “Go. Be of service to all and let God do what he will.” The brothers begin evangelization from the beginning, through poverty, obedience, charity and brotherhood. Some of our lay volunteers have no asked us to teach them what they call “the brothers’ secret”. They’re finally figuring out that evangelization through fire and brimstone does not work. The effect wares off. Evangelization through witness leaves an impressioin and triggers questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

One would have to ask what is excess and to whom are they referring. Because there really are not that many Marian devotions or that many Marian Holy Days.

My interpretation of this statement is that they’re talking about excesses, but not in the number, but in the quality.

They are talking about countries that actually still have their Marian devotions strongly unlike in the West.

I read that too; but I believe that he is mistaken. I have also read the questions by General Chapters concerning this point.

Well, you have to see where I am coming from. I see the church today, its policies, and stuff about Marian devotions, it seems to fit that they would take away the saints from the Euch. prayers for ecumenical reasons.

Please let me know if you find out otherwise.

There are barriers that we can remove and there are other elements that should be left alone, because they’re part of our spiritual life as Catholics. The process of discerning what can go and what should stay is a delicate one. I certainly don’t want to be the person in charge of this. Would you?

I do not want to be in charge of it. But I do feel strongly when I see someone else do it incorrectly.

I think some of the interpretations give to them are reactionary too. That is not to say that there is never room for improving how we say things. The Church has been human since day one. There have always been bloopers, things that could have been said differently. But there are also many reactions too. I think this is why I joined the Franciscan family. … There is no room for reaction in our lives, because reaction is a movement of the enemy. Watch the friars on EWTN or friars such as Benedict G and Andrew Apostoli. They never react. They explain. “This is for this reason” or “This means this”, etc.

I understand. But what am I suppossed to do when I clearly see the horrors? Do I react? Or do I pretend that it doesn’t exist?

We have to be very careful. A lot has been attributed to the Church, which was not the Church, but individuals and different schools of thought.

Definitely. I think my wording as “The Church” was a bit off.

I have never seen this. I have seen people just give up and say, “We can’t do anything about it,” but that’s another kind of indifferentism. By the way, I disagree with this statement. We can do something about it, but we must proceed gently and with great discernment. I think we need to take lessons from someone like Mother Teresa. Mother always said that you can’t teach about God unless you first take care of people’s temporal needs. She said that you first evangelize by your example.
…Be of service to all and let God do what he will." The brothers begin evangelization from the beginning, through poverty, obedience, charity and brotherhood. Some of our lay volunteers have no asked us to teach them what they call “the brothers’ secret”. They’re finally figuring out that evangelization through fire and brimstone does not work. The effect wares off. Evangelization through witness leaves an impressioin and tiggers questions.

I think what you say will work in a country where people need something from you. Then you get their attention.
But what about in the West where most people are very well off financially? People in the West don’t think they need ones help. They are all ready to take life on their own based on ideas of individualism. They feel hesitant to even ask their own parents for help.

So how does this method of charity work over there?

Even Atheist/Protestants/Muslims are very self sufficient materially. How do you suggest we approach them?

I think the problem here is that some in their personal opinions create a false dilemma. They think its either through example of charity or by confrontation. But there is a middle path. One can simply engage in dialogue. No need to make concessions in teaching or anything. Just have dialogue.

This is what many saints had. Why can’t we do this too?

So in my view, I see those who are good at dialogue and well versed in Church teaching, engage in the dialogue process. I see others praying for this dialogue to be successful.

What I disagree with it is trying to walk on a tight rope of having events of public worship together as a norm, trying to evangelize together with Protestants, collecting funds to help out a Protestant parish, Mosque or a Buddhist temple build another expansion etc. I also very much disagree with loosing our identity as Catholics for the sake of Ecumenism. I want the church to emphasize the importance of saints and the blessed Virgin Mother and not try to slide it under the Carpet for the sake of Ecumenism. I wish the church would keep its traditional forms of worship like novenas for an example. In the West, it seems like there are no novenas. The Parish feast is like any other ordinary day. Sometimes the parish priests forgets about it.

You have to see my concern. Its not that I hate the church. I just love it as you do. It gave me everything I hold dear. But now I am seeing it taken down and destroyed bit by bit from the inside. Then I see that there was warnings about it in Encyclicals like Mortalium Animos. I just wish the church would stop trying to be ecumenical all the time and first rebuild it-self for once. We are reaching out to others to join us while our own young are falling apart.

What happens in the West will soon be adopted by us. That fears me the most.

 

[JReducation]

I’m certainly not blind to the weariness in the Church and to the many details that need to be addressed. However, I am a Franciscan. It would be a very serious mortal sin for me to react to any of this. That is precisely what Francis condemned and ordered his friars, sisters and lay followers not to do. The command was very simple. He made it simple so that we could teach to you and anyone else who wants to learn it.

