Traditional Catholics as Pharisees

[ncjohn]

I could not have said it better!

One should always constantly assess why they attend Mass in the first place. This will take one’s mind off of others and ultimately focus it on the Sacrifice of the Mass. To accuse one of being like a pharisee, is actually being a pharisee oneself.

Unfortunately the problem is that it isn’t AT Mass that one hears these things. It’s after Mass or at other occasions when one encounters these negative attitudes and statements denigrating the OF and those who prefer it.

Was Jesus a Pharisee for pointing out the attitudes that were keeping people focused on the bowl rather than the contents? I’m sorry, but pointing out the fallacy in the statements and the fact that they run contrary to the gospel doesn’t make one a Pharisee. Jesus’ statements had to do with those who put the Law ahead of true worship of God and humility before God. Pointing out statements or attitudes that run that parallel are the complete opposite of being a Pharisee.

It was Jesus himself who took the disciples to task when they suggested raining down thunder on others who were preaching in Jesus’ name that were not “part of their band”. Reminding people that that other Catholics are also preaching his salvation falls into that same category.

In the end, lack of humility and denigrating other Catholics are just not “traditional values” or virtues no matter how hard one might try to justify them and no matter which “side” they come from.

Peace,

 

[Layman]

Well, if they favour the old rite and don’t like the O.F., they can make their views known. I’m not sure how this can be done without offending somebody. There’s no excuse for being rude, as opposed to forceful, however.

[This brought a thought to mind: The practical differences between the TLM and N.O/O.F. are stark. I wonder how this tension will be resolved in parishes which choose to say the former?

e.g. we handle the Host in this Mass, but don’t in this new/old one Father is doing?]

In my opinion, I would guess that congregation numbers, priest availability and collection receipts would dictate how many, if any TLMs get said in a parish, agitation or no. I think I read a priest saying something like “Be careful how you approach your priest or bishop with requests. They get quite a lot of letters written in green ink or quoting the GIRM and misapplying it.”

I’d guess this sort of thing is not new in the life of the church. You can certainly make your views known, but being rude or angry never helped win any argument, long term.

 

[tcm22]

I hate the fact that people like to call us Pharisees. However, it is us who are scorned at if we don’t stand during Communion like everybody else. It is us who are scorned when we ask for Latin in the liturgy, or Gregorian Chant. It is us who are judged if we try to dress nicely for Mass. It is us who wish to follow the directives of Vatican II, truly. It is us who are truly obedient when we don’t allow “liturgical dance”. What is this weird stereotype of traditional Catholics being Pharisees? Was every Catholic before 1969 a Pharisee?

Thanks for the video though. I will watch it indeed. God bless.

This strikes me as self-serving exaggeration, and certainly doesn’t track with what I see in the Church or the OF Mass. I’ve never seen or heard scorn at those who kneel during Communion. Asking for a Latin Mass or Gregorian Chant is fine as well, but I would expect few Parishes have the experience or resources to make that happen. Like it or not, the OF is standard and that’s where Parishes put their resources.

Similarly, I’ve never heard of anyone being scorned for dressing nicely for Mass. I’ve witnessed lots of scorn, on this board and in real life, for those who don’t feel the need to consider their appearance going to Mass. I’m sympathetic to that, but certainly don’t see that as a reason to reject the OF.

Likewise, I’ve never witnessed or even heard of “Liturgical Dance” happening at any Parish I’ve attended or been a member of. I probably wouldn’t return to a Parish that put on a stunt like that, but it’s certainly not a valid critique of the millions of OF Masses conducted every day across the world.

Cherry picking abuses, mistakes, or problems across the entire universal Church to justify an outright dismissal of a valid rite is just plain wrong. I am 100% sure if the EF Mass were the standard in the Latin Rite, there would be plenty of critics talking about what they don’t like and “abuses” in their individual locations.

It really is about context.

 

[James_of_NAM]

The sermon has it right, at least in my case. When I see the abuses and sometimes the plain silliness of NO Masses, I easily fall into the smug assurance that if nothing else, I have better taste than do these people.

As the saints teach again and again, Pride worms its way everywhere and we can hope to resist it only with humility.

One way to cultivate humility: attend the Traditional Mass more intently. We ask for mercy again and again in the old liturgy. If we truly seek it, it is because we know we need it, that we have quite enough to worry about with our own sins. Concentrating on that leaves less time for judging the sins, or the taste, of others.

 

[katgee]

There are different degrees of truth…the highest is truth expressed by the Church.

