Traditional Catholicism is Winning

[Tony_the_mad]

The first step in instituional renewel is ideological consistency and coherence. An inability to speak with one voice (for all practical purposes) is what has caused the trouble over the last 50 years (it seemed you could find someone in the clergy holding any view at all). Fix this (I see signs of this happening) and the church will draw members back and grow (like the JWs and Mormons). “Prune and it grows again.”

I respectfully disagree. The Church has experienced many periods of renewal in which ideological consistency and coherence played little role and sometimes it even hindered it. Consider Saint Francis of Assisi who was not theologically sophisticated enough to care about consistency and coherence yet reformed the Church with a very simple message and example. Or consider a counter example that occurred in the fourth century when great Saints like Athanasius and Ambrose fought for ideological consistency and coherence and the result was the Church burned with the heresy of Arianism. (Don’t get me wrong I am not against the doctrine of the Trinity that was so fiercely defended by these saints; it was necessary but the Church paid a huge price for it.)

The troubles in the American Catholic Church, at least, over the last 50 years is significantly more complicated than not being able to speak with one voice. Before Vatican II the Church was hierarchical to a fault and tolerated social injustices that it should not. I have talked to enough older people that remember quite a different Church that is presented by some traditionalists at least. People were kicked out of the Church for instance for marrying a Protestant. If you attended a wedding at a Protestant church or even sometime a different ethnic Catholic Church you were condemned to hell.

Vatican II swept away the absolute control that the priest had, but in my not so humble opinion, did not replace it with a viable mechanism to replace the important functions that the priests had. The laity simply were not trained enough to think correctly for themselves and the clergy had no idea how to explain anything other than by simply stating because the Church says so.

The modern Catholic Church depends too much on untrained laity to teach the next generation of Catholics. It does not have the ‘luxury’ of condemning people to hell who don’t attend church nor send their children regularly to religious education. Our Bishops should be working with the next generation of lay religious education instructors and listening to why people are not attending church, etc. The should realize that our Church has many ‘infants in Christ’ who need to be fed ‘milk’ and not ‘solid food’. Instead they are changing the wording of the mass and fighting over contraception insurance of all things. (I am not necessarily against the Church’s stand on contraception, but it is third string in importance at best.)

The Lord works in mysterious ways, but I have little hope that things will get better until our leaders decide to lead by example and by listening and responding in good faith to those whom they lead. Until then I have no hope of ‘one voice’.

 

[FatherOfTwelve]

Congratulations on raising such a devout daughter.

I, like you it appears, think it was a mistake for the sisters to wear street clothes. Sisters and Brothers and Priests have an important ministry of presence.

On the other hand, I don’t understand why it is important that they be Fully veiled. To me it is sufficient that they are recognized for being what they are even if that recognition came from wearing a simple cross. Mother Theresa’s order for instance wear a ‘habit’ that is very much like the Indian sarape instead of the traditional Catholic habit.

It is good that the Church be conservative and ‘set apart’ but it also has to adapt. For instance, at one point the Catholic Church had a thriving missionary activity in China that was hurt when the Pope forced the missionaries to wear traditional priestly attire instead of the traditional Chinese attire they were wearing.

I apologize for hijacking your thoughts. I am honestly excited that you are proud, and rightly so, of your daughter and her order. That pride is good and sufficient, but if you could help me understand why it is necessary that the sisters be Fully garbed I would greatly appreciated it.

1st Corinthians Chapter 11
1* Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2* I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9* Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil * on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12* for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

The obvious answer that St. Paul expects is "No, it’s NOT proper for a woman to pray with her head un-covered.

That is why for 2,000 years Christian women have been “Veiled” for Mass and the men are not.

It has been a constant Tradition, the Scripture testifies to it, and the Magisterium obey it themselves (every Bishop removes his Zuecetto, red beanie at the Prayer of consecration).

The difference in “Veils” from say, Mother Theresa’s order to others is not an issue. From culture to culture they are different, but they are still veiled.

Getting into a deeper discussion, I don’t have the time right now. But it is VERY deep. Ponder the above scripture.

When I have a few minutes (Hours), I can go a little deeper.
God Bless,
Now
FatherOfThirteen - just don’t want to start all over as a “New Member”

PS. I would not say that I am so much “Proud” but very humbled and honored that even with all my mistakes as a Father, somehow my daughter could see God’s love and mercy in my wife and I and that she would desire and cling to the faith that we cherish.

