Truly a sad state of affairs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A wise man in a gray and tattered habit, with a cowl and cincture cord with three knots, who also frequents this forum once said (paraphrased):

“Nobody has the right to be rude, except, an expectant mother deep in labor.”

🙂
 
Jaberwocky said:
Just a question that came to mind.

Therefore, cannot one look at events like this and conclude objectively whether they are beneficial, appropriate, leads to confusion, causes sacrilege etc?

So it does seem sure that there has always been a valid reason to object to such things. Therefore while a Bishop or priest might allow such things, wouldn’t the faithful still be able to judge them on the things they allow and conclude on their “wisdom”, “prudence”, or the “street smarts”?

I think in the mind of the SSPX, the Church has been taken over by men who only know the doctrine but have no knowledge on how to practically promote it, safeguard it, or build a social environment where followers are able to follow it. For better or for worse, that is how they will feel and who can blame them when they react in such a manner?
Click to expand...
The Church, the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition can all fault their behavior as unexcusable. We cannot judge their souls. That’s up to God. There is nothing about their motives to judge. They’ve told us their motives and we know that those motives are wrong. In 2,000 years, the Church has never had a rule against non-Catholics praying with Catholics in church buildings as long as it is authorized by her. The only rule has always been that the Church must authorize these services.

It is true that they did not exist 75 years ago. But we must look at the reason. It had nothing to do with prohibition. It had everything to do with sin.

Catholics and others were equally guilty of antagonism, of hasty judgements, of disrespect for other faiths, of holding grudges for centuries, of name calling, of persecuting people for their beliefs and of encouraging separation, discrimination and bigotry.

Today, intelligent Catholics and intelligent people of other faiths are realizing that those behaviors were destructive and contrary to God’s law. We can’t go back and judge our common ancestors. We don’t have that right. Leave that to God.

But we are responsible for living up to what we know is right. We know that it is never right to do what these folks did.
  1. They are laymen. NO LAYMAN has the right to make demands on how a bishop uses his churches. This has been this way since the time of Peter. They have crossed a boundary that should never have been crossed.
  2. They are laymen. The SSPX is not a Church, is not prelature or an ordinariate. There are no lay members of the SSPX. Even their third order laymen are not canonical members of the SSPX. The layman is always a canonical member of the diocese in which he resides.
  3. Since they are canonical members of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, they are bound to comply with the Archbishop. The Archbishop did not tell his flock that this was a mandatory event. However, he did announce that HE was hosting this event. That’s enough for anyone who is incardinated in a diocese to know that he has to back down and find an appropriate way of expressing his disagreement. He cannot belong to the local Church and violate her rules. They need to come to terms with the fact that with the rights of citizens also come the duties of citizens. As citizens of this archdiocese, they have a moral duty to submit to their bishop in all things that are son a sin.
  4. There is nothing in moral law that says this is a sin. Therefore, they cannot claim sacrilege. It’s a false claim. It’s like suing tobacco companies, because you got cancer. Duhh, another false claim.
  5. There is nothing in Canon Law that prohibits this. Even though there is nothing in Canon Law that says it must happen, there is a canon that says that bishops are responsible for and have a mandate to promote ecumenism. Since there is no prohibition, one is not bound to obey a non-existent law.
  6. What you say is in the mind of the SSPX is exactly that, something in their mind. This is why Catholics have been warned about attending SSPX chapels. The ruling has always been that you can attend to fulfill your Sunday obligation, but you may not adopt their schismatic attitudes. When laymen, from that diocese or any other diocese, adopts an attitude that the SSPX is the keeper of orthodoxy and the better teacher of the faith, he has in effect elevated the SSPX to the status of a second magisterium. This is a schismatic mindset. There is only one magisterium in the Catholic Church and it does not reside in the SSPX. Even their bishops have no place in the current Magisterium, much less any ideas that are in conflict with what the Church feels and thinks is right.
  7. The Church is concerned about not shattering the trust of the people. Pope Francis has proven this by contacting Traditionalists and asking for their feedback.
  8. However, it seems to me that the lay faithful have no concern about shattering the Church’s trust in them.
  9. If a group of lay faithful shatter the Church’s trust in it, then that group’s feedback loses credibility.
It is for this reason that we are not allowed to set up EF masses for any group that has been part of the SSPX or other similar organization or even those who are not part of the SSPX but think like SSPX. Most people failed to read that rule in UE. The Church does not trust that particular group of laymen; therefore, she is not going to provide for them until they prove their fidelity to the Church. This requires a divorce from the SSPX mindset.
**
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.**
 
