Why is everyone over in TC so angry?

[pnewton]

The vernacular Mass is NOT an abuse. Communion in the hand is NOT an abuse in the U.S. Neither are altar girls, unveiled women, various styles of music other than chant, guitars, women wearing blue jeans to Mass, men wearing blue jeans to Mass, etc.

I thought of another cause for strife that your post brings up. While some wrongly complain of poster whom they deem non-traditional posting there, the topics for discussion are listed by the Administrators as being

[**

**Traditional Catholicism - talk about the Traditional Latin Mass, the Indult, SSPX, sedevacantism](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=102)

and in another place

Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality

Yet somehow the topics you mentiones always come up. I think there is a misunderstanding. It is not listed as a Traditionalist club but a forum for discussion of the above topics by whoever has (name removed by moderator)ut. I know of know TLM that includes the things above, yet they are often discussed. Easily half the thread I happen upon should have been in the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. I do not even pay attention to where I go until I notice certain names showing up that are more specific to this forum.

Likewise, I was kind of surprised to see this thread posted here. I never search by forum so I go all over the map here.

 

[Cat]

I haven’t heard anyone call these things “abuses”. Clearly, the Law of the Church allows them. However, most of the things you list are highly inadvisable deviations from the tradition. There are very good reasons why these things shouldn’t be. Many of them have been condemned by Popes of the past, especially when it comes to things like altar girls and profane music at Mass.

You have just demonstrated my point.

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who was installed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, has not banned or condemned OF, vernacular, Communion in the hand, etc. In fact, he himself uses these things in Masses that he conducts. (I know that there is some question about Communion in the hand, but I’ve seen plenty of pictures of other priests at his Masses distributing Communion in the hand.)

My bishop, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, allows these things to be done in the parishes in his diocese. Our churches have OF Masses in the languages of the people (English, Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc.). Communion is received in the hand or on the tongue, kneeling or standing. The music can be organ, piano, guitar, or orchestra, and there are many styles of music in our parishes. Most parishes have altar boys and girls (although some have just boys).

Yet you call these things “highly inadvisable” based on the writings of past popes.

So what this says to me is that you do NOT accept the current pope’s authority, nor do you accept my bishop’s authority.

And that makes me wonder about you and others like you. I’m not sure what to think.

The main issue for me, as a former Protestant, in coming into the Catholic Church was AUTHORITY. WHO has it?

Protestants would say that authority rests with each individual believer, while the Catholic Church teaches that the Church has authority on this earth.

I eventually came to accept and believe whole-heartedly that I do NOT have the authority, but only the Church has the authority. I believe that the current Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the Supreme Pontiff over the Catholic Church, along with the Magisterium. They make use of the other authorities–Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture–in making their decisions about the Catholic Church.

But a “book” or a “tradition” does NOT make the actual decisions and pronounce them and enforce them. Men do. Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter, not to a “book” or to “traditions.”

A “book” or “tradition” can only be interpreted. It sounds to me that you are saying that YOU have the right to interpret the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition and make decisions pertaining to Today’s Catholic Church. After all, you are contradicting the current Pope by claiming that some of the practice of Today’s Catholic Church are “inadvisable.”

It seems to me that the current Pope and Magisterium, not you, not me, not just any human, but only the current Pope and Magisterium have the God-given authority to interpret the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and to pronounce policy for the Church of Today that may differ in practice from the Church of Yesterday. They cannot change issues of faith or morals, but they can and DO change practices throughout history.

Is that what you believe is true Catholic teaching?

 

[Dauphin]

You have just demonstrated my point.

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who was installed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, has not banned or condemned OF, vernacular, Communion in the hand, etc. In fact, he himself uses these things in Masses that he conducts. (I know that there is some question about Communion in the hand, but I’ve seen plenty of pictures of other priests at his Masses distributing Communion in the hand.)

My bishop, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, allows these things to be done in the parishes in his diocese. Our churches have OF Masses in the languages of the people (English, Spanish, Polish, Italian, etc.). Communion is received in the hand or on the tongue, kneeling or standing. The music can be organ, piano, guitar, or orchestra, and there are many styles of music in our parishes. Most parishes have altar boys and girls (although some have just boys).