The command is to try to understand and help others to understand, to trust the Church, especially the pope and help others to do the same, to focus on living the Gospel. If we did these things, he promised us that the Holy Spirit would do the rest. I have to say that this has been our experience. We’ve been around for 800 years and still going strong. We have had crises in the order during that 800 years. The worse was clericalization, when the priests took over. We got past that too. We’re back to an order of brothers where the distinctions between the ordained and those who are not ordained is non-existent until it’s time for mass. Even then, there are few distinctions. We got past the Reformation with very few Franciscans yielding to the heretic reformers. We survived Nazism, Communism and now Americanism. We even survived the sexual abuse scandals with less cases than any other religious family in active ministry. I believe the number was less than 20 cases in 1.7 million Franciscan men and women. None of these sins should have ever happened; but we can’t change history. We can only change the present and hope for the future.

I will tell you this, the point that I made about the centers and the brothers is not a foreign point. I’m speaking about the USA. This is just my house. Ask the Friars of the Renewal what’s happening in NY. Ask the Friars of the Eternal Word what’s happening through EWTN. Ask the Friars of the Immaculate what’s happening in their oratories, the Observant Franciscans what’s happening in Israel and among the Muslims, or the Capuchin Franciscans what’s happening among the immigrants and urban poor, the Third Order Regular Franciscans what’s happening at their colleges and you’ll find the same reports. The question is always the same, “What’s a friar?” From there, things take off.

The same report is coming in from the Brothers of the Poor, the Missionaries of Charity, the Poor Clares, the Benedictines, Opus Dei and many other groups, religious and secular that evangelizes through presence.

I have a very good friend who is a secular priest who runs a parish that has a church with capacity for 800 people. His parish has seven masses every weekend, all filled to capacity. He has a religious education program with 600 kids, a teen program with over 300 hundred and a young adult program with about 100. He has 39 ministries in one parish. They had a debt of 20 million that they brought down to 7 million in five years. Their Life Teen group has Eucharistic adoration every Thursday with over 100 teens. Their Life Teen group provides about $1500.00 of support to one of our centers every semester and it runs a food pantry that serves about 50 families per week.

In three months, 12 men have joined me in serving the fathers of the unborn. These men volunteer one day a week at a pregnancy center. They also attend theology classes every Monday night from 7:30 to 9:30 PM. They pray the Liturgy of the Hours twice a day. They have great devotion to the Blessed Mother. They work with non-Catholics and fallen away Catholics. They don’t beat them over the head with a catechism. As I said, at first they were not well accepted by the dads. When they finally asked one of our brothers, “What are we doing wrong?” The young brother said, “It’s not what you’re doing wrong, it’s that you’re not Franciscan enough. Try it our way and you’ll see the difference.” That’s how they came to ask to go through part of the formation program with the brothers. The brothers have formation every day and these men can’t do that. They have families. But they attend class on Mondays.

I have never approached anyone and tried to convert them. Yet, I have had many wonderful conversations with non-Catholics and have had many come back and ask for more. When I go among non Catholics and they ask me why I’m there, I simply respond as did Joseph in the OT, “I’m your brother.” I go everywhere in my habit, except to the local SSPX chapel, because it bothers them. I go there in a Roma collar. The idea is to be a brother to all, not a pain in the neck to people.

What’s my point? My point is that we can take a dim view of things and or we can do something by changing our approach. We don’t have to sacrifice our Catholicism. We have to be willing to try something different always keeping in mind that religious freedom is paramount. Human beings must come to the faith of their free will. God does not impose himself on man. He invites man to come to him. Man must see him present in order to do this. That’s where you and I enter the picture. As Mother Teresa always said, “It is we who take Christ to others. We are his hands and feet.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[passer_by]

I’m certainly not blind to the weariness in the Church and to the many details that need to be addressed. However, I am a Franciscan. It would be a very serious mortal sin for me to react to any of this. That is precisely what Francis condemned and ordered his friars, sisters and lay followers not to do. The command was very simple. He made it simple so that we could teach to you and anyone else who wants to learn it.

The command is to try to understand and help others to understand, to trust the Church, especially the pope and help others to do the same, to focus on living the Gospel. If we did these things, he promised us that the Holy Spirit would do the rest. I have to say that this has been our experience. We’ve been around for 800 years and still going strong. We have had crises in the order during that 800 years. The worse was clericalization, when the priests took over. We got past that too. We’re back to an order of brothers where the distinctions between the ordained and those who are not ordained is non-existent until it’s time for mass. Even then, there are few distinctions. We got past the Reformation with very few Franciscans yielding to the heretic reformers. We survived Nazism, Communism and now Americanism. We even survived the sexual abuse scandals with less cases than any other religious family in active ministry. I believe the number was less than 20 cases in 1.7 million Franciscan men and women. None of these sins should have ever happened; but we can’t change history. We can only change the present and hope for the future.

No I understand that there are poor in every country. What I am asking you is, what is your plan about the others? There are many who do not have to seek charity. It appears that there is a gap in the approach you say because these group of people are not addressed.