JReducation said:
It is not contrary to the Catholic faith. It falls short. There is a difference. We share the same faith, but when they stop, we continue with Christ. The Church does not subscribe to that idea that the Jewish faith is contrary to our faith. Never say that to anyone, because you would be saying something that is contrary to the belief of the Church.
Click to expand...
Brother, if a branch of Judaism has voted to change its stance on a moral teaching (contraception and same-sex “marriage” come to mind), can we not say that “some” Jewish beliefs are contrary to our faith, depending on the branch of Judaism?

I think it’s great that our Jewish brothers and sisters have participated in interfaith prayer services. I’m curious if more Orthodox Jews would more readily participate than would Conservative or Reformed Jews. Would you know this?

I’ve known Jewish families who eagerly welcome Christians to share in their Seders, with no intention of converting them to Judaism. Ecumenism can be a beautiful thing.
 
quiet52 said:
Brother, if a branch of Judaism has voted to change its stance on a moral teaching (contraception and same-sex “marriage” come to mind), can we not say that “some” Jewish beliefs are contrary to our faith, depending on the branch of Judaism?

I think it’s great that our Jewish brothers and sisters have participated in interfaith prayer services. I’m curious if more Orthodox Jews would more readily participate than would Conservative or Reformed Jews. Would you know this?

I’ve known Jewish families who eagerly welcome Christians to share in their Seders, with no intention of converting them to Judaism. Ecumenism can be a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...
We would not say that, because it would not be true of Judaism, only of that particular group. The conflict is on very specific points, such as those you have mentioned. But the rest of our beliefs up to Jesus is common to both Christians and Jews, even to some sectors of Islam. But I won’t go deeper into that, because I don’t feel that I know enough about Islam to comment too profoundly. On abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage, Islam and Catholics agree 100%.

On divorce, Islam and Judaism agree 100%

The OT is common to all three. Though Muslims don’t read from the OT at their services, unlike the Jew who do read it. Muslims cut and paste from the OT into the Quran.
 
Jaberwocky said:
I am not saying they were right. I am merely saying that its not absolutely obvious that what they attempted is wrong.

For an example, is there any doubt that those men and women who did this believed from the core of their heart that they were doing it for God? Obviously they know they are making a fool of themselves and if they lacked any belief in God or the Catholic faith, this is really not something anyone would want to do.

So what we can be sure of is that they honestly believed in what they did and also did so not for convenience or pleasure but a zeal to please God. They were following their conscience.

The matter is made more complicated in that what they believe and hold is actually something that might have been commendable and held as an example of Christian zeal 60 years ago. So it is not like they just imagined things up either. They were acting according to what was once held as the right thing to do. Such events were actually held at a certain time by the Church to be something that will eventually destroy the Catholic faith.

Therefore these men and women aren’t acting arbitrarily either.

Overall, I just think there is a serious crisis in the Church in that someone from just 60 years ago can have an entirely different understanding of how to live ones faith from what is taught today. That is what is causing these problems and tensions.
Click to expand...
👍
 
JReducation said:
The Church, the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition can all fault their behavior as unexcusable. We cannot judge their souls. That’s up to God. There is nothing about their motives to judge. They’ve told us their motives and we know that those motives are wrong. In 2,000 years, the Church has never had a rule against non-Catholics praying with Catholics in church buildings as long as it is authorized by her. The only rule has always been that the Church must authorize these services.

It is true that they did not exist 75 years ago. But we must look at the reason. It had nothing to do with prohibition. It had everything to do with sin.

