Traditional Catholics as Pharisees

[CradleCath]

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

 

[PJM]

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.

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

Definetly not true in my lifes experiences. In a mutittude of parishes in different states.

The reasons for it are many but it mainly boils down to a common thread: folks who “left the novus ordo” did so because they were dismayed at the abuses not only in the liturgy but in the teaching of the Faith

***One can be a staunch ROMAN CATHOLIC w/o having abandoned the NO Mass. Many of us have either no or extreme lack of access to the EF, and endure patiently that litany of ungoing abuses [most of which have now been “Indulted”]. ***

This said, we [at least should] endure with charity, understanding that most have no idea of what could and should be, and therefore are doing and serving God in what they deem a proper, but new and improved way." We must respect such action, until and unless it is offically changed.

At the places where they found the old Mass, they usually found solid doctrine being preached as well. In such an environment certain unfortunate attitudes will be developed, and certain less-than-ideal modes of discourse will arise with our “less enlightened” Catholic brethren who have not yet followed us to “the true Mass.” Again, I’m putting this in terms common to the traddies.

We also found nearly THREE TIMES as many professed Catholics actually practicing THEE Faith, Five times more going to Confession, No urgent need for Priest and Religious,
Catholic Schools that really were [yes a few still are!], and the second largest christian denomination was NOT "Fallen away Catholics."

In it, the priest (who preaches missions and retreats all around the country) addresses the Pharisaical attitude that is common among many trads and exhorts us to realize this weakness and overcome it.

***From my lonely perspective all that we Informed Practicing Roman Catholics *have in common with them is “belief in an after life.” They did not accept Christ as God, did not accept the Primacy of Peter, did not accept the FACT that when the “new Church, new religion” was introduced [By Christ], the “old” is done away with. **

**So aside from the perspective of them feeling comfortable with what was, and refusing to accept the reality of what is; we Traditional Catholics, whom I identfy as IPRC’s" recogonize both what was “and it was good”] and what now is [and its proveably in the arena of Salvation of souls, not as good]. So the good Father is free to make what ever other comparisons he desires. After all this is America

Long story short: I think that anyone who calls themselves a traditional Catholic should listen to this sermon at least three times a year. We might “have more” than others, but more will be demanded of us. And if we don’t have Charity… then which Mass we attend will make no difference in the final analysis.

***Do I as an IPRC feel superior, privledged, better in any way? Not really! God’s wisdom is a gift. Faith is a gift. Grace is a gift. We need to where ever we are at in our personal relationship with Christ, continue to seek these gifts, accept and apply them, and not judge others motives. “For by their fruit you shall know them.” Every man, women and child; past, present and furture is in need of prayer and God’s help"

We are in the same BARK, even if we may not be in the same boat.***

Love and prayers,

And on this point dear friend we completely agree

 

[EasterJoy]

Anybody who thirsts for righteousness (a good thing, a *blessed *thing!) can fall into the sin of self-righteousness, whether their thirst lead them to the Latin Mass or re-usable grocery bags.

Anybody who either rejects a certain good behavior or else puts his or her own self-worth into observing a good behavior is very liable to being especially annoyed by anyone else who becomes self-important about pursuing that good behavior faultlessly.

In other words, strong annoyance like that often betrays either a lack of self-acceptance, a lack of humility, or a resistance to a particular virtue. Whenever you meet someone who seems hypocritical, and who totally gets under your skin, you have to ask yourself this: is there something, not just about their self-satisfaction, but in what they are self-satisfied about, that bothers me? Is that thing actually a good thing? Why does it bother me so much? After all, it shouldn’t surprise any of us walking around with clay feet, when we run up against someone else with the same problem!!

If everybody who displays pride drives you nuts, then ask yourself this: Is it my pride that their pride is violating? Why?

This doesn’t mean that if pride bothers you that you must be proud. It only means that if the proud ruffle your feathers, you’d do well to ask why.

There is nothing the devil likes better than to light up everyone else’s sins for us, in order to shove our own sins farther into the dark!!

 

[Layman]

When I read this thread I thought ‘The Pharisee Club’ would be an ironic name for a traditional Catholic group.

We could meet on the first Tuesday of every month and practice shunning, accusing, wearning mournful expressions in public (indicating fasting) and grabbing prominent seats in Church.

I’d suggest we could model ourselves on this man. Our leader!

 

[PJM]

=Layman;5605919]When I read this thread I thought ‘The Pharisee Club’ would be an ironic name for a traditional Catholic group.

We could meet on the first Tuesday of every month and practice shunning, accusing, wearning mournful expressions in public (indicating fasting) and grabbing prominent seats in Church.

I’d suggest we could model ourselves on this man. Our leader!