We take on the name of Christian because our old selves have died and we have put on the New Man of Jesus Christ. The focus should be always Christ. He is the Word Made Flesh Who nurtures us. The most severe language about who is saved and who is not appears to be reserved for the Church’s very own Catholics. In Vatican II, Ch. II, The People of God, #14:…
'Fully incorporated into the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization of faith, the sacraments, eccesiastical government, and communion–are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not ‘in heart." All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged.’

Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the pharisees. They and their haughty attitudes and shunning and labelling the less fortunate among them can destroy a person’s soul with their judgments and possibly lead one to consider suicide.

How needed it is in our North American culture to build the true Christian brotherhood among the Catholics,along with our intellectual and philosophical inclinations.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is not about being a traditional or a liberal. It is about preserving any idea of “us” and “them” in a world of sinners, each one totally in need of the mercy of God.

"*He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. "Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted*." Luke 18:9-14

It is all about falling into “us” and “them”, which can only happen when we simultaneously forget the debt we have had forgiven and remember only the debts owed by others. Anybody, no matter how virtuous in other respects, who catches himself or herself saying “you trads” or “you liberals” or “you pew warmers” or “you clergy” anything of that sort, rather than “this practice of” or “that habit of” or “this belief that” can profit from reviewing that text.

If the shoe doesn’t fit, then give thanks, leave it alone, to resolve try on again on another day.

 

[theproducerjt]

Pharisees come in all shapes and in every form of Christianity, including those which anyone with a working mind would consider either ignorant and deviant. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it; He also gave us free will and, through His Son, told us not to judge. Seems pretty clear.

 

[katgee]

If we follow the exterior of our religion, we make an idol of it. We must open our hearts to their depth and allow the Holy Spirit to penetrate us. True worship always represents Jesus as True God and True Man. Our faith is a living faith nurtured by Jesus Himself.

Idolatry is a form of pride, the focus on ourselves. So we are not to judge others by what form they prefer, be it traditional or Novus Ordo…Charity is always the secure walk in faith.

 

[kwray]

Always remember to be thankful that you can attend Mass (of whatever form) on a regular basis. It takes some pretty grave liturgical abuses to render the consecration invalid.

In many of the more remote places of the world, people are lucky to be able to receive the sacraments a couple of times per year. I’m sure they’re not so picky about details - they’re just happy to be able to receive communion.

Not to say we shouldn’t care about liturgical abuses, just that we have to remember the main reason we go to Mass in the first place!

 

[ncjohn]

My morning humility prayer…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Peace,

 

[Seamus_L]

In 12 years of attending Latin Masses I’ve yet to meet a Pharisee. Met a few who were opinionated, but none who I thought were self righteous.
When you consider how much Church teaching is openly rejected in your average Catholic parish, there's just no way you're not going to have the occasional heated argument between Traditional Catholics and those who are not.

 

[CradleCath]

Let me say from beginning: I’m a traditional Catholic, 35 years old, and I’m told I have been going to the traditional Mass since 1975 (my parents were very

early adherents to the “traditionalist movement”). What follows applies as much to myself as any other traddie. I’m going to make some broad assumptions which certainly don’t apply to every traditional Catholic --** just most of them.**

I’ve read every post in this thread & I am appalled at the judgmental attitude of many of those who have posted here. “Just most of them”??? How do others know that “most of them” are pharisees who lack humility? I, for instance belong to a parish that holds one Latin Mass per week at 12:30 PM on Sunday. The daily Mass, the vigil Mass & 2 others held on Sunday are Novus Ordo Masses.

We aren’t a “handful of people”, we aren’t a large group either, we are just small enough that I have gotten to know most of the Traditional Catholics in the parish. I have known but one person who comes off as lacking humility & I think that person would lack it no matter what her Mass preference was.

Among traditionalists, there is unfortunately an air of superiority and commonly a lack of Charity

 

[otjm]

I hate the fact that people like to call us Pharisees. However, it is us who are scorned at if we don’t stand during Communion like everybody else. It is us who are scorned when we ask for Latin in the liturgy, or Gregorian Chant. It is us who are judged if we try to dress nicely for Mass. It is us who wish to follow the directives of Vatican II, truly. It is us who are truly obedient when we don’t allow “liturgical dance”. What is this weird stereotype of traditional Catholics being Pharisees? Was every Catholic before 1969 a Pharisee?

Thanks for the video though. I will watch it indeed. God bless.

when the bishop has been given authority to ask, e.g. that people stand for Communion, and the authority to do so came from Rome, and certain people have decided and taken it upon themselves to do otherwise, then those who do have opened themsevles up to scrutiny. They have decided that the bishop, whose authority comes directly in descent from the Apostles, and whose authority over the matter has been confirmed, is either wrong (and therefore Rome is wrong), or else they have either superior private knowledge (that is gnosticism) or somehow have anointed themselves as knowing better and having suprior authority in the matter. They will go to all sorts of extremes of attempted logical explanations as to why they do not have to follow the bishop.

