Re:Novus Ordo Masses
(04-12-2010, 04:35 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: Mother Teresa provided for the human body, but she prevented that human body from even considering the Catholic Faith, by insisting it remain and become a better ____________ (hindhu, booodhist, etc)

Where did she insist someone remain anything?
Reply
(04-12-2010, 08:45 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 04:12 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 03:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 03:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 11:32 AM)Ex_NO Wrote: So if B16 follows JP2 and worships at at Booodhist temple (like Mother Teresa did)...

That's something that has never made sense to me. These two (JPII and Mother Theresa) receive so much love and praise from the media for their (false) ecumenism. I have my own private opinions about JPII, but how did Mother Theresa justify such actions? Did she ever write explaining how she justified these things?

Personally, I don't think it needs explanation. 

I disagree. If she is being put forth as someone Catholics are in no danger of emulating, then her actions should be exemplary. In short, her actions should be Catholic. Eating and drinking with heretics is one thing; trying to make them better heretics is another.

Quote:A nun is not a pastor, they don't set or enforce doctrine,
No, but they must follow it.

Quote:Her example was Catholic charity to all regardless of their religion. 

It was more than simply Catholic charity as I recall. It not charity to let someone feel comfortable in their heretical religion.

Quote:She didn't have a doctorate in theology - what she was lacking in theology is not part of  the example we should follow.

No, she had something better: grace. Obviously we don't want Hindus to become better Hindus; we want Hindus to become Catholics. If this was her "Catholic charity", that is not charity. I am not passing judgment on her, but how is it charitable to neglect the most important part of someone's soul: salvation?

You and Hitchens should hook up, dig up her corpse, and burn her body at the stake over a few cold ones because you both miss the point of her life in the same way.   :bonfire:

Okay. But this sounds like it's getting a little personal with you. I didn't mean to offend you any more than I meant to make a judgment of her soul, and I hope that I am allowed to stand up for the Catholic faith and the salvation of souls without wanting to "dig up her corpse...and burn her body at the stake over a few cold ones..." Her method of evagelization (or whatever you want to call it) is not in line with what Christ taught, the saints taught, the martyrs taught, or the missionaries taught. To work alongside with heretics, establish a rapport with them, and love them is completely different from contributing to their complacency in their errors and better at offending God with their heresy.

I think the point of all of our lives is not what we necessarily want it to be or think it to be. Our purposes are all objective and none of them include that which contributes to the moral decline of others. Yes, this is an inevitable consequence of the our abuse of our free will, but this does not make an action right or pleasing to God. One cannot commit a sin such that it might benefit someone else.

Quote:You're not happy she didn't do 100% on beating heretics and infidels

Not so. You are extrapolating your perceptions of why "[I'm] not happy..." from a sentimentalist's point of view. I am never happy that a person would contribute to the loss of souls by failing to make clear the only path to heaven. St. Isaac Jogues did not tell the Iroquois that he wanted to them to become better panthiests through love, which has a chance of leading to Christ. Plenty of heretics "love" their neighbors and yet, through intellectual pride, reject Christ. But if the person doesn't think that they have to accept Catholicism to be saved, what good are you doing for their soul? This is not doctoral moral theology; this is basic Christianity. If they will not hear the Church, let them be to you as a heathen and a publican. That doesn't mean you should not stop trying to convert them, but they must hear the Church. How do they hear the Church through Islam, Hinduism, or (you pick one that is not the Catholic Church, Herself)? No, they must hear the Church through the Church alone.

Quote:, and he's not happy she didn't do a good job juggling finances. 

That's unfortunate. My complaint is spiritual as it concerns the influence it has on all those who would emulate Mother Theresa's embracing of religions which cannot produce salvation (yes, one could theoretically be saved within another religion, but not by it. Mother Theresa loves the religions themselves. All religions not part of the Catholic faith contain some measure of a lie, error, or deception. The worst kind of lie is one that is partly true). Hitchens' complaint is temporal and so it is of no concern of mine.


Quote:She wasn't a Dominican Theologian or an accountant.  She was a simple nun who loved Jesus and did the best she could to witness for Him and the Church.

That sounds nice, but what does her message send to the Catholic world? That other religions aren't as really as bad as what Christ taught? That it's best to be in the Catholic Church but all other religions are just stepping stones in the journey? Folly.

Quote:  If she got something wrong or was innocently too ecumenical or made a wrong investment of donated funds, some of that is forgivable and we don't have to emulate that.

Yes, but going back to my first post that prompted your reply: this is one of the reasons she is so loved by the world today. She embraced and "loved" all religions. How can one love something tainted with even a drop of poison? If it doesn't of itself lead to God, then how can we love it? The simplest of Christians have discerned this because this is what it means to love God: make Him happy. What makes Him happy? Doing His will. What is His will? That we know, love, and serve Him in this world so that we may be happy with Him for eternity. How do we know Him? Through the Catholic faith. How do we love Him? In various ways, but most fully in the Catholic faith. How do we serve Him? In various ways, but most fully in the Catholic Faith (though it could be argued, as has been argued by St. Thomas Aquinas, that worshiping God incorrectly is idolatrous and, therefore, not pleasing to God). If we love God, then we want to make Him happy. If we want to make Him happy, we do His will. If we want to do His will, we need to know, love, and serve Him as He has instructed us to do. And if we want to know, love, and serve Him as He has instructed, we need to be Catholic. Similarly, if we love others (which is intimately attached to love of God), we will want the same for them.