Catholics and others were equally guilty of antagonism, of hasty judgements, of disrespect for other faiths, of holding grudges for centuries, of name calling, of persecuting people for their beliefs and of encouraging separation, discrimination and bigotry.
Click to expand...
On the matter of why it was not allowed, encyclicals such as Mortalium Animos seems to suggest something greater than just sin. It was viewed as potentially leading to indifferentism and the founding principles of such gathering as being threatening to the Church. MA suggests that such meetings, after leading indifferentism, then leads to agnosticism and atheism.

Then if one were to read MA for an example, and then look at this event, would not one act out of zeal as the SSPX had done? They would not be thinking of simply avoiding sin but perhaps larger matters. If they had lost children to other faiths, this feeling may even be more pronounced.

At this juncture of things, one could say that the SSPX are being disobedient to the Bishop. But in a time where incorrect practices had been frequently and commonly allowed by Bishops and priests and later condemned by the Church, there is an issue of trust at play.

Even I, though I am not SSPX, sometimes feel a mistrust toward my own local bishop and the events (not particularly speaking of ecumenical events here) he wants to hold. Always, upon learning of an event, I would find out the details and just look up Church rubrics to see what she says on the matter. Every-time I discover that the events are legitimate, my trust in him grows. But it also is shattered every-time I find out that the event has dubious foundations or that it has been warned against by the Church.

I think this is unfortunate that it has come to that. But it is just where we are today. There is an inability to trust the shepherds in the Church because they had let down the faithful 60 years ago in a rather widespread manner. For those like the SSPX, it seems that they have come to associate this let down with Vatican II and therefore tend to look at what was said and done before Vatican II to judge the actions of the Bishops.

In their eyes, these gatherings can seem very much like sacrilege and something to be resisted. Perhaps they see themselves like those in the times of the Maccabees.
 
Jaberwocky said:
On the matter of why it was not allowed, encyclicals such as Mortalium Animos seems to suggest something greater than just sin. It was viewed as potentially leading to indifferentism and the founding principles of such gathering as being threatening to the Church. MA suggests that such meetings, after leading indifferentism, then leads to agnosticism and atheism.

Then if one were to read MA for an example, and then look at this event, would not one act out of zeal as the SSPX had done? They would not be thinking of simply avoiding sin but perhaps larger matters. If they had lost children to other faiths, this feeling may even be more pronounced.

At this juncture of things, one could say that the SSPX are being disobedient to the Bishop. But in a time where incorrect practices had been frequently and commonly allowed by Bishops and priests and later condemned by the Church, there is an issue of trust at play.

Even I, though I am not SSPX, sometimes feel a mistrust toward my own local bishop and the events (not particularly speaking of ecumenical events here) he wants to hold. Always, upon learning of an event, I would find out the details and just look up Church rubrics to see what she says on the matter. Every-time I discover that the events are legitimate, my trust in him grows. But it also is shattered every-time I find out that the event has dubious foundations or that it has been warned against by the Church.

I think this is unfortunate that it has come to that. But it is just where we are today. There is an inability to trust the shepherds in the Church because they had let down the faithful 60 years ago in a rather widespread manner. For those like the SSPX, it seems that they have come to associate this let down with Vatican II and therefore tend to look at what was said and done before Vatican II to judge the actions of the Bishops.

In their eyes, these gatherings can seem very much like sacrilege and something to be resisted. Perhaps they see themselves like those in the times of the Maccabees.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you mentioned the Maccabees because we know that the Maccabees eventually became the Pharisees.

The Maccabees saved Judaism. People don’t realize how close Judaism was to perishing and that it would have but for this small band of men. But they eventually lost sight of what was important and focused on outward observances of the law rather than what Jesus himself describes as “weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (cf Matthew 23:23).

The Pharisees became obsessed with separation, believing that they were contaminated by others. Jesus himself corrects this when he reaches out and touches a leper. Jesus is not infected but the leper is cleansed. It is not Jews who are made unclean by the presence of non-Jews but non-Jews who are made clean by the Jewish presence.

Perhaps we can take a lesson from this. Maybe it is not these gatherings that are contaminating the Church but the Church which is purifying non-Catholics at these gatherings.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
I’m glad you mentioned the Maccabees because we know that the Maccabees eventually became the Pharisees.