And then they have the gall to criticize others who likewise choose to disobey the rubrics. Something there about the pot calling the kettle black, if one wants to look closely.

As to the Latin, or Gregorian Chant, or the EF, or following the liturgical directives, no one should hold those who do in scorn. And we all know there are plenty who think that the old Church was done away with and a new one has taken its place and are scornful of those who wish to celebrate the EF, or the OF with attendant items.

The issue, however, is not with those who simply wish for Latin, etc. The issue is with those who heap calumny, scorn, disrespect, contempt, derision, disdain and disparagement on the OF, even when it is celebrated reverently. And with about 19,000 parishes in the US, most of those who do are limited to experience maybe one one hundredth of one percent of all the parishes in the US; but of course out of that vast experience they are able to pronounce judgement on all the other 99.99% of parishes.

We are not talking about Traditionalists in general, but the more vociferous and vocal of that group. It was not for no reason that one of the priests who had been working so hard on some of the issues Traditionalists have wanted (Latin) took Michael Davies to task for the disparaging comments Mr. Davies had made publicly concerning the OF.

Rules have a purpose; and that purpose is to guide us to something else. Pharisees raise the rule over the purpose, and make the rule an end in itself. They also are good at applying the rules as they wish to see fit, and ignoring or giving a light once-over to those that they do not wish to hold dear. In that, they most certainly are not a club exclusive only to Traditionalists. It is altogether too easy to find one’s indentity and worth in the rule itself, and ignore or be oblivious to the fact that the rule should be a sign pointing to a much greater reality.

 

[otjm]

Yet, it is the liberals who are sitting in judgment in many posts on this thread.

Maybe it would do well if we had a standardized and accepted definition of what a “liberal” is. Given that I have some friends who consider me to be somewhere to the left of Trotsky, and a number of others who consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun, I am somewhat sensitive to the use of the term without some foundation from which we can converse intelligently.

Amazingly, one gets called a liberal when one follows the Magisterium (which, by the way, is not rigidly set, as those on either end of the spectrum would have it - but for different reasons).With the possible exception of the stock market, which tends to outliers, most things and most people tend to follow a bell curve. That, in and of itself, would indicate (and reality seems to back this up) that the majority of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but are in the middle. Being in the middle may tend to one end or the other, but they are not one end or the other.

However, in discourse there is a tendency (as noted by my friends) not to measure to an independent standard, but simply to measure from their own stance and prejudices, assuming, not necessarily correctly, that those to the right and to the left are therefore “conservaitves” and “liberals”, leaving the one judging to be the determanitive of what is the standard.

Your comment about “liberals” does just that; you are deciding that those to your left are liberals when indeed, they may actually be moderate conservatives.

I have seen NO air of superiority or lack of Charity inherent in any specific type of Catholicism & feel that it’s really hypocritical to stereotype & condemn “most of them” who prefer a TLM. To me, the very thing that so many here are doing…which is to criticize Traditionalists is in itself pharisaical. What I’ve mainly seen in the post I’m quoting (& many others in this thread) is “Thank you God that I’m not like Tradtional Catholics”.

…

The abuses were bad indeed, but I also found the Novus Ordo both boring & mundane.

I guess I have to wonder what you understand/understood about the Mass itself, that you could find it mundane. It would seem that you might be confusing externals, such as Chant vs. a hymn based on scripture, or incense vs. no incense, or Latin vs. the vernacular. I have been to Masses that were said reverently, and those where they were approached in a slipshod manner, to be polite - and that spans both the OF in the last 40+ years, and the EF 45+ years ago. The Mass is not boring, as it is the intersection between Heaven and earth; but I may be bored (personal issue). I may find the Mass “fulfilling” and be “elated” ar “satiated” but that is my response to the Mass - again, a personal issue. I may be truly inspired or enlightened. Or I may be in a vast dry desert, in search of living water that I can’t seem to experience. Personal issue. The most humble of simple Masses is as glorious as the most ornate, detailed Solemn High Mass; and I might find the first to be exquisite and the latter to be completely distracting from worship. Or just the opposite. But both are the Mass. Should I consider or experience one as mundane, that is not the Mass but is me. I have attended both the Chrism Mass of the Archbishop and Solemn High Masses, and in the latter served every position available to the un-ordained up to and including Master of Ceremonies. I have also attended Mass (Holy Mysteries) in the Maronite rite and the Byzantine rite, and the OF in Vietnameses and in Spanish.

