Sexual Molestation & the Liturgy

[bear06]

Jermosh:

Oh I know this. Satan is very powerfull and uses disguises all the time.
But my question is and its still unanswered. What kind of liturgical abuse would contend with Child rape/abuse? Again I am not trying to be sarcastic, but it just makes no sense to me.

I’m just going to take a guess at what Crusader meant in his original post when he said:

But just imagine if liturgical abuse received this level of concern! Without minimizing the horiffic effects of sexual molestation and rape, it could be argued that liturgical abuse is ever bit as pernitious (perhaps more so) to the Church.

Maybe he meant that there is far more liturgical abuse in our Church than sexual abuse. Remember, while still horrible, it is an incredibly small percentage of priests. Liturgical abuse runs rampant and could quite potentially be harming far, far more people. Just a guess.

My point is that liturgical abuse leads to many other sins for some it may even lead to sexual abuse. It’s quite a plausible theory that being subjected to repeated abuses to Our Lord would lead to other sins.

The fact is that all of the Church should be fighting both abuses with all of their might!

 

[Jermosh]

bear06:

Maybe he meant that there is far more liturgical abuse in our Church than sexual abuse. Remember, while still horrible, it is an incredibly small percentage of priests. Liturgical abuse runs rampant and could quite potentially be harming far, far more people. Just a guess.

My point is that liturgical abuse leads to many other sins for some it may even lead to sexual abuse. It’s quite a plausible theory that being subjected to repeated abuses to Our Lord would lead to other sins.

The fact is that all of the Church should be fighting both abuses with all of their might!

No I disagree. The point is, one is a obvios sin that has hurt the Church. It has shut down thriving parishes and took food out of poverty stricken children.
The other can be construed. If our bishops are allowing for these abuses then it is what it is suppose to be. Either we believe that our leaders will not show us to error or we do not. St Paul says that our leaders are appointed and run by God, and that we must honor what they say or do. God is in control, His Will is ruling the Church. If you believe in that, then how can anyone fret over something as a liturgical abuse. Have faith in our Lord and who he placed in power.
Now this is not saying that we should trust them for things other then Faith or Morals. I personly do not trust them at all excpet on cases of Faith and Morals.

 

[bear06]

Jermosh:

No I disagree. The point is, one is a obvios sin that has hurt the Church. It has shut down thriving parishes and took food out of poverty stricken children.
The other can be construed. If our bishops are allowing for these abuses then it is what it is suppose to be. Either we believe that our leaders will not show us to error or we do not. St Paul says that our leaders are appointed and run by God, and that we must honor what they say or do. God is in control, His Will is ruling the Church. If you believe in that, then how can anyone fret over something as a liturgical abuse. Have faith in our Lord and who he placed in power.
Now this is not saying that we should trust them for things other then Faith or Morals. I personly do not trust them at all excpet on cases of Faith and Morals.

Bishops are only infallible in the area of Faith and Morals as far as they are in union with Rome. That is as far as we have to follow them IN THIS AREA. If they are committing a liturgical abuse or allowing a liturgical abuse against the Pope’s teachings then it is not Ordinary Magisterium. They are not in union with Rome. So basically, we don’t have to trust them in areas of Faith and Morals UNLESS THEY ARE IN UNION WITH ROME! There are quite obvious sins in the abuses in the liturgy as shown here.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

The Holy Father seemed to think it important to fret over liturgical abuses.

 

[albert_cipriani]

bear06:

Just as an aside. how upsetting is it to you that a saint has been canonized that said the Novus Ordo? I’m sure they’ll be more of these to come.

Bogus caonizations are not upsetting in that the canonization of saints does not exercise the Church’s infallible charism. Since canonization is a conclusion dependant upon fallible facts, i.e., since it’s only infallible in so far as its facts are infallible, cannonizations are not infallible.

No doubt the canonization process is even more fallible today, what with this pope’s elimination of the devil’s advocate and the two-miracle requirement. No wonder we’re experiencing unprecedented sainthood inflation!

