Why do so many Catholics cringe at theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism?

[beckycmarie]

Another divisive term that should be dropped is “Novus Ordo.” Last time I checked, that is not an official term used by the Church.

I have a cousin who is a seminarian. Somebody said to him, “So you’re gonna be a Novus Ordo priest?” He answered, “No, I’m going to be a Catholic priest.”

 

[JReducation]

Another divisive term that should be dropped is “Novus Ordo.” Last time I checked, that is not an official term used by the Church.

I have a cousin who is a seminarian. Somebody said to him, “So you’re gonna be a Novus Ordo priest?” He answered, “No, I’m going to be a Catholic priest.”

When the first books were published for the mass that Paul VI approved and the Liturgy of the Hours that he approved, the Latin term was Novus Ordo Misae (The New Order of the Mass) and Novus Ordo Oficio Divino (The New Order of the Divine Office).

Forty-years later it is no longer referred to as “new”. Either you cousin was playing on words or he genuinely does not know the term. There is not reason for a seminarian today to refer to the order of the mass as new. It’s more than 40 years old.

The Latin Sacramentary, Latin Lectionary and Latin Breviary simply use the word “Ordo”, which means the Order.

Now that we have the Tridentine form reactivated they are referred to as the EF and OF. The Tridentine form is the Extraordinary Form (EF) and the Pauline form which we use everyday is the Ordinary Form (OF).

TLM and NO are not really liturgical terms today.

JR

 

[catharina]

When the first books were published for the mass that Paul VI approved and the Liturgy of the Hours that he approved, the Latin term was Novus Ordo Misae (The New Order of the Mass) and Novus Ordo Oficio Divino (The New Order of the Divine Office).

Forty-years later it is no longer referred to as “new”. Either you cousin was playing on words or he genuinely does not know the term. There is not reason for a seminarian today to refer to the order of the mass as new. It’s more than 40 years old.

The Latin Sacramentary, Latin Lectionary and Latin Breviary simply use the word “Ordo”, which means the Order.

Now that we have the Tridentine form reactivated they are referred to as the EF and OF. The Tridentine form is the Extraordinary Form (EF) and the Pauline form which we use everyday is the Ordinary Form (OF).

TLM and NO are not really liturgical terms today.

JR

JR - I’m guessing that becky and her seminarian/cousin know that TLM and NO are not typical terms today. Hence her cousin’s josh: “Novus Ordo priest? No, I’m going to be a CATHOLIC priest!”

PS - I agree with becky. Both NO and TLM have become very divisive terms - especially since their usage is outdated.

 

[beckycmarie]

My cousin knows the term, which is why he wanted to be emphatic that he’s becoming a Catholic priest, and not a “Novus Ordo” priest. The person making that statement was saying “Novus Ordo” in a disparaging way, and my cousin definitely does NOT disparage the current form of the Mass.

 

[catharina]

My cousin knows the term, which is why he wanted to be emphatic that he’s becoming a Catholic priest, and not a “Novus Ordo” priest. The person making that statement was saying “Novus Ordo” in a disparaging way, and my cousin definitely does NOT disparage the current form of the Mass.

Lovely - and as I thought.
Many prayers for your cousin.

 

[JReducation]

My cousin knows the term, which is why he wanted to be emphatic that he’s becoming a Catholic priest, and not a “Novus Ordo” priest. The person making that statement was saying “Novus Ordo” in a disparaging way, and my cousin definitely does NOT disparage the current form of the Mass.

That’s why I said that he is either playing on the words or doesn’t know the term.

His answer was correct. You don’t become a priest in a particular form. You become a Catholic priest. Even religious who are ordained do not call themselves Franciscan priests, or Dominican priests.

The laity calls them that. They call themselves Franciscan Friars and Catholic priests or Benedictine Monks and Catholic priests.

The priesthood belongs to the Church, not to a religious order and much less to a form.

Your cousin can very well have said “I’m becoming a Latin Rite priest,” and that would have been correct too. I’m assuming that he is Latin Rite.

Just like priests in the Eastern rites call themselves as Chaldean rite priest, Ukranian rite priest etc. But this describes the rite that they belong to. It does not describe the Church that they belong to.

But a priest never identifies himself by the form of the mass. He may identify himself by his religious community to cover two bases at the same time.

For example, Fr. Benedict Groeschel identifies himself as a priest with the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. He’s trying to let his audience know that he is both a priest and a religious.

I’m glad to hear that your cousin knows the term NO, even though I don’t hold it against the younger generation when they look at you and say, “What?”

I used the term “TLM” with one of our Friars at my parish just the other day. He’s about 30. He asked me, “What’s that?” I had to explain that it was the EF. He thought about it for a few seconds and then said, “Oh I remember that.” But these are not terms that are at the forefront of young religious, seminarians or young priests. These are old terms.

