Struggling with my Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pope_Noah_I

Guest
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
 
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
Uh, what about Sarah and Elizabeth? Both were considered post-menopausal. Besides, when has the Church ever condemned post-menopausal sex? Which Faith does that sounds more appealing?
  1. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Where would you go if not for the Catholic Church? Maybe that would help further the conversation.
 
Yes, protestants were invited to the council, however they held no voting rights. They only came in to observe and perhaps offer their views, but the voting rights were reserved to the Council fathers. The reason protestants were invited in the first place was in the spirit of ecumenism. The arguments that the Novus Ordo is invalid because protestants made it that way are extremely weak.
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Hi Pope Noah I,

In regards to 1., I would find it hard to imagine the Church actually forbidding post-menopausal sex;–didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that one of the reasons for marriage was to avoid fornication (or concupiscence)?

I don’t know that the Church is officially teaching that a celibate vocation is no better than marriage, though I do think the sacral nature of the priesthood and the advantages a consecrated life offer have been deemphasized.

In regards to the Pope changing the Mass, one thing that might help which I have posted before is an an excerpt by Dietrich von Hildebrand, from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference” from the book “The Charitable Anathema”:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements.

…The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, **we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. **Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass.

latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father."

I think this might help in that it shows that we are not required to believe every practical decision by a Pope is good or prudent, even if he does have the power to make the changes. To require that would lead to a very tough spot if one genuinely thinks some changes were a bad idea. It reminds me of the scripture where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for laying too great a burden on the Jews and not lifting a finger to help them. Acting like we must believe every prudential decision by the Pope is good and wise I would consider too great a burden and it might help to know that we don’t have to view it that way.

God bless.
 
  1. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Unfortunately yes they did do that, but you must continue to have faith. I personally try to avoid the Novus Ordo because of that reason.

St. Pius X as a bishop petitioned Rome to add St. Joseph to the canon. So this action surely can’t be all that bad.
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.

?
You CAN’T quit! Yur the POPE, Noah!

However, if you can find a better Forum on which to waste countless hours, you have a valid reason for leaving.
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
You’re in good company since most people face some crisis of faith in adulthood; some face such crises many times. Your sudden struggles (the specifics) with Church teachings might have as much to do with your own history and personality. If you’re bothered enough, you can locate (with some effort) a reputable confessor (your own pastor might do) and ask for special guidance. You could pursue a few counseling session st your dicesan services too. My point is faith requires FAITH. We build our faith through prayer, through the Sacraments, through sacrificail living. We needn’t have all the T-s crossed and the I-s dotted to follow the faith. In fact, the greater challenge is that we are faithful when we lack specific sympathies for a certain teaching or teachings.

Hope that helps.
 
Regarding this:

"2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.” "

The Holy Father, Paul VI, made his decisions with a view to the result of the votes of all the Council Fathers of the Church. Yes, decisions came out over his signature but the PROCESS.was valid and involved many - but no Protestants.
 
As to this, your chosen "signature quote: "

“Everything has been ordained by Tradition and now you want to change it all…”
  • Archbishop Enrico Dante, at Vatican II"
**
I recognize that it’s taken out of some context but in truth, the Faith and practices of the Church are defined by SCRIPTURE and TRADITION, not by Tradition alone - so I can’t imagine what the Cardinal was saying.**
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Since your faith is at stake, Noah, I hope the moderators allow me some latitude with metaphors here.

You were born at a time when unfaithful clerics were and still are gang raping the Bride of Christ. This is no time to desert her.

The Apostolic See has withstood every trial occasioned by the devil’s agents for two thousand years-- the Arian crisis, the Reformation, everything. It will survive this crisis as well.

For five hundred years, almost every single successor of Peter was a canonized saint. No other church can match this record because no other church is built on the Rock of Peter.

If papal primacy is heresy, then even the eastern church is in heresy because it submitted to that primacy at the Council of Florence.

This is a time for saints and heroes, not for those who would turn their back on the Bride of Christ in her hour of trial. Stay, learn, grow in your faith, and do your part to heal her bruises which were inflicted by brutal and unfaithful men.
 
Unfortunately yes they did do that, but you must continue to have faith. I personally try to avoid the Novus Ordo because of that reason.

St. Pius X as a bishop petitioned Rome to add St. Joseph to the canon. So this action surely can’t be all that bad.
Fascinating. Can you document what is said here about St. Pius X?
 