***I second the motion:thumbsup:

Maybe we could wear tassles pinned to our Tee Shirts? [as a sign of our piety,] but heck you knew that!***

 

[Layman]

Ah, I remember reading that, but not its significance.

Must … try … harder! [puff, pant]

I accuse … myself!

 

[Jonquilius]

… I’d guess your average pew-warmer knows nothing at all about the SSPX. And not much more about the Latin Mass. They’re just not on the radar. So if some are pharisees, I don’t see how it should be a big deal.

**[Smiles] I wonder if the real source of these accusations of Pharisee-ism on this forum is that N.O. fans know, in their hearts, that the mainstream Church has lost much of its rigour since Vat. II? **

Whatever your opinion on this matter, smug self-inflation can only damage your position… and your Mother the Church.

Remember that the divisions you glory in, placing so many beloveds of God at a “level” far below yourself, are wounds in the very Body of Christ. Division is the work of the devil.

Think of Mother Teresa: always affirming the Truth, and at the same time, affirming people. Think of the words of JPII at WWD Toronto: “You are not the sum of your weaknesses and failings; you are the sum of God’s love for you!”

Speak love.

 

[otjm]

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 do not label Traditionalists as Pharisees, as you might find with a careful reading of what I wrote. Some, and most certainly not all Traditionalists focus on the rules and processes to the point where they give evey indication that the rules and processes have become an end in and of themselves.

Then we could all join in & talk about how many liberals use artificial contraceptives

And how many moderates do also? And how many moderates who dop so, do so because of either a lack of proper catechesis, or worse yet, catechesis which supported it? Most people I talk to on the issue have no clue what the Church actually teaches on the subject, as they were never taught it. Further, years of having used it, and having been members of a group so large that so thoroughly supports ABC is hardly grounds to identify them as liberals - unless we want to take one issue and make that the defining mark of a liberal. Some will choose to do so; however, again I do not think that is a valid definition of the term “liberal” sufficient to allow inteeligent discussion. And by the way, I don’t support ABC.

& why those who so love the Church of today seem to all be EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers/lectors/deacons/Oblates/Instructors, etc., etc.

OK, I will admit I don’t understand your lumping any number of groups together.

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.

And given that Rome seems to be of the same opinion, it is interesting that some decide when they will follow Rome and when they will not; it is just that the liberals who choose not to follow Rome are much less sophisticated in their arguments as to why they perceive a moral authority to do so.

Nor would I judge all Traditionalists as “Pharisees” or “hypocrites”.

Nor would I.

I’m curious as to what you mean when you say that the Magisterium…the teaching authority is not “rigidly” set.

Let’s take one minor example. The Western rite holds that the transubstantiation occurs with trhe words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”. the Eastern rites hold that transubstantiation occurs, but do not hold that they occur at that exact point.

This is only one minor example of issues that are not rigidly set.

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. 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.

This issue of voting is nuanced in a way that many, if not most people don’t entirely understand. And the issue of women priests was answered by John Paul 2; sadly it just won’t die. Part of that is due to the lack of catechesis as to how the Church has, for all of its existence, made decisions.

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.

Yes, but an easily misused comment, as one has to think “with the mind of the Church”, which does not mean “pick and choose what limited quote from one pope you wish to follow, and ignore all else”. One needs a very thorough training in the area of theology that one wishes to dispute with the pope, before stepping out and doing so.

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.

as I do.

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.

Again, you are applying to me what I thought I made clear in my previous post; I do not lump all together. Try reading it again.

Nope, you’re wrong about that & some very important people agree with me. . about the very banality of that Liturgy. 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.

And I have actually read what Benedict 16, for example, has said about the OF, and I do not pick and choose comments from hime, but look at the totality of his statements. There is no banality in the extension of readings from Old and New Testament. That some of the prayers have been dubed down, I would agree; it is still the same sacrifice, and I will maintain, as to other liturgists who would like to see changes in the prayers, that if one sees the OF as mundane as opposed to the EF, they lakck some essential depth of knowlege about the Mass, whatever its form - EF, OF, or one of the Eastern rites.

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???

A Master of Ceremonies was the individual in the EF at a Solemn High Mass whosse duty was to see that all the individuals - priest, deacon, subdeacon, thurifer, accolytes and candle bearers did what they were supposed to do when they were supposed to do it and where they were supposed to be when they did it.

 

[EasterJoy]

***I second the motion:thumbsup:

Maybe we could wear tassles pinned to our Tee Shirts? [as a sign of our piety,] but heck you knew that!***

I think I’d prefer the T-shirt I saw last Sunday: “Prays Well with Others”

 

[maryjk]

I thought long and hard before posting to this thread because I really don’t want to be blasted. But I wanted to tell you this story of a boy that stayed at my house for a week.

