"Wherever I go in the whole world..."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eucharisted

Guest
I am not here to dispute the so-called authenticity of the words of Mother Teresa - and I myself do not believe them - but am here to remind Catholics of a simple truth.

We are the children of the Church, we are not the children of the saints.

A child must respect his mother, according to the Fourth Commandment. This filial piety includes obedience. Hence, we are called to respect Mother Church, to obey her words. She, like Mary, tells us to do whatever Jesus says, for her mind is in tune with His Mind. Hence, if we disobey the Church, we disobey the Lord. And disobedience is a sin, a mortal sin.

A child dose not have to obey his sibling, even an older sibling, unless the mother has said so. The older sibling dose bear a responsibility toward the young, but he has no real authority over him. All authority he may have comes from the mother, who may give him it should she leave the house to go do an errand. Likewise, we Catholics are not required to obey the saints. Unless Mother Church tells us to. But the Church only calls us to imitate the saints in as far as they imitate Jesus Chirst. They remind us, they do not give us new teachings.

So, one cannot use the words of the saints as a source of ultimate authority. The saints, while holy, are fallible. Only the Church is infallible. Whatever opinons the saints have, is but second to the teachings of the Church, which we are called to adhere and to live by. Hence, if the Church allows such and such a practice, yet a certain saint opposes it, it would be improper to follow the saints’ opinion instead of following the Church’s teaching.

And this is where ignorance and truth seperate. Ignorance jumbles everything of the Church into a little ball and says it is the same. The truth, though, sees everything for it is. One cannot say traditions are Tradition, nor can one say discipline is the same as devotion, nor can one say one form of a devotion is the very devotion in itself. At the same time, one cannot be pluarlistic: one must reside within the bounds of the Catholic Faith and not mix up a devotion, a discipline, a tradition, or anything else with one’s own opinions to such a degree that the original thing is not recognizable any longer. This is why it is crucial to learn the Faith, to seek out its roots, and to be not afraid of the truth.

To sum up, you are the children of the Church, not the children of the saints. Be, than, good Catholics. Learn and adhere to the Church’s teachings, or else, you will soon find yourself among the disobedient, the near heretical, the almost schismatic, the deviant. And if you find yourself among such company, and despair in your situation, I tell you, fear not: God is merciful. The Church is compassionate. Repent and rejoice in God your Savior!
 
Largely true. Saints have disagreed with each other on important issues. Some have even been dead wrong about some things.

It is not true, however, that “if the Church allows such and such a practice, yet a certain saint opposes it, it would be improper to follow the saints’ opinion instead of following the Church’s teaching.” In matters of mere discipline, it can be entirely appropriate to disagree with standing Church policy - which, in matters of discipline, is fallible (very much so). One cannot condemn those who follow a practice that the Church allows, but there is nothing untoward about agitating for a change in the Church’s policy if the policy involves fallible judgements. The case you mention, regarding the reception of communion, is a perfect example of a fallible Church policy with which Catholics can in good conscience both assent and dissent.

In short, not all dissent is disobedience. Just most. Some dissent (on fallible matters) turns out not to be dissent at all - it ends up being reform. See, for example, radical dissenter Gregory the Great, whose dissent on standing Church policy brought about a series of reforms that helped the Church weather the transition into the second millenium.

I happen to agree with Mother Teresa. Though I would not use language nearly so strong as hers, I find the whole idea of manual reception singularly odd. I both support a reversion to oral reception only and expect one to become official policy sometime in the next five decades. However, I know a great many Catholics disagree with me, for a wide variety of reasons. That’s fine. The Church not only allows conversations of this type to take place between the faithful; it relies on these conversations to grow, adapt, and evangelize in every age.

This only applies to matters where the Church is fallible, of course; if you’re looking to dissent over something like, say, contraception, that’s a whole different story.
 
Wowbagger said:
Largely true. Saints have disagreed with each other on important issues. Some have even been dead wrong about some things.

It is not true, however, that “if the Church allows such and such a practice, yet a certain saint opposes it, it would be improper to follow the saints’ opinion instead of following the Church’s teaching.” In matters of mere discipline, it can be entirely appropriate to disagree with standing Church policy - which, in matters of discipline, is fallible (very much so). One cannot condemn those who follow a practice that the Church allows, but there is nothing untoward about agitating for a change in the Church’s policy if the policy involves fallible judgements. The case you mention, regarding the reception of communion, is a perfect example of a fallible Church policy with which Catholics can in good conscience both assent and dissent.

In short, not all dissent is disobedience. Just most. Some dissent (on fallible matters) turns out not to be dissent at all - it ends up being reform. See, for example, radical dissenter Gregory the Great, whose dissent on standing Church policy brought about a series of reforms that helped the Church weather the transition into the second millenium.

