Joyful Catholics
-
Some notable excerpts from the Pope's sermon today:“This is the drama of the hypocrisy of this people. And Jesus never negotiates His heart of the Son of the Father, but He was so open to the people, seeking paths to help them. ‘But this can’t be done; our discipline, our doctrine say this can’t be done!’ they say. ‘Why do your disciples eat grain in the fields, when they travel, on the day of the Sabbath? It can’t be done!’ They were so rigid in their disciple: ‘No, the discipline can’t be touched, it’s sacred.’
"Pius XII freed us from the very heavy cross that was the Eucharistic fast. But some of you might remember. You couldn’t even drink a drop of water. Not even that! And to brush your teeth, it had to be done in such a way that you didn’t swallow the water. But I myself as a young boy went to confession for having made the Communion, because I thought a drop of water had gone in. Is it true or no? It’s true. When Pius XII changed the discipline: ‘Ah, heresy! No! He touched the discipline of the Church.’ So many Pharisees were scandalized. So many. Because Pius XII had acted like Jesus: he saw the need of the people. ‘But the poor people, with such warmth.’ These priests who said three Masses, the last at one o’clock, after noon, fasting. The discipline of the Church. And these Pharisees [spoke about] ‘our discipline’ – rigid on the outside, but, as Jesus said of them, ‘rotting in the heart,’ weak, weak to the point of rottenness. Gloomy in the heart.”
So much here to ponder. As usual with Papa Franciscus' sermons, I find some passages that make me cringe and some that make me want to stand up and applaud. He reminds me of my former pastor whose sermons were just amazing. He'd somehow manage to hit everyone in the congregation (metaphorically speaking) right between the eyes. Just when you were breathing a sigh of relief that your own particular sins were getting a pass that week, wham-o, he'd whack you, too.
-
I have been more gloomy since he took office, that's for sure. :-(Thanked by 1Gavin
-
Well, here's the thing: fear is quite addictive. Why? Two basic things about human nature: (1) as Prospect Theory seems to confirm, we fear more about losing than about potential game - a piece of human psyche that transcends the material realm of profit and loss, and (2) dystopian fantasies offer a narrative that imposes control on uncertainty. We hate uncertainty so much that we'll take a narrative of fear over it.Thanked by 1expeditus1
-
The main thing everyone needs to be aware of is the difference between discipline and dogma or doctrine. There is a huge difference and no pope, or as it says in canon law "anyone whosoever" cannot touch the doctrine or dogma of the church, especially the Mass.
Fasting is a discipline. No big deal. There is no comparison with changing fasting to changing dogma.
When it comes to theology, however, that is where the vatican treads on thin ice. That is why the issue with communion for divorced is such dangerous territory to be discussing. They have no business discussing dogma. It is set and unchangeable as is (was) the Mass.
That is why we have confusion over the NO. The NO broke from doctrine, and why it has been said that the conciliar popes may have actually created what may be a schismatic rite (Dr. Hesse, Canon Lawyer appointed by JPII as theologian to the vatican).
Doctrine cannot be changed. Throughout history we have had 20 Councils. Councils met for the purpose to define dogma and expose or fight heresy. That is what the church 'has always done'. That is the sole purpose of a Council. The last Council veered way off from the course of 'what the church does' and actually did something that flew in the face of the tradition that had been established. VII actually published the very things that were condemnations of Auctorem Fidei, a famous bull of 1794.
The story ain't over folks. Keep the faith.
Yea, I am gloomy alright. Gloomy about those who trample upon the very things of God. -
It's true, Francis. I'm not 100% sure where Papa Franciscus is going with this discussion, and I'm not happy about how the groundwork is apparently being laid for a doctrinal/sacramental revolution. I agree with you that there is obviously an enormous difference between changing the number of hours one fasts before Communion and eliminating the prerequisite that one be in a state of grace to receive the Holy Eucharist. The former is a man-made tradition and discipline; the latter a divinely revealed truth (I Cor. 11) and central dogma of the Catholic faith.