All Roman Catholics are Catholic…😉 but not all Catholics are Roman Catholic. I am sure there is a fit for you somewhere’s 😃
 
Yes, protestants were invited to the council, however they held no voting rights. They only came in to observe and perhaps offer their views, but the voting rights were reserved to the Council fathers. The reason protestants were invited in the first place was in the spirit of ecumenism. The arguments that the Novus Ordo is invalid because protestants made it that way are extremely weak.
The other important point is that Protestants were also invited to the Council of Trent. They refused. In fairness to them, this was partly because guarantees of attendee’s personal safety were not believed. However it was a great lost opportunity, and European history might have been very different. It made perfect sense to repeat the invitation for Vatican II. Unfortunately, so much water had flowed under the bridge by then that it wasn’t possible to undo the schism.
 
I must admit I struggle with #2.
This is a matter of Faith and Morals, is it not? How can a Pope approve of such a revolution of the ancient, sacred liturgy?? This blows my mind. Why would God allow this to happen? It wasn’t a mere tinkering. The changes were staggering when compared to the few minor changes to the Mass throughout the history of the church. I can’t put my head around this. What was Paul VI thinking?? And why consult Protestants?? It’s amazing that just 40 to 50 yrs. before, Pius X, amongst other Popes in history, warned of this sort of undermining of the faith and yet those in the hierarchy, including Paul VI let it happen anyway!! Like I say, I can’t get my head around the thought process of this.
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
i think you’re venting. i’ll call you on this.

where would you go?
what would you do as an alternative to being Catholic?
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Still be willing to die for her! I know exactly how you feel. What “comforts” me in this regard is that Jesus Himself said it would happen, as did the Blessed Virgin in more than one Apparition (approved!). The apostasy!😦 Not a total apostasy, but a great one. Remain faithful to Her immortal teachings, continue praying the Rosary, and “fight” (in whatever way He calls you to) to defend Her in “spirit and in truth.” You’re going to get griped at for doing it, but it will be worth it in the end. Persevere.:hug1:
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
Oh no Pope Noah I, not another roaming Catholic, I hope you find answers here that will convince you otherwise.
 
Up until a few weeks ago, I would have died for the Catholic Church. Now, I am less certain. I have come into contact with teachings that I cannot reconcile myself with.
  1. Church’s teachings on sex. They seem so liberal. I don’t buy that post-menopausal sex is acceptable. It just reeks of gluttony to me. I also cannot believe that the Church teaches that a celibate vocation is no better than getting married.
  2. The ability of one man to change over 1,000 years of tradition. Of course I am referring to Paul VI and the Novus Ordo. All I need to know is that Protestants were very involved in making it. Since when does God’s Church call in the heretics to help reform our Liturgy? I guess we came a long way from Pius IX refusing to add St. Joseph to the Canon. What did Pio Nono say? Something along the lines of, “I’m only the Pope.”
I’m probably wrong, but can anyone help me with these?
Yes, protestants were invited to the council, however they held no voting rights. They only came in to observe and perhaps offer their views, but the voting rights were reserved to the Council fathers. The reason protestants were invited in the first place was in the spirit of ecumenism. The arguments that the Novus Ordo is invalid because protestants made it that way are extremely weak.
1a) As a married man, I am called to always respect the procreative and unitive components of the congugal act. The fact that God has chosen to remove her procreative ability does not change for either of us the importance of its unitive component. Your view denigrates the sacred congugal act as it only considers the procreative aspect.

1b) I was called by God to marred life. My Pastor was called by God to the priesthood. There is nothing less sacred about my calling than that of my Pastor.
  1. As I’m not going to defend the Pope’s Authority to approve the NO, I do want to second the defense of Protestants being invited as observers to Vatican II. They had no formal voice, they had no charism but it served three purposes. It confirms that the Catholic Church is the true Church commissioned to lead all to Christ (even Protestants), it gave them first hand knowledge and understanding of the working of the Holy Spirit in a Council, and they were available to ensure that language used wasn’t unnecessarily inflammatory (and thus an impediment to people hearing the Gospel).
Protestants are not a threat to our theology. Why act like they are?
 
1b) I was called by God to marred life. My Pastor was called by God to the priesthood. There is nothing less sacred about my calling than that of my Pastor.

Protestants are not a threat to our theology. Why act like they are?
I considered the religious life for quite a while but realized that I am called to the married life. That being said, I do not find it offensive when people say that celibacy is the higher calling, because it is. Jesus says it, St. Paul says it, the Church has always taught it. Some people took that to the extreme though, thinking that only holy people remain celibate, and the not-so-holy get married. That extreme is wrong, of course. There are unholy priests and religious and saintly married people.

*Protestants *are not a threat, you’re right. *Protestantism *is though, and can’t be ignored as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top