My son’s friend needed a place to stay for the week. I know his family, they know us. Mom, Dad and Brother were all out of town. So, Monday morning, I went over to his house to get him and his stuff. He stayed with us until Saturday night.

When his Mom came by to pick him up, we talked for a while. She mentioned how tired she was and that they would be going to a later Mass. They normally attend at 8 and would be going at 10:30. The Mass at 8 has traditional leanings. They use Chant and more Latin than the Mass at 10:30. The boy was mortified. How could they possibly attend at 10:30. Was it even a real Mass?

When I saw him at the 10:30 Mass, he sat with his arms crossed and he was shaking his head every time the music started. It was very clear that he has been brought up to believe that unless there is Chant and Latin, it isn’t a real Mass. And that is sad. I can see him growing up to be one of those that won’t attend Mass unless he finds a very traditional parish.

 

[Layman]

I’d guess if you’re used to the “Agnes Dei” and the “Gloria”, hymns like “Bind Us together” and “We Are Yours” would be a culture shock. Must be how those who favoured the old rite felt when they came to Mass sometime in 1969(?) and saw what the new, improved rite was like.

 

[Tartini]

The child will be missing out on the real reason for attending Mass at all. I pray that will not be the case and is why one should seriously assess their motives in the first place. The children are not at fault, as they are only mirrors of their parents. If you are close to the family it would not be out of place to explain the reasons for Mass or ask why they have not corrected the child in the error of believing that one form of Mass is better (or more valid) than the other. Their actions make other traditional Catholics look bad, and one must remember that to prefer a EF Mass over a OF Mass is not right or respectful. I personally am saddened when I hear or read things that foster unwarrented divisions in the unity of the Church. I cannot ever accept the thinking pattern that “to each their own” as this is detrimental to unity in itself, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[otjm]

I’d guess if you’re used to the “Agnes Dei” and the “Gloria”, hymns like “Bind Us together” and “We Are Yours” would be a culture shock. Must be how those who favoured the old rite felt when they came to Mass sometime in 1969(?) and saw what the new, improved rite was like.

Always have to take your shot, don’t you? God help us, it might have been an Old Testament or New Testament passge put to music; and because it wasn’t Gregorian Chant or polyphany, it just wouldn’t pass muster, would it? Wouldn’t that just be so terribly horrible, such an awful abuse of true liturgy, to sing a passage from the Gospel set to music you don’t approve of?

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the point that Father makes in his sermon can apply to anyone. I have been a Catholic for more than 35 years and a Francsican friars. I am amazed at the amount of rhetoric around the form of the mass.

I wonder what would happen if Catholics would just take it was Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum.

1. They are both forms of the same rite. They are not distinct rites. Let’s get rid of that langauge.
2. They are not the TLM and the NO. It is easier for the average person to feel comfortable with the langauge of Summorum Pontificum, because it’s not judgmental. Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form say nothing about good, better and best.
3. Summorum Pontificum said it very clearly that both forms are part of the liturgical tradition of the Church. So let’s just drop the argument about whether the OF was cranked up in the Vatican’s garage and accept that if the Church says that this form which may have been cooked up in a garage (my comment) is part of God’s plan, then it’s God’s plan, end of story. God can plan his Church anywhere he wants.
4. The mass is the highest form of praise. The form does not take away from this reality. The form simply affects our senses, not God’s. God does not have senses.
5. If we strip the conversation all the above language and love the liturgy for what it is, despite human foolishness, we will all be holier people.
6. The same phariseeism can happen among those who support the OF too. There can be an air of superiority, an air of “we know better.”
7. We have to stop this silliness. This is not the first time that we have had differences on important issues in the Church, nor will it be the last time either. If we accept this part of our history, we can then take all of these differences as part of the human condition and part of our faith journey. This would certainly endear Catholics to each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[otjm]

I believe that the point that Father makes in his sermon can apply to anyone. I have been a Catholic for more than 35 years and a Francsican friars. I am amazed at the amount of rhetoric around the form of the mass.

I wonder what would happen if Catholics would just take it was Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum.

1. They are both forms of the same rite. They are not distinct rites. Let’s get rid of that langauge.
2. They are not the TLM and the NO. It is easier for the average person to feel comfortable with the langauge of Summorum Pontificum, because it’s not judgmental. Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form say nothing about good, better and best.
3. Summorum Pontificum said it very clearly that both forms are part of the liturgical tradition of the Church. So let’s just drop the argument about whether the OF was cranked up in the Vatican’s garage and accept that if the Church says that this form which may have been cooked up in a garage (my comment) is part of God’s plan, then it’s God’s plan, end of story. God can plan his Church anywhere he wants.
4. The mass is the highest form of praise. The form does not take away from this reality. The form simply affects our senses, not God’s. God does not have senses.
5. If we strip the conversation all the above language and love the liturgy for what it is, despite human foolishness, we will all be holier people.
6. The same phariseeism can happen among those who support the OF too. There can be an air of superiority, an air of “we know better.”
7. We have to stop this silliness. This is not the first time that we have had differences on important issues in the Church, nor will it be the last time either. If we accept this part of our history, we can then take all of these differences as part of the human condition and part of our faith journey. This would certainly endear Catholics to each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen.