On the other hand, personally speaking, I'm also aware of the tendency on the part of some Catholics to be "rigid" and "gloomy," and I appreciate the Pope's remarks in this area. From what I can tell, he seems to have been afflicted by some very bad experiences with harsh, unloving, pietistic, preconciliar praxis so it is very helpful for Catholics who love the preconciliar traditions to keep his criticisms in mind and realize how terribly someone can be affected by unkind, unChristian behavior on the part of externally devout traditional-minded Catholics.
That's not to say that progressive-minded Catholics don't have their own unique proclivities. Actually, I hate dividing Catholics into categories like this, but I didn't start this trend; I'm just struggling to make sense out of it and extract what good I can from it. -
. . . and if I might be permitted to add one more thought:
It seems to me that this pontificate is a tremendous opportunity for traditional Catholics to get their house in order, so to speak. I'm wondering if the fact that our Holy Father is so obviously "gunning" for the "law and order" Catholics---the conservative, authoritarian, doctrinaire, dogmatic, uncompromising types--- isn't actually a great blessing in disguise.
Since I readily and happily identify myself as a traditional Catholic, I have resolved to pick up the gauntlet our Holy Father has thrown down. I'm ready to take on all the criticisms, censures and condemnations and accept the hard truths in them. I'm resolved to use them to improve my own spiritual life and my approach to others, and I hope other traditional Catholics will do the same so we can, with God's grace, fix what needs fixing.
It's one thing to love the preconciliar liturgy as we do; it's another thing to pick through all the accumulated baggage that often comes with it and discard those attitudes/tendencies/whatever that deserve to be left behind.
-
It seems obvious that there's a difference between a particular discipline of the Church and the attitude that might accompany it. In this case, Pope Francis was victim to a scrupulosity and casuistry (you can't swallow even a drop of water while brushing your teeth) that was evidently prevalent in his time and place. This is the "heavy cross" the Pope refers to, not that we had to fast for so many hours. In other times and places people were happy to undergo a bit of inconvenience to receive Our Lord worthily and were not burdened or oppressed by it.
In itself a scrupulous attitude has nothing to do with the fact that one had to fast from midnight or for three hours, or whatever. One can be just as scrupulous about out current discipline (one hour). If anything, we have gone to the other extreme from what Pope Francis describes in his youth and suffer from an overwhelming laxity and even carelessness - with any sort of care or concern being a sign of fussiness or even fear - which is why I'm puzzled by his comments. -
which is why I'm puzzled by his comments.
Old church people think that they need to solve the problems of their youth.
This dynamic plays out whether it's 65 year old Episcopalians introducing Folk Mass to their parish or Pope Francis bemoaning rosary counters.
It takes an especially clear and lucid mind to see that the problems of today aren't the problems of 40 or 50 years ago, and that maybe our own actions 40 or 50 years ago are contributing to today's problem.
We had one Pope with an especially clear and lucid mind. I wouldn't expect another for a while. -
It's not just a problem of "his youth," though. This mindset is very much alive and well.
I could go on and on for many paragraphs about things I've seen and heard, but I won't.
There are "traditional Catholics" who believe that either Obama or Pope Francis are the anti-Christ, that the government is trying to poison us with vaccines, and that they are now the remnant "true Church." Oh, and the whole prepping thing too ...
And that's just the tip of the ice-burg.
These types of Catholics the Pope is warning us about are not some historical artifact rarely found today; they are alive and well.
See http://www.wdtprs.com/ for more info.Thanked by 1Gavin -
ya know what? it's all a bunch of excuses not to do the discipline that the church establishes, in this or any other area of church teaching. i grew up during that era, and there was nothing wrong with the discipline. it actually had a profound impact on me concerning how sacred the Body and Blood of our Lord is, and how we should receive him worthily. If you think that was bad, or too much or too strict, take a look around church today when people receive the Eucharist. you'd think they were getting a cracker.