Unfortunately, the laity often does not know how to move forward. We tend to hand on to the past. If you want proof of this just look at how many people do not move past old political issues.

It takes a special soul to say, “Let us begin, for up to now we have done nothing,” (St. Francis of Assisi).

Sometimes we’re stuck.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I feel the need to comment on the Holy Father’s belief in the interconnection between faith and reason. From both sides of today’s church, the Traditionalist and the Post Vatican II generation, there is often a disruption of the flow between faith and reason.

Truth can only be found in faith, but reason is necessary in order to identify truth. You can’t just pick up a Catholic document and run with it. You have to apply reason to it. You have to ask yourself, “What does it say? Why does it say this? To whom is it addressed? What is its context? What are its roots? How does the author arrive at this conclusion? Is it logical?”

Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. To let ourselves be driven by passion usually leads to some form of violence, either spiritual, psychological or even physical. Authentic Catholicism is a harmonious marriage between reason and faith.

If we remember Benedict’s visits to Jewish synagogues, the Blue Mosque, and his invitation to Christians of other ecclesial communities to a Catholic parish in NY, we see an excellent example of what the Church teaches on reason and faith. If we are to reach the unity of all faiths, as Christ called us to do, “that all may be one,” we must use reason to understand what we have in common and to politely and charitably dialogue about what separates us.

Reason will help us understand the beliefs of the other believer and to explain our beliefs in a manner that is clear and rational to the person of the other faith. We can’t just bash people of other faiths. This is neither rational nor charitable. Such behaviour is contrary to everything that theology, the Catechism, Sacred Tradition and the Holy Father wants us to do. Real people are family by our shared sonship of the Father. We do not shout at or abuse our brothers and sisters. We do not demand that they follow us, without explaining the reason behind our beliefs.

It’s not enough to say the Bible says or the Early Church says. In the end, the other person is going to say, “Who cares?” We must explain why we believe what the Bible says and what we understand it to mean. We must explain what the Church Fathers taught and how they arrived at such truths.

All this means that we have an obligation to study what our Church teaches, not just learn what the documents say, but to apply reason to understanding them. When our reason reaches its limits, we must open the door to the possibility that others may have answers that we do not.

Finally, true reason and faith are found only through contemplative prayer. The great mystics arrived at truth by spending time in silence, prayer, and solitude. They engaged in great acts of penance and personal sacrifice, as well as great acts of corporal works of mercy. When they approached Christ in the Eucharist their souls were purged of irrational passions and desires. They no longer hoped for their standards to be the will of Christ. They approached Christ in the Eucharist completely empty, allowing Christ to fill them and confirm or correct what they had discovered about faith through reason.

JR

 

[SanJudas]

Don’t go on the defensive. Let’s examine your questions. The Rosary and the Immaculate Conception are not additions to the Catholic faith. First, the Rosary is piety, not faith. There is no dogma regarding the rosary. The Immaculate Conception is a dogma that has always been hidden in Catholic faith and recently publicly recognized as part of the deposit of faith.

There you go with your hairsplitting again. When did I say the Rosary is dogma? I know all about the Immaculate Conception, it’s not “recent,” it was promulgated as dogma by Pius IX in 1854.

It would be theologically incorrect to compare the value of what individual Christians have contributed to the life of the Church. You mentioned Karl Rahner. Rahner was one of the chief theologians of Vatican II and he had gread influence in the theology of John Paul II and Benedict XVI in the area of ecumenism. Pope Benedict espouses his theology of church.

Who told Karl Rahner that we “needed” a new theology of the Church?

Kung also made a contribution. He challenged many of the Church’s teachings, especially in the area of moral theology. This helped the Church to find new ways of expressing her position on certain moral issues. Even though the Church did not adopt most of Kung’s teachings, he did force her to think. Anyone who forces us to think, does us a favor.

Not if that thinking drives people away from the faith.

As to Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica, you can’t compare them either. Mother Teresa was a sister who made a significant contribution to the apostolic work of the Church. Mother Angelica is a nun who has made a great contribution to evagelization of the laity. First, they don’t even live the same form of religious life. Being a nun is a higher calling than being a sister. Evangelization and coporal works of mercy are equally important to the life of the Church. Both women have taught us, the laity, how to minister within the Church.

Gee, thanks, until you pointed that out, I didn’t have any idea who those women were! I sure am glad we have an expert on here to clarify these things for us dummies!

As to supporting this society over the previous society of the Church, I’m not sure of whom you speak. I support the Church from its foundation to today.

No, you support the handful of overeducated theologians and university professors whom you think constitute the “real” Church.

