The "Old Ways"

[Uncle_Norbert]

On many threads, I see references as to how various clergy, lay, and congregational members of the Catholic Church are not “true” Catholics if they do not follow Church teachings to the “T”.

Yet many of these same posters go on and on, as to how the “old Church” was so much better, ad nauseum.

If the “new” (Vatican II and later) teachings ARE the current “teachings of the Church”, isn’t all this pining for the old ways (Latin Mass, head coverings, priests wearing appropriate attiere) equally not following Church teachings?

I sense some hypocracy in many recent threads.

 

[markadm]

I think sometimes when people hark on about the old days, they are not decrying the faith or teachings of the Church now. After all, the faith of the Church cannot change. I think they are simply comparing the expressions of faith then and now and finding they liked it better then.

I can understand that. Far too much drivel is taught these days in the name of Catholicism. For example, I read someone telling someone else that their pets go to heaven!!

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

I read someone telling someone else that their pets go to heaven!!

Zoikes !

One of the most controversial, yet silly issues I had to deal with as a city councilmember, was that of people burying their pets in the city cemetary.

Unbelievable how worked up people can get about their pets, yet all believers know, that our SOUL is what sets us apart from the other creatures of the earth.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I concur with markadm. If there is nothing wrong with the Church changing certain aspects of worship, then those same aspects of worship are not immune from dissent. You cannot change something and then condemn people for wanting to change it back; you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[stmaria]

On many threads, I see references as to how various clergy, lay, and congregational members of the Catholic Church are not “true” Catholics if they do not follow Church teachings to the “T”.

Yet many of these same posters go on and on, as to how the “old Church” was so much better, ad nauseum.

If the “new” (Vatican II and later) teachings ARE the current "teachings of the Church", isn’t all this pining for the old ways (Latin Mass, head coverings, priests wearing appropriate attiere) equally not following Church teachings?

I sense some hypocracy in many recent threads.

The teachings of the Church have not changed but the way in which they are presented have changed. Pope John XXXIII said this at the beginning of the Vatican II council.The Church took a more “loving” approach instead of a Church militant approach. Speaking for myself I prefer the way previous Popes expressed the teaching of the Church. Unambiguous and straight to the point.
I prefer the “old ways”. For me they are more reverent and better express the sacredness that I need in my life.

OPENING SPEECH FOR COUNCIL OF VATICAN II
POPE JOHN XXIII
OCTOBER 11, 1962

Opening address ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm
“The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
For this a Council was not necessary…The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character…The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity…the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.”

 

[markadm]

I’ll be honest and say two things:

There are no “new” teachings of the Church; this is the error of the so-called “liberal” camp. They have to reinvent everything, and even contrive things.

At the same time we must be faithful to the Church today; to not accept Vatican II on the same level as Trent or Vatican I is equally contrary to our faith, and the error of sedevacantists, extreme traditionalists, etc.

See what I mean? There’s two extremes. We need to find a healthy path in the middle, Catholic and traditional.

And I agree with StMaria. The old ways were often better; in attempting to adapt her voice to todays world, the Church sometimes isn’t heard. We become yet another option; as opposed to the voice of Truth. And yes, Truth sometimes sounds out of place.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

You have found my point exactly. This thread spins from one of that last few days regarding priests wearing street clothes.

Many posters on that thread insisted that a priest wearing street clothes is “less than a priest”…likewise, on other threads, it is said that someone who disagrees with a church teaching, doctorine, or dogma in any way is “not a Catholic” in the truest sense.

Yet, many of these same posters decry Vatican II, and other church modernization policies. Thus my confusion. Does dissention with Catholic policies and teachings make me “less Catholic” or not?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Explicitly refusing to believe Church dogma, and not seeking to understand (and thereby believe) makes one less of a Catholic.

VII was pastoral in nature and did not make infallible declarations. It is still an ecumenical council, but it is understandable that some treat it as less important than Trent.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You have found my point exactly. This thread spins from one of that last few days regarding priests wearing street clothes.

Many posters on that thread insisted that a priest wearing street clothes is “less than a priest”…likewise, on other threads, it is said that someone who disagrees with a church teaching, doctorine, or dogma in any way is “not a Catholic” in the truest sense.