-
This mindset is very much alive and well.
Among a tiny subset of the Church, yes.Thanked by 1dad29 -
A very good priest I know said that the Holy Father is stuck in the 1960's. He pointed out in particular the 'moratorium monseignori' saying that it was a common idea at the time because 'when one priest gets red all the others get blue', and we shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.
To be completely honest, there is something about Bergoglio that worries me, I can't put my finger on it, but I get an weird 'vibe' (to borrow a phrase from the LCWR lexicon) with him. -
PGA,
Do you mean that Father Zuhlsdorf is one such person, or that such persons frequent his blog?
I ask because it seems to me that much less civil conversation can be found elsewhere on the internet. -
I agree with Adam and Salieri that Catholics who are rigid, reactionary, scrupulous, authoritarian, conspiratorial, suspicious, uber-right wing nut jobs are rarely seen anymore and proliferated mostly in the 60's and 70's. They were mostly, I think, a product of the Depression and WWII and God bless them, because for all their faults, they were indeed the Greatest Generation and maybe it was their steel backbone that got them through so much.
However, it's pretty clear to me that our pontiff is conveniently using that stereotype as a bogeyman to demonize any potential resistance to future changes in discipline, doctrine and the sacraments. While it's difficult at this stage for anyone to prove that definitively since it's all kept so fuzzy and ill-defined and would be like pinning jello to the wall, that is the message I'm getting loud and clear, and it's getting clearer every day.
The technique is quite fascinating: demonize your potential opponents well in advance by subtle messaging and gradually introduce the concepts you want the people to adopt, couched in familiar language (with lots of scriptural references and all the right Catholic buzzwords.) Meanwhile, solidfy your allies and slowly isolate the "enemy". When you've successfully conditioned and maneuvered the majority of the people, then you can finally unveil your real intentions. That's what it looks like from where I sit, and I sure hope I'm wrong. -
I agree with Adam and Salieri that Catholics who are rigid, reactionary, scrupulous, authoritarian, conspiratorial, suspicious, uber-right wing nut jobs are rarely seen anymore and proliferated mostly in the 60's and 70's. They were mostly, I think, a product of the Depression and WWII and God bless them, because for all their faults, they were indeed the Greatest Generation and maybe it was their steel backbone that got them through so much.
Maybe where you are; you guys must be in some strange land. Where I'm at, president Obama has brought these types out of the woodwork.
Sometimes it's fun to mention the president in conversation just to get the reaction and hear the latest conspiracy theory.
Or - the latest boogeyman - Archbishop Cupich. -
And then there are those of us who have lived long enough to see the practical results of our hippie ideals, and have become born-again rigid reactionaries.
In a literal heartbeat, God could put a different bishop in Chicago or Rome. If we worried about our own walk more than that of Bergoglio or Cupich, we'd deserve better leaders, and probably get them. But frothing at the mouth accomplishes nothing but a wet shirt. -
Here. Read this and see if it rings any bells. (or sets off any alarms).
-
francis, the link is unreadable, literally. Sometimes it's best to re-format copied texts and use those to get one's point ledgible. Just saying...
-
I don't worry about popes or archbishops so much. They come, and they go. Some do great things, others do great damage. As an easterner, I am close enough to Orthodoxy to be able to move away from direct contact with their day-to-day actions. My faith never rested on any holder of any office to begin with. I have generally thought that the Latins, by investing so much in that office, set themselves up for inevitable letdowns. YMMV.
-
Well, PGA, the conspiratorially-minded are on both sides of the aisle. I've heard plenty of weird political theories from my leftist relatives who believe the Koch Brothers and Mitt Romney secretly run the world from a hidden bunker.
I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't fit in too easily with members of my own political party either, namely because I vehemently object to pre-emptive war and the torture and degradation of helpless prisoners. I've found that it's always best to think outside the box, i.e., think and act like a disciple of Christ, and blur the party lines wherever you are. The cookie-cutter approach leads to trouble in both the ecclesiastical and secular realms.