I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that in order to be Catholic, we have to utterly suspend our critical faculties and agree with every decision, even of an unbinding disciplinary nature, which is made by those in positions of authority within the Church.

When we go to Mass, we are to check our brains at the door and simply blindly assent to whatever it is the person in authority says is suitable, no matter how much our intellect and our understanding of tradition says otherwise.

Uncritical, unthinking and total submission to their choices is an absolute necessity for loyalty. To question the actions of a Bishop, even respectfully, is to challenge Divine authority.

For example, when living at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, Catholics would absolutely have had to be in agreement with the council’s decision forbidding Jews from holding public office and requiring them to wear identification.

At the time when indulgences were being essentially sold with the approval of certain Bishops in Germany, a truly loyal Catholic would be absolutely bound to agree with it, and not to complain at all.

Gotcha.

 

[catharina]

I’m very interested in the topics over in Traditional Catholicism but the posters there seem so angry and impatient with each other. It’s kind of a negative place to be. Any thoughts?

Good question.
Here’s a suggestion.
Ask THEM.
When you witness some nasty explosion, ASK the poster about it!
If you get nowhere, report the posts.

 

[catharina]

I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that in order to be Catholic, we have to utterly suspend our critical faculties and agree with every decision, even of an unbinding disciplinary nature, which is made by those in positions of authority within the Church.

When we go to Mass, we are to check our brains at the door and simply blindly assent to whatever it is the person in authority says is suitable, no matter how much our intellect and our understanding of tradition says otherwise.

Uncritical, unthinking and total submission to their choices is an absolute necessity for loyalty. To question the actions of a Bishop, even respectfully, is to challenge Divine authority.

For example, when living at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, Catholics would absolutely have had to be in agreement with the council’s decision forbidding Jews from holding public office and requiring them to wear identification.

At the time when indulgences were being essentially sold with the approval of certain Bishops in Germany, a truly loyal Catholic would be absolutely bound to agree with it, and not to complain at all.

Gotcha.

Huh. Fascinating or something, I guess.
Seems to me the poster was saying we are to be charitable to one another. No?

 

[pnewton]

It seems to me that the current Pope and Magisterium, not you, not me, not just any human, but only the current Pope and Magisterium have the God-given authority to interpret the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and to pronounce policy for the Church of Today that may differ in practice from the Church of Yesterday. They cannot change issues of faith or morals, but they can and DO change practices throughout history.

Is that what you believe is true Catholic teaching?

Cat, it is probably best not to continue this old TC arguement here. Remember that this is not the proper place for it. All that was asked for is reasons for the emotions running high.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Huh. Fascinating or something, I guess.
Seems to me the poster was saying we are to be charitable to one another. No?

The issue was why TC’s seem so angry and we sure enough got some illustrations real quick!:
Someone on another “Traditional Catholics” thread’s comparing receiving communion in the hand to abortions…There you go.

 

[daeve]

I don’t know, according to some posters we’re pretty mean and angry over here in Family Life. Read some of the recent sterilization/birth control threads…we are clearly all judgmental old biddies who want to run people’s lives for them.

On a more serious note, I don’t really post over in that forum but sometimes I do need to step away from forums/Catholic blogs for a while before my righteous indignation turns into corrosive, bitter anger. It can really bring you down. Sometimes it’s better to just step away and say a prayer.

Yes, sometimes you do have to just step back. Well, I do. I go to Yahoo Answers and try to tell people what to do about their real estate issues then.

 

[rolltidefan]

This is a very nice thread going here. Kuddos to the OP that started it. I have never been to TC, but think I might have to check it out. This kind of thread just lets me know that it is not just us ignorant church hopping protestants that take birth control and don’t get our way that argue about what we believe. It is funny but the finger sure gets pointed at us protestants for not being united as one, but hmmm…this thread sure points out a different fact. Nice to see that is it not just the protestants eating the protestants, the protestants eating the catholics or the catholics eating the protestants…you guys actually eat each other also!!!

 

[pnewton]

…you guys actually eat each other also!!!

There are some in every crowd. I would think this would be obvious.

 

[Cat]

I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that in order to be Catholic, we have to utterly suspend our critical faculties and agree with every decision, even of an unbinding disciplinary nature, which is made by those in positions of authority within the Church.

