Sometimes it is right to judge

[CWBetts]

***I must agree with floresco: The TLM is actaully better for the salvation of souls! WHY?

It is want Mass is supposed to be: God centred Divine focused worship.***

2007 PEW Report

***1970 about 75% of self professed Catholics regullarly fulfilled there Sunday and Holyday Mass Obligations. By 2007 that number had dropped to below 25%. Confessions at least Once per yar dropped from about 65% to 10%.

Is the Novus Ordo the ONLY reason? NO; but it is the chief reason!***

God’s continued blessings,

Pat

The Novus Ordo IS “God centered, Divine focused worship” The efficacy of the both is the SAME. It comes down to personal preference, and is seems Traditionalist treat their own preferences as dogma.

 

[floresco]

Sorry, I guess I was trying to play Spiritual Director with you. I was trying to “vaccinate” you against fear of CITH, but no biggie.

To assume that people who think that COTT is better than CITH believe this because they have a fear of CITH is making a judgment about their motives. This is an example of the negative kind of judgment that we should be avoiding.

In general, it is a bad idea to assume that one knows why people do what they do. It is likely to lead to rash judgment.

 

[PJM]

=CWBetts;6748216]The Novus Ordo IS “God centered, Divine focused worship” The efficacy of the both is the SAME. It comes down to personal preference, and is seems Traditionalist treat their own preferences as dogma.

No dear friend. Your entitled to your beliefs. But facts say otherwise.

The NO places the priest on a stage with many lay supporting actors. That friend is not God centered worship.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[CWBetts]

No dear friend. Your entitled to your beliefs. But facts say otherwise.

The NO places the priest on a stage with many lay supporting actors. That friend is not God centered worship.

Love and prayers,
Pat

You have a biased view, my friend…it isn’t a priest centerd show. When I am at the OF Mass, I am focused on GOd.

 

[floresco]

What’s the difference between classifying judgment as right v wrong, compared to classifying it as useful v not useful?

For example: if I see something I believe to be wrong, is it useful to me to judge it? For example, if I see somebody flipping the bird I can choose to judge it as a “wrong” thing to do. Now, is it “wrong” for me to pass that judgment? Maybe. Is it “useful” for me to do so? Probably not.

I got the idea of differentiating right/wrong v useful/not useful from two places; a psychologist, and St. Paul.
Alan

Classifying things as useful vs not useful leads to utilitarianism, an evil philosophy, in which people are only valued for how useful they are. Classifying things as right vs wrong is consistent with Catholic thought. The Catholic view of the person sees us as moral agents. Being human means that we understand the difference between right and wrong and make moral judgments and choices.

In I Cor 10, St. Paul is not saying that we should not bother to differentiate between right and wrong. He is saying that, in addition to whether actions are right or wrong in themselves, we also need to consider how our actions affect others. I could do something that is intrinsically a good thing, but there could be circumstances which make it harmful to another.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

To assume that people who think that COTT is better than CITH believe this because they have a fear of CITH is making a judgment about their motives. This is an example of the negative kind of judgment that we should be avoiding.

In general, it is a bad idea to assume that one knows why people do what they do. It is likely to lead to rash judgment.

In general, when a person apologizes profusely, it is a bad idea to continue to lecture him without at least acknowledging the call for forgiveness. I’m not sure whether you thought I needed that message (and btw I agree with you … that’s not the issue) I feel judged by you that maybe my apology wasn’t sincere enough or something. If you were commenting for other people, then I understand. If you were just agreeing with me that it was a transgression, then I understand too. If you thought I needed a lecture, then I hope it was good for you.

As it was, I felt you quoted me out of context. The rest of my message was:

Maybe I’ve been harsh, just as I thought others were being harsh. Sigh. From what I can tell, I was wrong in doing so, and I see that my idea above bombed. If my siblings in Christ will forgive me, I’ll rise back up, still a COTT/CITH optional person, but kinder and gentler.

Now, a thought entered my mind. Were you trying to reraise the issue that I’d already apologized for? I’m not judging, just wondering …

I’m just puzzled about why; curious – but not offended. It’s not like you could have quoted only half my message by accident, is it? I don’t need an answer; I just thought you needed to hear my questions. (Now I’m defending myself, not trying to play SD.)

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Classifying things as useful vs not useful leads to utilitarianism, an evil philosophy, in which people are only valued for how useful they are. Classifying things as right vs wrong is consistent with Catholic thought. The Catholic view of the person sees us as moral agents. Being human means that we understand the difference between right and wrong and make moral judgments and choices.