That's why it's disturbing to see it being used by some in authority in the Church to categorize and divide the people of God. -
http://ncronline.org/news/people/i-stopped-pinning-my-hopes-prelates
She makes some good points.
The other thing to realize is that no one is really in charge anymore - if they ever were.
The bishop isn't a king; he is in a pecking order and can be removed as easily as anyone. I think the "bling bishop" found that out, as have others. And if he isn't actually removed by people over his head, he probably fears the opinion of his people for political reasons.
The cardinals? Yeah they aren't untouchable either. Ask Cardinal Burke about that one.
Even the Pope doesn't fancy himself as at the top rung - and he shouldn't either. He has to worry about alienating people - his clergy, the faithful, the world. And imagine the heavy burden of knowing that you will answer to God himself in the not too distant future for your care-taking of God's Church.
The Church really isn't a "top down" affair. It's much more circular than that, with some people having decision making authority in a specific time and place. That's about it. -
Maybe where you are; you guys must be in some strange land. Where I'm at, president Obama has brought these types out of the woodwork.
More Dems believe 911 was an inside job than Reps believe Obama faked his U.S. citizenship. Bonkers isn't limited to one side of the aisle.
-
I've heard plenty of weird political theories from my leftist relatives who believe the Koch Brothers and Mitt Romney secretly run the world from a hidden bunker.
Are you suggesting this isn't actually the case?
-
More Dems believe 911 was an inside job than Reps believe Obama faked his U.S. citizenship. Bonkers isn't limited to one side of the aisle.
What's your source for that belief? -
May it's time to break out the aluminium foil hats...
-
What's your source for that belief?
Polls described in wikipedia. Can I take that to mean that you think that both propositions are bonkers?
Also, I think you should elaborate on why you linked Fr. Z earlier considering that if you actually read him, you would know he is one usually urging traditional Catholics to calm down and breathe into a paper bag when it comes to Pope Francis. -
Both of which propositions? That 9/11 was an inside job and that Obama is not a real citizen? Yes, of course both of those things are crazy.
As for Fr. Z, yes, he has at times urged restraint; you are correct about that. He remains a very polarizing figure and some of his followers are a little nuts. -
There are nuts on both sides. Just read PTB comments.Thanked by 1MatthewRoth
-
Both of which propositions? That 9/11 was an inside job and that Obama is not a real citizen? Yes, of course both of those things are crazy.
Good. We are on the same page. Neither one of us is selectively bonkers. :)
Sure some nuts show up at Fr. Z. I'm not really worried about whether he is polarizing so much as whether what he says is, you know, actually true. Most of the time that is that the case. -
Well, the more important dividing line is people who traffic in cultivating fear, resentment and outrage among their readers and those who realize that's ultimately something that obstructs theosis.
-
On the question of the Eucharistic fast brought up by the Holy Father, there was some enlightening commentary over at PTB in the combox. Apparently, the progressives wished to maintain the longer fast, but Cardinal Ottaviani pushed for the 3 hour fast. That's interesting, in light of the way the Eucharist was treated in the recent synod...Thanked by 1JulieColl
-
Well, the more important dividing line is people who traffic in cultivating fear, resentment and outrage among their readers and those who realize that's ultimately something that obstructs theosis.
Trafficking in "cultivating fear, resentment and outrage among their readers" is not a fair characterization of Fr. Z at all. -
In all honesty, the "rigid" Catholics that the Pope refers to are a very, very, very small minority. It's funny how his focus is always on that tiny miniscule group rather than the gargantuan problems that exist yet somehow are ignored. Perhaps it's because that small group is the one that disagrees with him?
-
Sure some nuts show up
Well, isn't that what's needed if you want to catch squirrels? Climb a tree (ie, get a pulpit) and act like a nut. -
Trafficking in "cultivating fear, resentment and outrage among their readers" is not a fair characterization of Fr. Z at all.