If any of them were mundane, it was me and not the Mass.

some

Traditional Catholics who are more well-read regarding the Catholic Church, than some of the liberals I am aquainted with. I don’t think as you do that it comes from the (Here is something you might recognize when you are 65 instead of 35 …those who call another an “intellectual snob” usually SEE the other person as more intellectual than they are. The pride the criticizer sees doesn’t lie in the heart of the one they are denigrating, the critizers are projecting it onto the one they see as superior). And I too have seen all too many people who don’t have a good grasp of their faith. On the other hand, one can know a great deal, and have humility about it; or one can know a great deal and lack humility. To which we can add those who think they know a great deal; I usually find them somewhat lacking in humility.

the way that our founder,
Christ, Himself wanted.However (and this may not be the point you are trying to make), one can know a great deal about the Church, follow the Magisterium, and not be a Traditionalist - or at least, not be considered one by those who consider themselves to be one. It is not either/or - be a Traditionalist or be in favor of those who follow the “spirit” of Vatican 2.

 

[EasterJoy]

We are not talking about Traditionalists in general, but the more vociferous and vocal of that group…

That’s what I like about the sermon that the OP pointed out, though. It is a traditional priest being very vocal about formation of the virtues, about keeping priorities straight. It is really excellent.

We shouldn’t mistake the shocking or obnoxious for the courageous. Many traditionalists speak out for what is right, and they are loud enough to hear. They are just easier to ignore, because it is the same old message that God’s been sending since Abraham. When a courageous priest tells us what we all ought to hear, in no uncertain terms, and especially when he singles out those over whom he has particular authority, that is a priest who is following his vocation. (When the priests who exclusively celebrate the OF do this, incidentally, they too often get complaints that they are “old Vatican I” priests instead of “Vatican II” priests. I have heard more than one honest-to-goodness “Vatican II priest” take great exception to that, too!!! So it happens everywhere! “Criticize me?!? What, are you from *that other end *of the Church?!?” )

Incidentally, neither are the soup kitchens and food pantries manned only by those who don’t know Latin from Greek. This is another common myth that people send around in some sort of weird self-defense: “I care about the poor, not about rubrics or dead languages.” There is not an inverse relationship between love of tradition and love of virtue or love of neighbor! It is just that we cannot forget that these are not necessarily the exact same thing, either. That’s the only point the OP was making.

 

[tcm22]

I’ve read every post in this thread & I am appalled at the judgmental attitude of many of those who have posted here. “Just most of them”??? How do others know that "most of them

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;5593346:

CradleCath, you are 100% right that there is way to much painting with a broad brush in this thread. “Traditionalist” does NOT equal Pharisee, however there are many self-proclaimed traditionalists who fit the mold and many of them post on this board. It makes for a lively debate.

I am sympathetic to the traditionalists who faithfully work within the Church to promote the faith and a love of the Eucharist. However, it can’t be denied that there is a segment of the traditionalist community who have done more harm than good. To quote from the SSPX web site:

That sort of commentary brings sadness to my heart. Claiming a true Catholic does not have a right to participate in a valid Mass, sanctioned by Rome, is just plain distressing.

There’s more here if you care to read it: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

I pray these people will put aside their pride and self-rightousness and rejoin our wonderful Church.

As do I. I’ve read some of the SSPX material on-line & I found it deplorable. I have never been to one of their Masses, nor will I go. Their statements concerming our Popes are just unacceptable to me, still I won’t claim that all or most of the members of SSPX are radicals & extremists.that would put me in the “same boat” as the people here who have posted here about Traditional Catholics…putting us all in a little box with “Traditional Catholics/Pharisees” written on it.

 

[CradleCath]

Maybe it would do well if we had a standardized and accepted definition of what a “liberal” is. Given that I have some friends who consider me to be somewhere to the left of Trotsky, and a number of others who consider me to be to the right of Attila the Hun, I am somewhat sensitive to the use of the term without some foundation from which we can converse intelligently.

You’re right, you know. Maybe it would do well to have a standardized definition of what a liberal is. Just as it would be nice to have the same for “Traditional Catholic”. To me, that means just to follow the tenets of Catholicism, to Love & serve God as best we can during our journey on this earth. Of course, since we’ve been labeled as “Pharisees”, that will be hard to do.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if I posted a thread whose title read:
“Liberal Catholics as nominal Catholics”? Then we could all join in & talk about how many liberals use artificial contraceptives & why those who so love the Church of today seem to all be EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers/lectors/deacons/Oblates/Instructors, etc., etc. It could go just like this thread has…we could discuss why they seem to need these “up-front” roles & how self-righteous & lacking in humility they must be. After all, they believe that they are just as worthy to handle the Body & Blood of Christ…as a priest is. The thing is…I wouldn’t start a thread like that. Thank God, I don’t believe that all liberals are nominal Catholics. I don’t believe that “most of them” are, in fact…I know a few that are, but I just would not lump all Catholics with a leftist point of view as nominal Catholics. Nor would I judge all Traditionalists as “Pharisees” or “hypocrites”.

