Dear Reader:
I attended a Society of Saint Pope Pius X (SSPX) church in the Sacramento, CA region for some months, (Talk about conservative!),–I learned that the Magisterium is a rather narrow authoritative body, and if I am not mistaken refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the authority of the Pope as a monarch in the Vatican, and I am now learning: the magisterium includes the teaching authority of the Church, which means essentially the Pope on the Chair of St. Peter and therefore, the bishops, which in turn translates to those priests obedient to the bishops, and back again to the Pope. What else should be included as the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
Some 200-300 yrs. after Origen’s birth–the Bible is compiled. What at the time existed as a basis for determining what should be included in the Bible; what should be excluded? Maybe Origen set much of this criteria during his time.
Who will prove that liberalism within Catholicism is heresy? The Levada person now in the Vatican, once Archbishop of San Francisco, allowed for the adoption of children into the homes of homosexual couples; yet, now Levada complies with the Magisterium and therefore, never will be found to have been guilty of heresy, perhaps, because heresy must involve a definite obstinant attitude of sorts.
Of course, what I read of Origen, there was a statement that those who leave the Church are heretics?
I love the changes, which I see in the Church as a consequence of Vatican II. I do not believe the mass as it was standardized at the time of Martin Luther was the mass to end all masses, but what is the mass: many of the traditions, which have become adopted by the Church throughout the centuries exist as part of the mass–evangelization in Africa, where a blend of indigenous religions coexist in the mass might apparently be such a tradition, begun in the Catholic Church, and maybe the spark to kindle the fire of Vat. II as a principle, because we see such vernacular, folk, influences in the mass: I enjoy the Vat. II mass being a reflection of my American culture, where I attend mass.
The masses I attended for a number of mos. at an SSPX church told me that the differences between the Vat. II mass, and the standardized mass make one mass more understandable, the other less understandable, and the differences in the performance of it: the priest facing the congregation, etc. existed in the standardized mass, though the function is lost in the Vat. II mass, the tradition of facing the congregation in the standardized mass is maintained in the Vat. II mass: you simply see no altar boys in front of the priest, kneeling.
I like seeing women in mass, and Eucharistic Ministers–I have no real interest in seeing women becoming ordained as priestesses, though, I expect that a woman or two in Bible stories existed as priestesses, or as prophetesses. I care little to see women ordained as priestesses mostly from my experience as a soldier: women are more easily traumatized under pressure and an essential characteristic of leadership is to function ethicly under pressure–I am not ignorant of men acting unethicly under pressure, or without being under pressure, but statisticly women are more easily traumatized than men–I do not envy Mother Teresa serving the poorest of the poor, but I am a combat veteran: I know what it means to be startled when a car backfires, and I still at times hear mines explode in my head, and bullets whiz by my head, etc. My point: the teaching authority of the Church should remain in the hands of men–imagine Hitler’s white line drawn as a semi-circle at the Vatican, which made a prisoner of the pope in the Vat. during WWII–why subject a woman heading the Church to such an experience, when it is enough to face the horror of your pope condemned to death upon crossing the line, with whomever a NAZI might suspect is a legitimate target–how many nuns have been killed in S. America, for our faith, and were they liberal(s)?
I think that it is wrong for liberals to leave the Catholic Church, because it would mean: they would walk outside the Church as heretics–I do not especially like heresy, but what white line is being drawn between liberals and conservatives and which are the NAZI’s? Under what circumstances may the line be crossed–wasn’t it Origen who often addressed, and reasoned extensively without much success, yet, attracted to the concept of reincarnation–he kept toying with the idea, and he never was declared a heretic.
Please watch “The Scarlet and the Black” with Robert Mitchum–what an excellent movie: pay very close attention to the part where the character played by Mitchum toys with NAZI soldiers at the white line–Wow!
Most sincerely,
Kristopher
There’s plenty of wiggle room, but not on every subject. I noticed nobody answered my questions regarding the Creed. We pray it every Sunday. There is no wiggle room there. If you don’t believe the Creed, you should not consider yourself a Catholic.