Scott, I happily yield to your correction (not of me) regarding the upshot of liturgical reflection and punditry regarding Z. That said, he and countless others sacred and secular, have in common the knack (and viewer/readership) to seize upon one or more particular facets of an authority's utterance and then transmogrify said utterance into a "gospel" that they can then deny was contrived by their own manipulation.
This is what I find most repugnant among combatants hardcore in the : Liturgy Wars; the US Political Wars; and most insipidly, the global propaganda wars, be they about Islamic Jihadism, Anti- US/capitalist freedom of speech, the collapse of First World culture, etc.
Yes, it's an awful difficulty to watch Spielberg's "Lincoln" and somehow reconcile those particular social realities into platitudes to which all can rally 'round. But, from my perch on the grapevine, the only solution remains the local solution. And all local politics, for the millionth time, remains "local." Pardon me, but I could care less about whatever latest utterance emits from HHFrancis, much less Fr. Zed.
PS- wow, 2600. Add that to my old total of CharlesinCenCA, and you still couldn't buy a cup o' Java at Starbucks. In saecula seculorum, amen.Thanked by 1Gavin -
That said, he and countless others sacred and secular, have in common the knack (and viewer/readership) to seize upon one or more particular facets of an authority's utterance and then transmogrify said utterance into a "gospel" that they can then deny was contrived by their own manipulation.
Example? -
Yes, I think Fr. Z deserves tremendous credit for intervening with sanity when critics of the Pope or of the bishops work themselves up into an imagined emergency.
-
I don't think we're talking about a minute detail of the papal utterances. When someone repeats endless variations on the same theme for months it borders on an obsession. How many different ways does Pope Francis have to use to demonstrate his antipathy for faithful, "law and order" Catholics?
-
Well, yes, a certain antinomian attitude does keep returning; a very popular theme of '60s-70s Western culture.
The Pope seems to take frequent example from the parable of the prodigal son, and in this version of the story, we may find ourselves cast in the role of the loyal and serious "elder brother" who had to put up with a seeming lack of sympathy from the father.
-
Charles:
No Catholic "follows" a pope. Catholics know and follow the faith. If a pope diverges from the path, as all the great saints say, we just don't follow him. If he is leading us to Jesus and Mary, then we do. Simple as that.
Read the Papal Bull, Auctorem Fidei which I posted on another thread.
Follow the faith. If anyone preaches another gospel than that of Christ, let him be anathema. -
Very unorthodox, francis... we are such fallible people, how are we to "know" and follow the faith.
-
Well, through much of Catholic history, most of us barely knew who happened to be Pope at any given time, let alone getting news about his day-to-day statements.
-
mrcopper:
On the contrary, what I have espoused is the orthodox approach that Catholics have always taken. You must know your faith. Study the catechism (the Baltimore Catechism). Read the works of the saints. Study the scriptures. Read the encyclicals. Be wary of anyone who despises the traditions of the church, especially the TLM. Be devoted to Jesus and Mary. Pray the rosary. Go to confession as often as possible. Pray the LotH.
As chonak mentioned, hindsight is 20/20, even with popes and bishops. It is dangerous to follow any one blindly... even a pope. You must know the faith to the core.“It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 45
“Augustine says in his Rule: ‘Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger.’ But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4, Sed Contra.
“It is better that scandals arise than the truth be suppressed.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great
“But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: ‘Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.'”
Pope Leo XIII
Thanked by 1JulieColl -
Hmmm.
-
Chonak, thanks for the insight about the elder son and the prodigal son. That could very well be the dynamic we're seeing. Let's hope and pray that the Holy Father can really bring about genuine repentance of heart and metanoia in all his sons and daughters.
I don't doubt at all that is our pope's intention, but, like our Francis here on the forum, I get uneasy when the soteriological reflections of the other Francis don't square with the catechism lessons I was taught and that I teach my children. -
Scott, I don't wish to offer digression en masse here. I will reaffirm that my take on modern argumentation wasn't specific to Fr. Zed. I'm just as guilty of selective myopia as the next person. I'll easily take the molehill of Rocco Palmo's enfatuation and hyperbole about the pre-eminence of the OLOG (Dec.12) Fest and make a critical mountain of that asking, "Since when is Whispers a respected journal of liturgy?"