This pope has canonized more saints than all his predecessors combined. And he’s managed to do this while morals and orthodoxy are hitting their nadirs world-wide. Yeah, it’s called the Spring Time of the Vatican II Council. Even tho it looks like nuclear winter we gotta keep up appearances. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[catholiclady]

This pope has canonized more saints than all his predecessors combined

Perhaps he is just catching up. I am sure there are many saints in heaven who were never canonized here on earth simply because we had less awareness of who and where they were and their works.

I think your statement may, however, be an exaggeration. I don’t have the current figures but in 2002 JP II had only actually canonized fifty-nine saints to that time.

This is as many as Pius XI and Pius XII combined; but less than Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI combined.

So he would have had to have cannonized greater than 59 additional saints in the past two years for your statement to be true and I don’t think that is the case.

 

[bear06]

albert cipriani:

Bogus caonizations are not upsetting in that the canonization of saints does not exercise the Church’s infallible charism. Since canonization is a conclusion dependant upon fallible facts, i.e., since it’s only infallible in so far as its facts are infallible, cannonizations are not infallible.

No doubt the canonization process is even more fallible today, what with this pope’s elimination of the devil’s advocate and the two-miracle requirement. No wonder we’re experiencing unprecedented sainthood inflation!

This pope has canonized more saints than all his predecessors combined. And he’s managed to do this while morals and orthodoxy are hitting their nadirs world-wide. Yeah, it’s called the Spring Time of the Vatican II Council. Even tho it looks like nuclear winter we gotta keep up appearances. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Thanks, this clears up any question of where you are coming from in my mind. Glad you could remove that stumbling block to your argument.

 

[bear06]

By the way, I think it would do some good to check out the 1913, yes that’s pre-VII, Catholic Encyclopedia on the canonization matter. It would seem that cipriani disagrees with the theologians of that time.

newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm

 

[Jermosh]

bear06:

Bishops are only infallible in the area of Faith and Morals as far as they are in union with Rome. That is as far as we have to follow them IN THIS AREA. If they are committing a liturgical abuse or allowing a liturgical abuse against the Pope’s teachings then it is not Ordinary Magisterium. They are not in union with Rome. So basically, we don’t have to trust them in areas of Faith and Morals UNLESS THEY ARE IN UNION WITH ROME! There are quite obvious sins in the abuses in the liturgy as shown here.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

The Holy Father seemed to think it important to fret over liturgical abuses.

Either you believe they were placed in positon by God or not. There is no interpritation inbetween.

 

[albert_cipriani]

catholiclady:

in 2002 JP II had only actually canonized fifty-nine saints to that time.

Oct. 1, 2000 alone, the Holy Father canonized 120 Chinese martyrs.-- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[albert_cipriani]

Jermosh:

Either you believe they [bishops] were placed in positon by God or not.

Judas, too, was placed in position by God. So what? If Judas was your bishop, would you follow him to the temple to sell out Jesus? Of course not. So why make the argument that being placed in a position of power by God is the be-all and end-all the issue Traditionalists have with their bishops? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

 

[bear06]

Jermosh:

Either you believe they were placed in positon by God or not. There is no interpritation inbetween.

Techinically, they were placed as our bishops by the Pope. I’m not sure whether or not our Church teaches that they were placed in a specific place by God though. Anyone have a Church teaching that confirms my guess wrong?

That said, they have authority given to them by the Pope. This is true. However, on Faith and Morals they only have authority as far as they are in union with Rome. This is a teaching of the Church. The teachings and examples in Faith and Morals are not binding on the faithful IF THEY ARE NOT IN UNION WITH ROME. They do not have authority to commit liturgical abuses. They definitely don’t have the authority to lead people astray which can lead to further sin. If they are committing a liturgical abuse, we do not have to follow them in this area. In fact, if we KNOW (not just think) they are committing an abuse we are bound not to stand for it. Our first recourse is to the bishop. If he is the problem then we are to make recourse to the Congregation for Divine Worship. Please read Redemtionis Sacramentum.

 

[catholiclady]

Oct. 1, 2000 alone, the Holy Father canonized 120 Chinese martyrs.-- Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/report.gif

Well if they were Martyrs then they deserved sainthood

 

[Jermosh]

albert cipriani:

Judas, too, was placed in position by God. So what? If Judas was your bishop, would you follow him to the temple to sell out Jesus? Of course not. So why make the argument that being placed in a position of power by God is the be-all and end-all the issue Traditionalists have with their bishops? – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Judas was never placed in position of any authority, he controlled money and thats about it.