Let’s not get defensive or offensive. Let’s look at the topic of the thread, Vatican II, the Catechism, and theology and why some lay people have such negative reactions instead of really wanting to study them and learn from them. That’s what’s on the table. JR

There was nothing offensive nor defensive about my first post in this thread. You are the one who started this thread asking why many Catholics don’t like “theology” or some of the Second Vatican Council’s documents. I tried to answer in a measured and thoughtful way and was treated to a dose of your typical condescension. I guess you just don’t want to hear from those of us who live our faith instead of sitting around discussing it at seminars and conferences sipping lattes.

 

[Jeanette_L]

Truth can only be found in faith, but reason is necessary in order to identify truth. You can’t just pick up a Catholic document and run with it. You have to apply reason to it. You have to ask yourself, “What does it say? Why does it say this? To whom is it addressed? What is its context? What are its roots? How does the author arrive at this conclusion? Is it logical?”

Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. To let ourselves be driven by passion usually leads to some form of violence, either spiritual, psychological or even physical. Authentic Catholicism is a harmonious marriage between reason and faith.

I just want to comment on what I have witnessed in other Christian circles outside of the Catholic Church, and it seems to apply here as well from what I’ve seen.

To allow one’s self an emotional attachment to a particular ideology, without the humility to accept the possibility you could be either: not thinking through everything properly; or maybe misled by someone else’s interpretations that sound reasonable or spark some kind of internal passion, these can lead to all types of error and many times a very harsh demeanor towards anyone who disagrees with you, and this is anything but Christlike.

It’s not enough to say the Bible says or the Early Church says. In the end, the other person is going to say, “Who cares?” We must explain why we believe what the Bible says and what we understand it to mean. We must explain what the Church Fathers taught and how they arrived at such truths.

All this means that we have an obligation to study what our Church teaches, not just learn what the documents say, but to apply reason to understanding them. When our reason reaches its limits, we must open the door to the possibility that others may have answers that we do not.

Again, it is a wise person who can come to the table admitting that he may not have all the answers and is willing to learn from others. Too many people, in all sects of the Christian world and other religions, feel as though they have nothing more to learn, especially outside of their preferred circles, and this leads to stagnation and often times hostility. None of us has ‘arrived’ and all need to recognize this.

Christ’s Church has so much to offer, so many truths to be delved into, it would take many lifetimes to just skim the surface. What a fantastic journey, and yet so many don’t bother because they believe they have learned all they need to learn.

Finally, true reason and faith are found only through contemplative prayer. The great mystics arrived at truth by spending time in silence, prayer, and solitude. They engaged in great acts of penance and personal sacrifice, as well as great acts of corporal works of mercy. When they approached Christ in the Eucharist their souls were purged of irrational passions and desires. They no longer hoped for their standards to be the will of Christ. They approached Christ in the Eucharist completely empty, allowing Christ to fill them and confirm or correct what they had discovered about faith through reason.

JR

And this is where the real work is done, the inner work of the Holy Spirit, sanctifying and ridding us of all that is unnecessary to come into union with God. Everything that doesn’t matter is cast away. Every thought, every work, every desire, all sorted through and purged of self. The most important part of our life in Christ and His Church.

 

[catharina]

I just want to comment on what I have witnessed in other Christian circles outside of the Catholic Church, and it seems to apply here as well from what I’ve seen.

To allow one’s self an emotional attachment to a particular ideology, without the humility to accept the possibility you could be either: not thinking through everything properly; or maybe misled by someone else’s interpretations that sound reasonable or spark some kind of internal passion, these can lead to all types of error and many times a very harsh demeanor towards anyone who disagrees with you, and this is anything but Christlike.

Again, it is a wise person who can come to the table admitting that he may not have all the answers and is willing to learn from others. Too many people, in all sects of the Christian world and other religions, feel as though they have nothing more to learn, especially outside of their preferred circles, and this leads to stagnation and often times hostility. None of us has ‘arrived’ and all need to recognize this.

Christ’s Church has so much to offer, so many truths to be delved into, it would take many lifetimes to just skim the surface. What a fantastic journey, and yet so many don’t bother because they believe they have learned all they need to learn.

And this is where the real work is done, the inner work of the Holy Spirit, sanctifying and ridding us of all that is unnecessary to come into union with God. Everything that doesn’t matter is cast away. Every thought, every work, every desire, all sorted through and purged of self. The most important part of our life in Christ and His Church.

Great post, Jeanette.
JR, same to you.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I guess you just don’t want to hear from those of us who live our faith instead of sitting around discussing it at seminars and conferences sipping lattes.

This is such a harsh and mean spirited statement, knowing nothing about JR and his commitment to his faith, to the Church and to the ministries he is involved in and has devoted his life to.