Yet, many of these same posters decry Vatican II, and other church modernization policies. Thus my confusion. Does dissention with Catholic policies and teachings make me “less Catholic” or not?

How about those who disagree with a saint on something is less than Catholic or worse - gotta love those comments!!

 

[markadm]

Well, there’s nothing wrong in disagreeing with the way people express themselves.

I don’t like Priests wearing secular clothes most of the time. That’s an opinion. It’s not a matter of faith. So there’s no harm there.

At the same time, even the Pope can make an error. So we have leeway to disagree and comment, but always with due care and concern as to how we express that.

At the end of the day we have to ask is it [a change] aiding or hindering our faith. If it’s aiding it, then really ought not to criticise, but if it’s hindering it, or even contrary to it, then we have every right even a duty to highlight that:

According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (Code of Canon Law, CIC 212§3)

 

[markadm]

How about those who disagree with a saint on something is less than Catholic or worse - gotta love those comments!!

This is an innocent question:

A Saint could be wrong couldn’t they?

(I was just thinking it through)

…still I think the bottom line is that calling someone “less than Catholic” is often not earned. There are certain things we must believe and do, and to act contrary to those things maybe earns that appellation, but people use it too freely.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

How about those who disagree with a saint on something is less than Catholic or worse - gotta love those comments!!

To disagree with saints (especially sainted Popes) makes one more likely to be wrong. Such a statement is intuitive - if one is far exceeded in both holiness and knowledge, then one is less likely to know better in terms of the Faith. This is especially true if one merely states contrary opinions over and over again. However, disagreeing with saints does not make one necessarily less Catholic per se.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

This is an innocent question:

A Saint could be wrong couldn’t they?

(I was just thinking it through)

I’m thinking that was just a passive aggressive way to get back at those of us who quoted Pope St. Pius X on Eilish in the Rosary during Mass thread.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

This reminds me, I gotta share another “Uncle Norbert” story.

I don’t remember the exact timeline, but a few years after Vatican II, there was a liturgical conference that dealt with wording changes to the Mass.

My memory fades, but it seems that these changes came about in the late 60’s…adding the additional reading, Eucharistic Prayer options, language modernizations…

He participated in some of this, making several trips to St. Louis as I recall.

Anyway, he loved to tell the story about how the final blessing had to be modified…the original proposed version:

The Mass is Ended…Thanks be to God.

Realizing the potential whimsical interpretations, it was changed to:

The Mass is Ended, Go in Peace (to Love and to Serve the Lord)…Thanks be to God.

Fun stuff

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I’m thinking that was just a passive aggressive way to get back at those of us who quoted Pope St. Pius X on Eilish in the Rosary during Mass thread.

It is actually not an uncommon response but yes - it recently reared its unreasonable and unnecessary head on that thread.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This is an innocent question:

A Saint could be wrong couldn’t they?

(I was just thinking it through)

…still I think the bottom line is that calling someone “less than Catholic” is often not earned. There are certain things we must believe and do, and to act contrary to those things maybe earns that appellation, but people use it too freely.

Yes a saint can be wrong on something.

Being cannonized does not change that.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It is actually not an uncommon response but yes - it recently reared its unreasonable and unnecessary head on that thread.

Right, it’s unreasonable to put more weight on the opinions of canonized Popes than anonymous posters on the internet.

 

[markadm]

I’m thinking that was just a passive aggressive way to get back at those of us who quoted Pope St. Pius X on Eilish in the Rosary during Mass thread.

Huh? I wasn’t party to that thread!

Uncle Norbert: what whimsical interpretations. To my mind “The Mass is Ended; Thanks be to God” has but one meaning.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Huh? I wasn’t party to that thread!

Right… so those of “us” not those of “you”.

Uncle Norbert: what whimsical interpretations. To my mind “The Mass is Ended; Thanks be to God” has but one meaning.

The “whimsical” interpretation connotes that the speaker is glad to have the Mass end.

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Huh? I wasn’t party to that thread!

Uncle Norbert: what whimsical interpretations. To my mind “The Mass is Ended; Thanks be to God” has but one meaning.

Depends on the length of the sermon !