 

[pnewton]

Jermosh,

While I think you are mostly right, way back when this thread was on the topic, I did think of one abuse I would put right up with the most serious of moral sins: using non-valid matter in making communion bread. This is a rare problem, but when done, denies an entire commnunity the grace associated with receiving the Eucharist.

I say that is as serious an offense, but I agree that child abuse by a priest (also a rarity) has a similar effect. The priest, who stands as persona Christi, represents God to these children. When he offends, it can be viewed through the lens of a child as God offending. This too can lead to one hating God and His church and leaving the life of grace.

 

[puzzleannie]

fear not him who has the power to kill, but him who has the power to cast into hell

can’t find the verse, probably Ephesians, but Christ warned the apostles that if you lead one of these little ones astray it would be better for you to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the pit, again, bible is in another room, but you get my drifts. so what about it, was he talking about liturgical abuse or misleading and abusing the innocent? I can conceive no greater crime on earth or in heaven than standing in alter Christus and using the authority, love and respect that belongs to Christ to injure a child physically, emotionally and spiritually.

thankfully I have never had to face the dilemma of finding out that a pastor perpretrated or allowed this abuse, and I hope I never do, because I know my reaction would be extreme and certainly not Christian

 

[Jermosh]

bear06:

Techinically, they were placed as our bishops by the Pope. I’m not sure whether or not our Church teaches that they were placed in a specific place by God though. Anyone have a Church teaching that confirms my guess wrong?

I take romans 13 1-6 as pertaning to both secualr and religios authority.
*Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.*

The teachings and examples in Faith and Morals are not binding on the faithful IF THEY ARE NOT IN UNION WITH ROME.

But what type of abuse are we talking about here? I do not think that Holding hands during the Our Father is against Rome. Plus how are we to even know what is against Rome? Rome does not give us things in pure easy to read manner. It just seems that if you take this agenda it can lead to scrupulous judgement of the bishop and just turn into schism. Useing this logic I could blow off my bishop because he has not excommunicated Kerry yet. Ganted I think he should be, but that does not mean that I should just dismiss the bishops authority.

 

[bear06]

Jermosh:

I take romans 13 1-6 as pertaning to both secualr and religios authority.
*Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.*
But what type of abuse are we talking about here? I do not think that Holding hands during the Our Father is against Rome. Plus how are we to even know what is against Rome? Rome does not give us things in pure easy to read manner. It just seems that if you take this agenda it can lead to scrupulous judgement of the bishop and just turn into schism. Useing this logic I could blow off my bishop because he has not excommunicated Kerry yet. Ganted I think he should be, but that does not mean that I should just dismiss the bishops authority.

Have you read Redemtionis Sacramentum yet?!!! It’s not as hard as you think to find out if something is abuse or not. The Holy Father lays out many of the common liturgical abuses plain as day while he does take care to point out it’s not all of the possiblities. Besides this, you can easily find documents on the role of the laity, priests, etc.

These verses from Romans does not say they have authority to commit abuses and that we should follow these abuses. This is equivalent to “give ceasar what is ceasar’s” Committing an abuse is not an authority a bishop retains.

If Rome has condoned it, I will not condemn it even though I may not prefer it. Where Rome is, so am I which is about as far away from schism as you can get. You fall into trouble when you want to decide what is proper for Rome to do in matters of Faith and Morals. That’s bad.

 

[Jermosh]

bear06:

You fall into trouble when you want to decide what is proper for Rome to do in matters of Faith and Morals. That’s bad.

This doesn’t make sense.
The issue I am confused on is this. The Mass and its propers come from 1 package in Rome as the Latin Missel, from there it goes to differant groups to be converted to that language and culture. Now the issue is we are to rely on our bishops to translate it to us in a proper manner that shows and allows consitincy in Mass’s accross the world. If I cannot rely on my bishop who can I?
Point taken on Romans scripture though. I do see it pertaining to both authorities though.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.