In I Cor 10, St. Paul is not saying that we should not bother to differentiate between right and wrong. He is saying that, in addition to whether actions are right or wrong in themselves, we also need to consider how our actions affect others. I could do something that is intrinsically a good thing, but there could be circumstances which make it harmful to another.

How did you get that from the scripture? I thought he was very clear that it was about being useful for his ministry. In other passages he talks about becoming like the people he is around, including eating what others serve without matters of conscience. What do you think Paul meant by “all things are lawful?”

If our hearts are programmed right, then the right/wrong is a given.

Alan

 

[floresco]

The Novus Ordo IS “God centered, Divine focused worship” The efficacy of the both is the SAME. It comes down to personal preference, and is seems Traditionalist treat their own preferences as dogma.

Your statement about traditionalists is an example of a judgmental statement because you are making an assertion about people rather than actions or ideas. Can you see there is a difference between saying “you are wrong” and saying “you seem to be making your preference into dogma”? It is natural that people should disagree with each other. Attributing the disagreement to moral flaws in the other is rash judgment. (Traditionalists sometimes do this as well, but we certainly do not have a monopoly on it.)

I do not make my preferences into dogma. As I said, I studied and compared the two forms of Mass and discovered that one is more consistent with Church doctrine than the other. It is reasonable to question trads about their assertions and ask for more information. Making up things about what people think and feel is neither reasonable nor appropriate.

 

[floresco]

In general, when a person apologizes profusely, it is a bad idea to continue to lecture him without at least acknowledging the call for forgiveness. I’m not sure whether you thought I needed that message (and btw I agree with you … that’s not the issue) I feel judged by you that maybe my apology wasn’t sincere enough or something. If you were commenting for other people, then I understand. If you were just agreeing with me that it was a transgression, then I understand too. If you thought I needed a lecture, then I hope it was good for you.

Since this thread is going off on all these tangents rather than discussing judgment, I saw a post containing an example of judgment as an opportunity to bring things back on topic. I thought pointing out an actual example would make my point clearer to people.

I didn’t think you needed a lecture, but I didn’t catch that it was a profuse apology either. It was careless of me to miss that and I can see this could have been hurtful to you. I am sorry. Please forgive me.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Your statement about traditionalists is an example of a judgmental statement because you are making an assertion about people rather than actions or ideas. Can you see there is a difference between saying “you are wrong” and saying “you seem to be making your preference into dogma”? It is natural that people should disagree with each other. Attributing the disagreement to moral flaws in the other is rash judgment. (Traditionalists sometimes do this as well, but we certainly do not have a monopoly on it.)

You are very right on that. In fact, this is the type of thing I was trying to uncover when I started a thread over in “spirituality” section the other day, about “not judging.”

Alan

 

[floresco]

How did you get that from the scripture? I thought he was very clear that it was about being useful for his ministry. In other passages he talks about becoming like the people he is around, including eating what others serve without matters of conscience. What do you think Paul meant by “all things are lawful?”

If our hearts are programmed right, then the right/wrong is a given.

Alan

Just a couple of paragraphs before what you quoted we see:

Now these things occurred as examples[a] to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.”** 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.**

I think that this context makes it clear that we are not just supposed to ignore what is right and wrong. The sentence immediately after the passage you quoted is:

24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

which seems to indicate that St. Paul is not talking about “usefulness” to his ministry but for the good of others. There are two words used to talk about what we should consider. In Greek, these words are “synphero” which means “better, to one’s advantage, helpful, good, useful” and “oikodomeo” which means “build, erect, build up, encourage, strengthen, edify, rebuild, restore.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Just a couple of paragraphs before what you quoted we see:

I think that this context makes it clear that we are not just supposed to ignore what is right and wrong. The sentence immediately after the passage you quoted is: which seems to indicate that St. Paul is not talking about “usefulness” to his ministry but for the good of others. There are two words used to talk about what we should consider. In Greek, these words are “synphero” which means “better, to one’s advantage, helpful, good, useful” and “oikodomeo” which means “build, erect, build up, encourage, strengthen, edify, rebuild, restore.”

Sigh.