When we go to Mass, we are to check our brains at the door and simply blindly assent to whatever it is the person in authority says is suitable, no matter how much our intellect and our understanding of tradition says otherwise.

Uncritical, unthinking and total submission to their choices is an absolute necessity for loyalty. To question the actions of a Bishop, even respectfully, is to challenge Divine authority.

For example, when living at the time of the Fourth Lateran Council, Catholics would absolutely have had to be in agreement with the council’s decision forbidding Jews from holding public office and requiring them to wear identification.

At the time when indulgences were being essentially sold with the approval of certain Bishops in Germany, a truly loyal Catholic would be absolutely bound to agree with it, and not to complain at all.

Gotcha.

The key word in your post is “respectfully.”

Of course we are not to be automatons, blindly obeying.

But when we do disagree, we should disagree respectfully, taking care not to spread discord and confusion among weaker brethren. I agree with the OP that the tone of anger in many of the posts in the TC section is very confusing and upsetting.

And our questions to Church authorities should be asked with the greatest respect. After all, the Pope is the earthly representative of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

To me, your use of the word “inadvisable” is not respectful. There are millions of Catholics in the U.S. who attend OF Masses in the vernacular, receive Holy Communion in their hand, listen to piano music of a “folk” genre, etc. For you to call these practices “inadvisable” is, IMO, not respectful of all the bishops who have given assent to these practices. And that, in turn, is not respectful of the Pope who appointed these men as bishops. And THAT, in turn, is not respectful of God in His Third Person, the Holy Spirit, who directed the Pope to appoint these men as bishops, who gave assent in their diocese to OF Mass in the vernacular, with Communion offered in the hand, with accompanying piano folk music.

One more point. You said, “…no matter how much OUR intellect and OUR understanding of Tradition says otherwise.” (large case mine).

Catholics make a very dangerous error when they rely on their personal understanding of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. That’s what Protestantism is–personal interpretation. The Lord gave that authority to the CHURCH ALONE.

No matter how “right” or “correct” you believe you are, you (or I) are NOT given the authority by the Lord Jesus to make interpretations. You are treading in very dangerous waters to claim that “OUR” intellect and “OUR” understanding is deeper and more correct than that of the bishops or the Pope.

I would ask you to look back on your life and consider a time when you were convinced that something you believed was the “Gospel truth.” Then consider how you eventually came to understand that you were incorrect.

E.g., perhaps when you were a child, you believe that nuns could fly. You were convinced of it because you saw it on TV. They look like birds, and bird fly, therefore nuns fly, right? But then when you grew up, you learned that no, nuns cannot fly, and you realized how foolish your belief was, and you released it.

The same thing can and will happen to our personal convictions. I was one of many Christians who at one point believed that abortion was acceptable. A reading of a Keith Green Last Day’s Ministries tract knocked me over, and I immediately renounced this false belief and took up the true belief, that abortion is a grave sin.

Also, at one time, I believed that my evangelical Protestant church taught the complete truth about God. In 2001, my faithin evangelicalism was shattered when my husband and I were thrown out of our church. We began seriously investigating Catholicism, and eventually became utterly convinced that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Jesus Christ, the Church that He Himself established on this earth and in heaven.

So you see, reliance upon “OUR” intellect and “OUR” understanding is not wise. The Church is our Authority, and yes, we should submit with docility, even if it goes against our personal beliefs and convictions.

 

[catharina]

Cat, beautiful post.
Thank you so much.

 

[ChristinaM]

Nice to see that is it not just the protestants eating the protestants, the protestants eating the catholics or the catholics eating the protestants…you guys actually eat each other also!!!

I don’t think there is anything “nice” about it. I find it very sad. :nope:

Is it really charitable to gloat over division among your fellow Christians? I’m sorry that you’ve been badly treated by people on this board. But please, tone down your apparent glee at inter-Catholic disagreements.

 

[Dauphin]

The key word in your post is “respectfully.”

Of course we are not to be automatons, blindly obeying.

But when we do disagree, we should disagree respectfully, taking care not to spread discord and confusion among weaker brethren. I agree with the OP that the tone of anger in many of the posts in the TC section is very confusing and upsetting.

And our questions to Church authorities should be asked with the greatest respect. After all, the Pope is the earthly representative of Jesus Christ, Our Lord.