I dare say you have proven much more than you intended.

 

[catharina]

This is such a harsh and mean spirited statement, knowing nothing about JR and his commitment to his faith, to the Church and to the ministries he is involved in and has devoted his life to.

I dare say you have proven much more than you intended.

I dare say he has - and I just reported that post.

sanjudas you might have something against some educators that relates to their “sipping lattes” but it’s clear to me that has nothing to do with JR, to put it mildly.

 

[JReducation]

There you go with your hairsplitting again. When did I say the Rosary is dogma? I know all about the Immaculate Conception, it’s not “recent,” it was promulgated as dogma by Pius IX in 1854.

Who told Karl Rahner that we “needed” a new theology of the Church?

Not if that thinking drives people away from the faith.

Gee, thanks, until you pointed that out, I didn’t have any idea who those women were! I sure am glad we have an expert on here to clarify these things for us dummies!

No, you support the handful of overeducated theologians and university professors whom you think constitute the “real” Church.

There was nothing offensive nor defensive about my first post in this thread. You are the one who started this thread asking why many Catholics don’t like “theology” or some of the Second Vatican Council’s documents. I tried to answer in a measured and thoughtful way and was treated to a dose of your typical condescension. I guess you just don’t want to hear from those of us who live our faith instead of sitting around discussing it at seminars and conferences sipping lattes.

If you perceive that I treated you with condescension, please be assured that such was not my intention. My intention was to address each of your points and explain the reason and circumstances behind each one.

I don’t think I would enjoy sipping lattes. I do enjoy good theological discussions. I also enjoy my ministry to the Church, especially to families with spiritual needs who are among the poorest of the poor. Like our Holy Father and other people of faith, I am a strong believer that faith without reason leads to emotionalism and reason without faith is void of Christ.

Therefore, I am a great promoter of studying the Church and her teachings, not just reading scripture, documents and books and memorizing certain texts. I believe this was the mistake of the Reformation ecclesial communities that has to be avoided by today’s Catholic, whether traditionalist or post Vatican II. Both can fall into the same pit as the Reformation leadership.

JR

JR

 

[SanJudas]

I dare say he has - and I just reported that post.

Since you’re already reporting me, add this to it–you are a thoroughly miserable and unpleasant human being. I think it was someone like you that St. Paul had in mind when he said, “For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (Italics are my own.)

 

[Jeanette_L]

Since you’re already reporting me, add this to it–you are a thoroughly miserable and unpleasant human being. I think it was someone like you that St. Paul had in mind when he said, “For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (Italics are my own.)

Sorry you have felt the need to sink so low friend. The Word of God has no part in such hatred.

 

[catharina]

Since you’re already reporting me, add this to it–you are a thoroughly miserable and unpleasant human being. I think it was someone like you that St. Paul had in mind when he said, “For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (Italics are my own.)

Do you imagine that you’re in a church?
You’re on an internet forum.

Do you imagine you’re St. Paul?

 

[JReducation]

Since you’re already reporting me, add this to it–you are a thoroughly miserable and unpleasant human being. I think it was someone like you that St. Paul had in mind when he said, “For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?” (Italics are my own.)

This kind of attack is uncalled for. It is mean and contrary to what we are trying to achieve here. We are here, including you, to put on the mind of Christ. When we put on the mind of Christ we see everyone as a child of the same Father sharing in the life of God by grace.

To treat another person in such terms is to completely disregard the truth of the Gospel. It disregards Christ’s call to love.

It does little or nothing for those whe come to these threads looking to find Christ and Catholicism in its purest form. On the contrary, it displays a hostility that is contrary to the mission of the Church and contrary to truth.

Such an attack is beneath the dignity of a Christian. It is more appropriate to people who have never heard the Christian message.

Using scripture to hurt and humiliate, is an adulterous use of the Word of God. It is using the Word of God to do the work of the evil one.

Scripture, truth and faith must always lead us to the practice of charity and humility. I must be lived out by defending the dignity of our brothers and sisters, not by treating them with contempt.

Your behaviour toward Catharina is an excellent example of toxic faith, rather than faith and reason working together in a harmoneous paradigm.

You are welcome to dialogue, but never to insult or degrade another person.

JR

 

[beckycmarie]

Very well-said, JR.

 

[SanJudas]

Catharina and JR,

After retiring to pray the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, I realized that I needed to say I was sorry for having offended you. My response was childish and uncharitable. I ask your pardon if you were injured by my characterizations of you.

 

[catharina]

Catharina and JR,

After retiring to pray the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, I realized that I needed to say I was sorry for having offended you. My response was childish and uncharitable. I ask your pardon if you were injured by my characterizations of you.

sanj, i forgave you before you asked for it.
case is closed in my view.