The Maccabees saved Judaism. People don’t realize how close Judaism was to perishing and that it would have but for this small band of men. But they eventually lost sight of what was important and focused on outward observances of the law rather than what Jesus himself describes as “weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith” (cf Matthew 23:23).

The Pharisees became obsessed with separation, believing that they were contaminated by others. Jesus himself corrects this when he reaches out and touches a leper. Jesus is not infected but the leper is cleansed. It is not Jews who are made unclean by the presence of non-Jews but non-Jews who are made clean by the Jewish presence.

Perhaps we can take a lesson from this. Maybe it is not these gatherings that are contaminating the Church but the Church which is purifying non-Catholics at these gatherings.
Click to expand...
I can only say that your interpretation of Jesus vs. the Pharisees, and Jesus and the Lepers is contrary to even mine.

I was always taught and have read that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. The Pharisees made new laws to by-pass actual obligations of the law. Jesus never disliked the Pharisees for keeping the law. In fact, he told the people to ‘do as they teach but not as they do’ for they ‘occupy the seat of Moses’. So I feel that your interpretation cannot be correct. We cannot also forget that there are great many other places where God commends through the Holy authors of the Biblical text that one who has a zeal for God’s laws is a good person.

On the matter of lepers, Jesus never wanted others to reach out and touch lepers. The law was clear on the matter in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Apart from the violation of the law, that would have caused an epidemic of leprosy as well. So these situations would only be examples of God’s mercy and power to heal as well as the need for everyone to reach out to God in repentance and faith. To interpret it as what you want to seems like a stretch to me and makes Jesus look like he was encouraging medically risky practices.

So a SSPX person for an example has a choice between your interpretation of some Scripture passages (to which they might already have an interpretation like that of mine) vs. a documents that clearly condemns or warns against such events like Mortalium Animos. There is also the problem that in Christian tradition prior to Vatican II, such events were handled with extreme care and most lay persons did not participate in such inter-faith gatherings. There were prudential reasons given by the Church for such restrictions which do not seem any less relevant today.

In light of that, I can see the SSPX choosing what they did instead of seeing themselves as Pharisees.
 
Jaberwocky said:
I can only say that your interpretation of Jesus vs. the Pharisees, and Jesus and the Lepers is contrary to even mine.

I was always taught and have read that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. The Pharisees made new laws to by-pass actual obligations of the law. Jesus never disliked the Pharisees for keeping the law. In fact, he told the people to ‘do as they teach but not as they do’ for they ‘occupy the seat of Moses’. So I feel that your interpretation cannot be correct. We cannot also forget that there are great many other places where God commends through the Holy authors of the Biblical text that one who has a zeal for God’s laws is a good person.

On the matter of lepers, Jesus never wanted others to reach out and touch lepers. The law was clear on the matter in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Apart from the violation of the law, that would have caused an epidemic of leprosy as well. So these situations would only be examples of God’s mercy and power to heal as well as the need for everyone to reach out to God in repentance and faith. To interpret it as what you want to seems like a stretch to me and makes Jesus look like he was encouraging medically risky practices.

So a SSPX person for an example has a choice between your interpretation of some Scripture passages (to which they might already have an interpretation like that of mine) vs. a documents that clearly condemns or warns against such events like Mortalium Animos. There is also the problem that in Christian tradition prior to Vatican II, such events were handled with extreme care and most lay persons did not participate in such inter-faith gatherings. There were prudential reasons given by the Church for such restrictions which do not seem any less relevant today.

In light of that, I can see the SSPX choosing what they did instead of seeing themselves as Pharisees.
Click to expand...
Three Men who Loved Lepers

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/02/three-men-who-loved-lepers-jesus.html

-Tim-
 
NOTICE

The Holy Father has spoken on the matter. The discussion is over as far as CAF is concerned. Thank for your participation.

Any questions or concerns, please PM me
 
Now that we have gotten the Catholic perspective on this story, I thought it would be advantagous to get the non-Catholic perspective, since it is about an inter-denominational gathering.
Follw the rules in so far as charity and respect for other religions are concerned.
Happy posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top