To me, your use of the word “inadvisable” is not respectful. There are millions of Catholics in the U.S. who attend OF Masses in the vernacular, receive Holy Communion in their hand, listen to piano music of a “folk” genre, etc. For you to call these practices “inadvisable” is, IMO, not respectful of all the bishops who have given assent to these practices. And that, in turn, is not respectful of the Pope who appointed these men as bishops. And THAT, in turn, is not respectful of God in His Third Person, the Holy Spirit, who directed the Pope to appoint these men as bishops, who gave assent in their diocese to OF Mass in the vernacular, with Communion offered in the hand, with accompanying piano folk music.

My criticism was as mild as they come. You’ve basically just reiterated your position that it’s wrong to criticize if the Pope approves it. I say that’s nonsense.

One more point. You said, “…no matter how much OUR intellect and OUR understanding of Tradition says otherwise.” (large case mine).

Catholics make a very dangerous error when they rely on their personal understanding of the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. That’s what Protestantism is–personal interpretation. The Lord gave that authority to the CHURCH ALONE.

I meant, obviously, an understanding of tradition formed by the Church’s historical teaching and practice. If Pope St. Pius X was around today, you can be absolutely certain that he’d immediately abrogate each of the things you’ve listed. If you doubt that, read a bit about him.

 

[catharina]

My criticism was as mild as they come. You’ve basically just reiterated your position that it’s wrong to criticize if the Pope approves it. I say that’s nonsense.

I meant, obviously, an understanding of tradition formed by the Church’s historical teaching and practice. If Pope St. Pius X was around today, you can be absolutely certain that he’d immediately abrogate each of the things you’ve listed. If you doubt that, read a bit about him.

Amazing that you imagine YOU know what St. Pius X would say and do today.

 

[pnewton]

Amazing that you imagine YOU know what St. Pius X would say and do today.

True. We need to remember that past popes lose their authority over disciplinary matters when they pass that on to their successors. What Pius X would have done is irrelevant, even if we knew what he would have done. Personally, since I admire the mans intellect, I think he would have done things differently in one age than another. Most people of reason understand that prudence requires change. That is why we have the structure of authority we do. If everything could be written down at once and then we just follow it for all time, then the Protestants would be right in their approach to Scripture.

 

[Cat]

True. We need to remember that past popes lose their authority over disciplinary matters when they pass that on to their successors. What Pius X would have done is irrelevant, even if we knew what he would have done. Personally, since I admire the mans intellect, I think he would have done things differently in one age than another. Most people of reason understand that prudence requires change. That is why we have the structure of authority we do. If everything could be written down at once and then we just follow it for all time, then the Protestants would be right in their approach to Scripture.

That’s really excellent. Thanks.

 

[Cat]

My criticism was as mild as they come. You’ve basically just reiterated your position that it’s wrong to criticize if the Pope approves it. I say that’s nonsense.

Dauphin, please keep in mind that I am from an evangelical Protestant background. I spent my entire life criticizing my leaders, and so did everyone else in my church. People criticize everything and everyone in evangelical fellowships. And they brag about their freedom to interpret the Bible for themselves and call out on the carpet those that they disagree with.

And the consequences of all this criticism are devastating. Church hopping. Many denominations (I don’t buy the “33,000” number, but I definitely estimate a number somewhere in the hundreds). Non-denominational fellowships. Home churches. Alternative churches. Emergent churches. Non-churches. Megachurches. A wishy-washy leadership in many denominations and churches that refuses to get “too specific” for fear of driving [money-giving]. members away. Fluffy-wuffy sermons that won’t offend anyone. Youth groups that avoid any subjects except music, movies, dating, and sex. Children’s clubs that are all games and no teaching.

There is a story somewhere in Exodus about the Children of Israel complaining over something, and it cost them entrance into the Promised Land.

I think a lot of “criticism” is actually “complaining,” and I think those who indulge in criticism of the Holy Father and his servants should take care lest they end up “in the wilderness” for 40 years and aren’t allowed to enter the Promised Land. (Forgive me for using an analogy to make a point.)

I hope this helps you to understand why I am extremely wary of criticizing a man that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has established. I don’t want to go back to Protestant Land.

 

[Zelie_Louis]

This isn’t a topic for Family Life. The thread is now closed.