 

[LisaA]

I respectfully disagree. The Church has experienced many periods of renewal in which ideological consistency and coherence played little role and sometimes it even hindered it. Consider Saint Francis of Assisi who was not theologically sophisticated enough to care about consistency and coherence yet reformed the Church with a very simple message and example. Or consider a counter example that occurred in the fourth century when great Saints like Athanasius and Ambrose fought for ideological consistency and coherence and the result was the Church burned with the heresy of Arianism. **(Don’t get me wrong I am not against the doctrine of the Trinity that was so fiercely defended by these saints; it was necessary but the Church paid a huge price for it.)./**QUOTE]

Uh gee Tony, glad you approve of the Doctrine of the Trinity I think that’s one of those non-negotiables and the price paid seems worthwhile. Without the Trinity what are we? BTW Arianism is alive and well in the Unitarian “church” although not sure they believe in God much less one God in Three Persons.
Tony the mad;9623571:

The troubles in the American Catholic Church, at least, over the last 50 years is significantly more complicated than not being able to speak with one voice. Before Vatican II the Church was hierarchical to a fault and tolerated social injustices that it should not. I have talked to enough older people that remember quite a different Church that is presented by some traditionalists at least. People were kicked out of the Church for instance for marrying a Protestant. If you attended a wedding at a Protestant church or even sometime a different ethnic Catholic Church you were condemned to hell…

As a relatively recent convert I did not experience this but heard from older Catholics that there was a lot of procedural and rote practice without meaning behind it.

Vatican II swept away the absolute control that the priest had, but in my not so humble opinion, did not replace it with a viable mechanism to replace the important functions that the priests had. The laity simply were not trained enough to think correctly for themselves and the clergy had no idea how to explain anything other than by simply stating because the Church says so.

The modern Catholic Church depends too much on untrained laity to teach the next generation of Catholics. It does not have the ‘luxury’ of condemning people to hell who don’t attend church nor send their children regularly to religious education.

.

I wonder if the decline in vocations was part of the reason that more has fallen upon the laity. You go to a Catholic school and few of the teachers are Priests or Religious which was not the case 50 years ago. I think it’s been to the detriment of both secular and religious education. I hope the increase in vocations and particularly the seeming increase in traditional Catholicism will help turn the tide.

As a member of our RCIA Team which is mostly laity, I truly fear that our Catechumens will not receive a really good background due to our lack of knowledge. It’s a real feeling of responsibility that I am not sure is shared by some of the other lay leaders in the Parish.

Our Bishops should be working with the next generation of lay religious education instructors and listening to why people are not attending church, etc. The should realize that our Church has many ‘infants in Christ’ who need to be fed ‘milk’ and not ‘solid food’. ***Instead they are changing the wording of the mass and fighting over contraception insurance of all things. (I am not necessarily against the Church’s stand on contraception, but it is third string in importance at best.) ***

The Lord works in mysterious ways, but I have little hope that things will get better until our leaders decide to lead by example and by listening and responding in good faith to those whom they lead. Until then I have no hope of ‘one voice’.

Tony while I agree that Catholic clergy need to have an understanding of why Catholics do or do not attend Mass or participate in other Parish ministries, it’s not a democracy and luring people with trendy music or entertaining speakers is not going the strengthen the Church.

I do agree totally that there are many “baby” Catholics who may have been raised Catholic or were Catholic by family tradition and they need to have their eyes opened. Quite honestly CAF has taught me so many things about the Church that I didn’t receive during RCIA or during my own studies, watching EWTN or listening to EWTN or the Catholic Channel. If all you do is show up to Mass occasionally, you are certainly losing out on the incredible magnificence of the Church.

However I MUST point out you are completely mistaken that the Bishops are “fighting over contraception.” I fear you must be listening to the MSM rather than the Bishops and your fellow Catholics. The issue is religious freedom, not whether Sandra Fluke has to buy her own birth control pills. The issue is being complicit in another’s sin by providing abortofacient drugs under the force of law. These are gravely serious matters and I have never been more proud of my Church than when the Bishops went toe to toe with Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama. I think in the end we will win this battle but we cannot let our guard down or pretend that these oppressive laws are “third string” issues.

Lisa