When you say “ignore right and wrong” it sounds as if you are claiming that I’m advocating doing wrong. That seems to me, a low-expectation viewpoint. Once I’m born in the spirit and renewed and I no longer have desire to sin; hence, I either do not commit mortal sin or I’m begotten of the devil. I will be happy to show you a scripture quote now:
1 John 3:8-9:

Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God

Again, my claim to which you took exception was: "If our hearts are programmed right, then the right/wrong is a given. " How am I out of line with the teaching of St. Paul on this?

Peace and joy,
Alan

 

[CWBetts]

Your statement about traditionalists is an example of a judgmental statement because you are making an assertion about people rather than actions or ideas. Can you see there is a difference between saying “you are wrong” and saying “you seem to be making your preference into dogma”? It is natural that people should disagree with each other. Attributing the disagreement to moral flaws in the other is rash judgment. (Traditionalists sometimes do this as well, but we certainly do not have a monopoly on it.)

I do not make my preferences into dogma. As I said, I studied and compared the two forms of Mass and discovered that one is more consistent with Church doctrine than the other. It is reasonable to question trads about their assertions and ask for more information. Making up things about what people think and feel is neither reasonable nor appropriate.

You are bing so arrogant to say that you can tell how reverent I am (an interior disposition) by which mass I attend.

 

[floresco]

When you say “ignore right and wrong” it sounds as if you are claiming that I’m advocating doing wrong. That seems to me, a low-expectation viewpoint. Once I’m born in the spirit and renewed and I no longer have desire to sin; hence, I either do not commit mortal sin or I’m begotten of the devil. I will be happy to show you a scripture quote now:

1 John 3:8-9
Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God

Let me clarify that I neither claim nor think that you advocate doing wrong. However, looking at one verse in isolation is not a good way to determine the truth. In the very same book of the Bible, in I John 1:8-10 we see :

8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

It just isn’t as simple and easy as you are making it out to be. Christians do sin and are tempted to sin. Why would God have given us the Sacrament of Confession if we did not sin? The Christian life is a spiritual battle and Scripture is full of imagery involving fighting to illustrate this. Identifying right and wrong is an important part of the moral life. We do not simply do the right thing automatically.

Speaking for myself, I am a sinner. Doing right is a constant struggle for me and I often fail. I depend on God’s grace and forgiveness.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Speaking for myself, I am a sinner. Doing right is a constant struggle for me and I often fail. I depend on God’s grace and forgiveness.

I believe the Lord has planted His seed in me, and that it is growing because for sure I am experiencing the fruits of peace, joy, and most of the others. I have no desire to do mortal sin ever again, and am willing to promise not to do it. How do I know this? Does not the Church teach that mortal sin is not only grave matter, but premeditated?

This is not to claim that I am “without sin.” I have sinned plenty in the past, and God has been merciful to forgive me. Does not the Church teach that when I have confessed my mortal sins in a valid confession, that I am forgiven?

Or do you wish to spar with a few more Bible verses? I’m up for that, too … we could each learn something if we weren’t too pigheaded.

Alan

edit: what was that about a mote in the eye? lol … we should be the poster kids for that parable.

 

[floresco]

You are bing so arrogant to say that you can tell how reverent I am (an interior disposition) by which mass I attend.

For all I know, you are a better Catholic than I am. I would even say this is likely. I have made no claims at all about your reverence or your interior disposition. I have made a claim that the TLM is more consistent with Catholic doctrine than the new form of Mass. My claim does not carry any implications about the people who attend the respective forms of Mass.

 

[floresco]

Or do you wish to spar with a few more Bible verses? I’m up for that, too … we could each learn something if we weren’t too pigheaded.

How about we take the time and energy we would have put into the pig-headedness contest and say a prayer for each other? (And since I’m a trad, I’ll do mine in Latin.)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How about we take the time and energy we would have put into the pig-headedness contest and say a prayer for each other? (And since I’m a trad, I’ll do mine in Latin.)

OK. I’ll go play a hymn on the piano for the occasion!

Alan

edit: for you I played Holy God we Praise the Name, and Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God Almighty.

 

[Victorious]

You are bing so arrogant to say that you can tell how reverent I am (an interior disposition) by which mass I attend.

Actually, reverence is not an entirely interior disposition. Real reverence expresses itself in outward behavior. A person who has the use of his reason who (for example) sits at Mass yakking and laughing and carrying on is manifestly irreverent, and it is perfectly reasonable for those around him to conclude that he lacks reverence.

 

[floresco]

edit: for you I played Holy God we Praise the Name, and Holy! Holy! Holy! Lord God Almighty.

I like both of those. Thanks.