Amazingly, one gets called a liberal when one follows the Magisterium (which, by the way, is not rigidly set, as those on either end of the spectrum would have it - but for different reasons).

I’m curious as to what you mean when you say that the Magisterium…the teaching authority is not “rigidly” set. We only have to read Christ’s words to Peter to realize that the Pope is first among Bishops. Pope St. Leo the Great, in the 6th century was a theologian and pastor & a tireless promoter of Roman primacy, showing himself to be an authentic heir of the apostle Peter,

The Roman primacy in the Church is “necessary”, today as in the past. And a member of the hierarchy ONLY has teaching authority when he is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, our Holy Father. After all, Bishop Marcel Lefebvre was a member of the Magisterium when he led many people out of the Church & called John Paul a heretic. The key to this situation being, that when he did so, he was no longer in Communion with the Pope…therefore he immediately lost his place within the teaching authority of the Church. So…the excuse that “My Bishop said it’s OK.”…to vote for a pro-abortion political candidate, to promote gay marriage, to campaign for women priests & on & on & ON is not valid.

St. Thomas wrote, in the Summa Theologica, that even if a member of the hierarchy promotes something that our **properly formed & prayerfully examined **Catholic concience tells us is sinful…we are BOUND to disobey him.

With the possible exception of the stock market, which tends to outliers, most things and most people tend to follow a bell curve. That, in and of itself, would indicate (and reality seems to back this up) that the majority of people are neither liberal nor conservative, but are in the middle. Being in the middle may tend to one end or the other, but they are not one end or the other.

I agree. I have always said that I’m a “middle of the road” Catholic…but when pushed hard enough, I lean to the right.

Your comment about “liberals” does just that; you are deciding that those to your left are liberals when indeed, they may actually be moderate conservatives.

Just as you & yours have decided that Traditional Catholics are Pharisees when THEY might simply be moderate liberals who simply choose to attend a TLM because the silence permits them to really delve into the prayers that belong to this Mass, to better listen to what God has to say to them in response.

I guess I have to wonder what you understand/understood about the Mass itself, that you could find it mundane. It would seem that you might be confusing externals, such as Chant vs. a hymn based on scripture, or incense vs. no incense, or Latin vs. the vernacular.

Nope, you’re wrong about that & some very important people agree with me. . about the very banality of that Liturgy. Just read my Signature line. Yes, it’s valid, yes it’s licit, but I prefer the prayers, the penitential quality, the fact that the priest is praying with me, not at me, etc., etc. that I find in the TLM. That, after 40 yrs. is finally my right & it’s wrong for people to assume that I am a “Pharisee” a “holier than Thou Catholic” & all of the negative adjectives that have been used on these forums.

I have attended both the Chrism Mass of the Archbishop and Solemn High Masses, and in the latter served every position available to the un-ordained up to and including Master of Ceremonies. I have also attended Mass (Holy Mysteries) in the Maronite rite and the Byzantine rite, and the OF in Vietnameses and in Spanish.

How wonderful for you. I won’t even go into the Masses I’ve attended in my 68 years as a Catholic, but I will ask…what in the WORLD is a Mass “Master of Ceremonies”? I truly thought that I’d heard it all???

 

[I_Believe]

Such a wonderful and revealing thread. It’s so entertaining to see folks judging trads because they think all trads are judgmental.

I suppose it’s better to be a Hypocrite than a Pharisee ? Oh, and I see the token drive by sucker punch to the SSPX showed up as well.

In a forum described as “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality”, it’s tough to find such a discussion. The Hypocrites won’t let it happen.

To the OP, thanks for the link.

 

[Jacafamala]

theproducerjt: Pharisees come in all shapes and in every form of Christianity, including those which anyone with a working mind would consider either ignorant and deviant. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it; He also gave us free will and, through His Son, told us not to judge. Seems pretty clear.

To the non-Catholic world, Catholicism in general is a very judgmental religion. Very judgmental. Gay marriage is a sin, abortion is a sin, contraception is a sin, etc, etc…

We are called to judge actions, but not the people themselves. Because we can never know the intentions of the heart; what a person objectively understands, what they don’t understand… Only God knows these things.