In the time of St. Francis, many were poor and even uneducated. But today, the world is different. People are educated and people are well off especially in the Western countries. How do you plan to get their attention?

As for trusting in the church, of course I trust in it. But what do you do when you see the policies do harm?

To be upfront, if you were alive during the time the church implemented policies to price indulgences, and you saw the damage it was doing, would you continue to agree with that specific policy till the church it-self abandoned it? If no-one were to voice concerns over the issue, do you think it would have changed?

Or are you saying that the objections and raising concern is upto someone other than the Franciscans? Because that I do understand. But surely, someone has to raise an objection? Is it not the duty of us Catholics to raise concern when we see the Church which we are also part of is having an incorrect policy?

I understand that teaching is of course not up for negotiation. Policy on the other hand should be because the church has demonstrated through its history that it doesn’t always take the best policies at a given time, right?

Even the logic of changing the ecumenical approach after VII, implicitly admits that the policy before was out-dated. If that were the case, couldn’t one reasonably say that the policy adopted in its place lead to the realization of the very warnings that were highlighted in Mortalium Animos?

I understand that the duties and vows you take have given you a limited scope of actions. But what about others? Are we to just sit back and wait? Don’t we have a responsibility to voice concern? If so, how do we voice concern?

Over all, there is also the issue of policy change of this sort leading to a sense of adopt any policy you like. A local clergy might decide that maybe ‘marrying’ same sex couples is the best pastoral policy since it keeps them in the church etc. Some might decide that allowing contraception as long as its not abortificant is good to keep young couples in the church. I can now see the Pope and Bishops condemning that but then I can also see that sometime in the future, it being allowed as a policy shift. Do you see what I mean?

 

[mrld20]

The Church considers protestants Christians due to them preserving baptism and marriage.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

The Church considers protestants Christians due to them preserving baptism and marriage.

Just to stir up the pot I’ll add the following.

Blessed Pope Pius IX had this to say concerning Protestantism in relation to Catholicism

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. (Sec. III Num. 18)

(NOTE: I am simply adding this as a response - not as an opinion. Interpret it as you see fit.)

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Disinherited]

Another thing Rence. If the Inquisition was reestablished today, no wait, it was never abolished. The Roman Inquisition is still active today and it is still run by the Pope. Anyway, what the Inquisition would do today the Church always did. The was Pope Pius X and he declared Modernism the synthesis of all heresies and if a Priest were to be found having modernist tendencies, he had to be excommunicated and declared a eretic. He wasn’t killed because the authorities at that dropped the practice of burning people for heresy and even in theocracies such as Spain they weren’t burnt or put to jail, just fired out of the Catholic Church. And guess what? People lef the Church LESS because of that, because they could see that their pastors and leaders were taking this faith thing seriously.

If the Inquisition was set up, there’d be much less hereitcs and modernists in the clergy and more purity of dctrine; consequently, there’d be more holiness in the people which today is so lacking in this world.

 

[JReducation]

Another thing Rence. If the Inquisition was reestablished today, no wait, it was never abolished. The Roman Inquisition is still active today and it is still run by the Pope. Anyway, what the Inquisition would do today the Church always did. The was Pope Pius X and he declared Modernism the synthesis of all heresies and if a Priest were to be found having modernist tendencies, he had to be excommunicated and declared a eretic. He wasn’t killed because the authorities at that dropped the practice of burning people for heresy and even in theocracies such as Spain they weren’t burnt or put to jail, just fired out of the Catholic Church. And guess what? People lef the Church LESS because of that, because they could see that their pastors and leaders were taking this faith thing seriously.

If the Inquisition was set up, there’d be much less hereitcs and modernists in the clergy and more purity of dctrine; consequently, there’d be more holiness in the people which today is so lacking in this world.

The Holy Office still exists. It simply has a different name, one that describes what it’s supposed to do, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Another thing Rence. If the Inquisition was reestablished today, no wait, it was never abolished. The Roman Inquisition is still active today and it is still run by the Pope. Anyway, what the Inquisition would do today the Church always did. The was Pope Pius X and he declared Modernism the synthesis of all heresies and if a Priest were to be found having modernist tendencies, he had to be excommunicated and declared a eretic. He wasn’t killed because the authorities at that dropped the practice of burning people for heresy and even in theocracies such as Spain they weren’t burnt or put to jail, just fired out of the Catholic Church. And guess what? People lef the Church LESS because of that, because they could see that their pastors and leaders were taking this faith thing seriously.

If the Inquisition was set up, there’d be much less hereitcs and modernists in the clergy and more purity of dctrine; consequently, there’d be more holiness in the people which today is so lacking in this world.

Just so I understand, you’re saying the Church would be stronger / better if we brought back burning “heretics?”

 

[aquinasg]

“Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. (Sec. III Num. 18)”

Where did Pius IX say that??