I happen to agree with Mother Teresa. Though I would not use language nearly so strong as hers, I find the whole idea of manual reception singularly odd. I both support a reversion to oral reception only and expect one to become official policy sometime in the next five decades. However, I know a great many Catholics disagree with me, for a wide variety of reasons. That’s fine. The Church not only allows conversations of this type to take place between the faithful; it relies on these conversations to grow, adapt, and evangelize in every age.

This only applies to matters where the Church is fallible, of course; if you’re looking to dissent over something like, say, contraception, that’s a whole different story.
Click to expand...
The thing is, Mother Teresa never said that.
 
Like said:
The thing is, Mother Teresa never said that.
Click to expand...
Apparently she did. "Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her – don’t know why – ‘Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?’ She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

“Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’”
  • **Father George William Rutler, **Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City
 
St_Francis said:
Apparently she did. "Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her – don’t know why – ‘Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?’ She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

“Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’”
  • **Father George William Rutler, **Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City
Click to expand...
The Latin Mass Society is not reliable. Their authenticity is called into question just from a simple glance on the website. I mean, really, “Traditional Latin Roman Rite”? Who are they trying to fool? Every Catholic knows the Latin Mass is a form of the Mass, not a Rite.
 
Eucharisted said:
The Latin Mass Society is not reliable. Their authenticity is called into question just from a simple glance on the website. I mean, really, “Traditional Latin Roman Rite”? Who are they trying to fool? Every Catholic knows the Latin Mass is a form of the Mass, not a Rite.
Click to expand...
The Sacraments, such as Ordination, for example, have their own particular Rite. This is a case of words being used equivocally. Kind of like talking about the Universal “Church” and the Local “Church”, or the Church of Palm Beach.
 
maurin said:
The Sacraments, such as Ordination, for example, have their own particular Rite. This is a case of words being used equivocally. Kind of like talking about the Universal “Church” and the Local “Church”, or the Church of Palm Beach.
Click to expand...
No, it’s theological hogwash. There is no such thing as a Traditional Latin Roman Rite. There is an Extraordinary Form of the Rite. There is a Latin Mass. There is the Roman Rite, otherwise known as the Latin Rite. But there is no Traditional Latin Roman Rite.

Please read the article I linked to. It better explains than I could. 🙂
 
Eucharisted said:
I mean, really, “Traditional Latin Roman Rite”? Who are they trying to fool? Every Catholic knows the Latin Mass is a form of the Mass, not a Rite.
Click to expand...
Well put, Eucharisted. This comparison of the Latin Mass to the Rites of other Churches sui juris exhibits a misunderstanding of the term, as well as a rebelliousness against one’s Patriarch. Pope Paul VI of blessed memory himself regarded the NO as merely a revision of the Latin Mass, not a completely different Rite.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
You don’t have to put up with CITH if you don’t want to. You can go to a TLM, or just motion to the priest at an N.O. mass that you want to receive on the tongue. He should oblige.

If such a change can be inserted into the rite, it can also be removed. It’s a discipline, not a doctrine.

If we as Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ the King, then why change to EMCs and CITH? That’s the contradiction. Before we used patens to catch crumbs, now we can dole out the Hosts like bread? Before we used to kneel and receive on the tongue, now we stand up and get it into our hand?

Did the Host become less holy, or did we become more so, to allow this? Or has the doctrine of the Real Presence changed?

We are not bound to acquiesce to CITH in the same way as we’re not bound to acquiesce to a Bishop selling off church fixtures; bishops, priests and bishops conferences are not protected from error. CITH may be allowed, as an indult, but COTT can never be forbidden. An indult is a permission, an exception to standard practice that many priests have taken up and run with so that it has become ‘normal’.

Hee, hee, I have a sense that Vat. II clerics and their lay helpers want to ‘get the laity more involved’ only up to the point where the laity start to disagree with them. Then ‘obedience’ is trotted out.

If they themselves would do as Paul VI wanted and Pope Benedict currently wants re. the liturgy I’d have more respect for their proposing that idea.
 
Well, I’m perfectly okay with Mother Teresa not having said it, too. So, either way, eh. I still find manual reception odd, I still support a global return to oral reception, and I still acknowledge that Catholics can in good conscience go either way on this.

IMO, though, it does sound like something Mother Teresa would say. She had a penchant for saying shocking, disturbing things.
 
Wowbagger said:
Well, I’m perfectly okay with Mother Teresa not having said it, too. So, either way, eh. I still find manual reception odd, I still support a global return to oral reception, and I still acknowledge that Catholics can in good conscience go either way on this.

IMO, though, it does sound like something Mother Teresa would say. She had a penchant for saying shocking, disturbing things.
Click to expand...
The early Christians don’t seem to have found it odd - a number of early Church Fathers and other early Christians refer to reception in the hand without exhibiting your attitude of puzzlement. Most often mentioned is St Cyril of Jerusalem, of course, but there are others - St John Damascene for one.

No reason anyone should find it odd that some want to practice as these good early Christian folk obviously did. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top