Whether an advocate is Sean Hannity, Al Sharpton, Rita Ferrone, Fr. Allan McDonald or a mob following Ann Coulter or Julian Assange, doesn't really matter to me much anymore. People are just not thinking for themselves much anymore; they're more inclined to hitch their wagon to some talking head based upon inclination. That's all.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
Amen. Amen. Amen.
-
There are "traditional Catholics" who believe that either Obama or Pope Francis are the anti-Christ, that the government is trying to poison us with vaccines, and that they are now the remnant "true Church." Oh, and the whole prepping thing too ...
Umnnnhhh...You are conflating two very different phenomena. "Preppers" and Traddie Catholics are not congruent circles.
So let's talk about "traddie Catholics." Do you know these people personally? What percentage of them believe the anti-Christ is either Pp F. or Obama? What percentage believe the vaccine thing? That they are 'the remnant'?
More: of the universe of Catholics you PERSONALLY know, what percentage are "traddie"?
I suspect that the percentages of all of the above are extremely low. So my question: "So what?"
There are political leftists who believe that the Koch brothers are Satan's spawn, too. There are political leftists who believe that Wisconsin's Governor is a puppet of those brothers, too.
Same question: "So what?"
Although He didn't say it, He could have: "The nuts you will have with you always." -
The technique is quite fascinating: demonize your potential opponents well in advance by subtle messaging and gradually introduce the concepts you want the people to adopt, couched in familiar language (with lots of scriptural references and all the right Catholic buzzwords.) Meanwhile, solidfy your allies and slowly isolate the "enemy". When you've successfully conditioned and maneuvered the majority of the people, then you can finally unveil your real intentions.
Straight from Alinsky's playbook, by the way. -
Umnnnhhh...You are conflating two very different phenomena. "Preppers" and Traddie Catholics are not congruent circles.
So let's talk about "traddie Catholics." Do you know these people personally? What percentage of them believe the anti-Christ is either Pp F. or Obama? What percentage believe the vaccine thing? That they are 'the remnant'?
More: of the universe of Catholics you PERSONALLY know, what percentage are "traddie"?
I suspect that the percentages of all of the above are extremely low. So my question: "So what?"
There are political leftists who believe that the Koch brothers are Satan's spawn, too. There are political leftists who believe that Wisconsin's Governor is a puppet of those brothers, too.
Same question: "So what?"
Although He didn't say it, He could have: "The nuts you will have with you always."
Oh, I'm aware of the distinctions and the different "movements." I've noticed a few of the "hard-core, traditionalist, insert your favorite adjective here" Catholics getting into the prepping thing.
I know quite a few "traditional" Catholics. It's hard to always know EXACTLY what they mean because they often speak in code - that is, they know some of the stuff they believe makes them sound nuts, so they say it in a way that doesn't come out and say it, but puts it out there. But from them, I've heard quite a few times things like "I'm really concerned about Pope Francis. Something just isn't right. And you know, we've heard about what the end times will be like ... there will be an anti-pope ... just sayin." Well I think they make themselves perfectly clear.
And within the "traditional movement" these seem to be becoming mainstream thoughts. Of course I have no scientific study to prove that; I can only go by my experience and reasonably assume that my experience isn't somehow completely different than what things are like everywhere else.
And I know a pretty high percentage and have interaction with traditional Catholics. I'm not going to say too much more than that but I'm well immersed with the genre of Catholicism.
Funny you mention the Koch brothers and WI's governor ... All are people I hold in quite low esteem.Thanked by 1Gavin -
I think your response is sufficient for my purposes.
Here in flyover country, we have no use for anyone in the DC area, either.Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,503
- General Music Discussion7,773
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes292
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry154
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115