Well said.

 

[Layman]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Meanwhile, the Prisoner waits in the Tabernacle to be adored.

If the Mass is primarily a re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary and a way propitiating God and beseeching His sanctification of us, then the modifications of our rite since 1962 look very rum indeed. I don’t see how they’ve helped at all, and the idea that the vernacular is necessary so that the congregation can understand what’s going on presumes they are too stupid to learn Latin, even with missals translating every word and the basic prayers remaining the same week after week.

You can keep calling a camel a horse, but **I think Catholic opinion is slowly moving towards Tradition and away from novelty, if only to drop an approach which has not noticably encouraged conversions, fervour and vocations; the Springtime which was hoped for. **

I think it was Albert Einstein who said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[parvenu74]

The child will be missing out on the real reason for attending Mass at all.

I’m curious where you’re going with that thought: what is the “real reason” for attending Mass to which you alluded but didn’t specify?

 

[parvenu74]

Wouldn’t that just be so terribly horrible, such an awful abuse of true liturgy, to sing a passage from the Gospel set to music you don’t approve of?

The musical setting amplifies the meaning of the words and sets the mental, spiritual, and psychological atmosphere in which the Divine Worship takes place. Gregorian chant, being dominated by melody – which corresponds to the intellective capacity of humans – directly assists in lifting the mind to God: it disposes a person to more fully to receive the graces of the Sacrifice of the Mass (the principle being that one can only receive the graces they are disposed to receive, regardless of how much grace is available to be received).

Are you suggesting, by your rhetorical question, that the words are all that matters and the musical setting of them is secondary in importance? If so, would you seriously assert that a thrash/metal rendition of the Magnificat (or any other scriptural passage) would be suitable for Mass or help dispose one for the reception of Christ’s Body in Holy Communion?

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t see how they’ve helped at all…

The fact that you are incapable of seeing or appreciating something most certainly doesn’t lead to a conclusion that it doesn’t exist. There are millions of us who do see.

Layman:

…and the idea that the vernacular is necessary so that the congregation can understand what’s going on presumes they are too stupid to learn Latin…

Or that people just prefer the vernacular. Keep in mind that the only reason Latin ever became the language of the Church is that it was the vernacular of its time and people wanted Mass in their own language.

Layman:

… even with missals translating every word and the basic prayers remaining the same week after week.

And of course the millions and millions who can’t read and/or have no access to missals (the majority of the world) whatsoever should just be written off. And of course that doesn’t even begin to address the problem that parroting back something in a foreign language does not necessarily translate into “praying”, acknowledging the fact that parroting something back in one’s own language doesn’t either.

I think it was Albert Einstein who said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What a perfect argument for Vatican II’s new approaches! Thanks!

 

[ncjohn]

The musical setting amplifies the meaning of the words and sets the mental, spiritual, and psychological atmosphere in which the Divine Worship takes place. Gregorian chant, being dominated by melody – which corresponds to the intellective capacity of humans – directly assists in lifting the mind to God: it disposes a person to more fully to receive the graces of the Sacrifice of the Mass (the principle being that one can only receive the graces they are disposed to receive, regardless of how much grace is available to be received).

I couldn’t agree with you more that the musical setting directly impacts the atmosphere. The problem is that not everyone responds the same way to different types of music. And it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with intellectual ability. I love classical music overall; I especially love the Beethoven piano sonatas but don’t care for his symphonies. I love some pieces by Tchaikovsky but detest others. I like some chant but gag over other pieces. And chant done badly, as is the case in many a parish that attempts it, is not going to lift anyone’s heart toward God. On the other hand I have heard some Christian praise music that lifts my heart to the heavens and drives me to my knees.

If one is not disposed toward chant, it will not have the same effect on them as some other form might. If the goal is for each of us to be well-disposed to receive those graces, then we need to have a variety of suitable forms. The Church has clearly seen and allowed for that while simultaneously creating guidelines for what is not acceptable, given the overall sensibilities of a group of people in the pews. The idea that “one size fits all” when it comes to music is incredibly egocentric and can itself lead into the kind of thought that the OP is based on, that one’s personal preferences in such things are in some way superior and that the preferences of others are just not on the same level.

Peace,