Quote:I've read two books of her writings.  There are things that make me shake my head, but no more so than things in say St. Hildegard of Bingen's and a bunch of other Saints.  We skip those parts and emulate the good parts of their lives; Saints are not perfect, neither are Blesseds.

Right, they are not perfect, and they will be judged for those misdeeds, as will I be for mine. But this is one of the reasons she is so loved. Her name is everywhere, even in the most secular of sources. Before reading your response, I was reading David Shoemakers analysis of psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Coincidentally, her actions in India were the finishing rebuttal of objections against psychological egoism. That a Catholic has received such favorable coverage is a good thing, but then again, so did JPII. In today's world, being Catholic and receiving positive media coverage doesn't mean one is doing the right thing. My point is simply that it is largely her love for all religions (and not just the people of them) that has made her the saint of the secular press that she is today, and even to most Catholics. It is charitable to provide for the temporal needs of others; it is even more so to provide for the salvation of those souls entrusted to your care. It is not charitable to tend to the temporal welfare of others and then neglect them spiritually or contribute to their spiritual ruin.
Reply
(04-12-2010, 09:29 AM)Nic Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 09:23 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: Amen sister. The authority of the pope is foremost. Thank you. I agree.

There isn't a true Catholic who will disagree with that obvious statement, but his infallibility is only exercised in very specific ways, and we are duty bound to resist ANY prelate who speaks contrary to truth.

The authority of the Pope is not limited to infallible statements.  Here is how magisterial authority is explained in Donum Veritatis  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...on_en.html:
Quote:23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.

The Pope has taught in Summorum Pontificum :
Quote:The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
You are rejecting this teaching.

Reply
INPEFESS

If your problem is that the wrong facets of her life are being held up, then I would think you would want to address that rather than attack the whole of her mission.

Historically, when people were wheeled into Catholic hospitals, a team of Dominicans wasn't there beating them with pamphlets.  So I'm not sure what you're complaining about unless it was those two-three short quotes that the Evangelicals hold up when saying she wasn't Christian.

Different Saints have served God differently.  Not all of them preached with words to others to convert.  A lot of them preached by example, and their value is in the example, not 5-10 sentences uttered over the course of a lifetime.  The fact that she saw a value in every human being, even lepers, especially in a place like India where there are castes, etc.,. probably did more to cause people to even consider Catholicism than an army of Jesuits could have accomplished.

So if you are sincere in what you are saying, it would seem to me that you would point out those were 5-10 sentences which pale in comparison to her actions and the other things she had said which are witnesses to the Faith.  Such as refusing to send her nuns to a place where Mass was not available.  But TIA and the Protestants will never mention that, of course.


Reply
(04-12-2010, 03:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 11:32 AM)Ex_NO Wrote: So if B16 follows JP2 and worships at at Booodhist temple (like Mother Teresa did)...

That's something that has never made sense to me. These two (JPII and Mother Theresa) receive so much love and praise from the media for their (false) ecumenism. I have my own private opinions about JPII, but how did Mother Theresa justify such actions? Did she ever write explaining how she justified these things?

What goes on and is justified  in these modern times under the cloak of charity (so-called) is without precedent.  It is a sort of socialization of charity, a charity not informed by faith.  Our Lord remarked this (John 12:4-8):
Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said:  Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?  Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein.  Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always.  
Reply
(04-12-2010, 08:47 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 04:35 PM)Ex_NO Wrote: Mother Teresa provided for the human body, but she prevented that human body from even considering the Catholic Faith, by insisting it remain and become a better ____________ (hindhu, booodhist, etc)

Where did she insist someone remain anything?

What do you mean?  I am not sure that I follow you.
Reply
(04-12-2010, 10:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: INPEFESS

If your problem is that the wrong facets of her life are being held up, then I would think you would want to address that rather than attack the whole of her mission.

Historically, when people were wheeled into Catholic hospitals, a team of Dominicans wasn't there beating them with pamphlets.  So I'm not sure what you're complaining about unless it was those two-three short quotes that the Evangelicals hold up when saying she wasn't Christian.

Different Saints have served God differently.  Not all of them preached with words to others to convert.  A lot of them preached by example, and their value is in the example, not 5-10 sentences uttered over the course of a lifetime.  The fact that she saw a value in every human being, even lepers, especially in a place like India where there are castes, etc.,. probably did more to cause people to even consider Catholicism than an army of Jesuits could have accomplished.

So if you are sincere in what you are saying, it would seem to me that you would point out those were 5-10 sentences which pale in comparison to her actions and the other things she had said which are witnesses to the Faith.  Such as refusing to send her nuns to a place where Mass was not available.  But TIA and the Protestants will never mention that, of course.

I'm talking about the effect of those 5-10 sentences on the souls of those entrusted to her care. She was explaining her position. How could she have kept this view from manifesting itself in her contact with these Indians? We're not just talking about receiving patients into a hospital, we're talking about what she said: "If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God." So she wants her care to make someone a better heretic? How is becoming a better Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist getting someone closer to God? The closer one is in heresy, the farther one is from truth. This statement was in response to a question which qualified the original question concerning the lack of converts to Catholicism. It would be miraculous that her personal (dangerous) views were not manifested in (and did not contribute to) the lack of conversions. If this statement reflects her views at all, (this is how she supported her answer) it seems apparent that conversion wasn't that important to her. How is that charity?

Let us hope that her words were completely unrepresentative of her actions, and the lack of conversions was coincidental. But I think we should be honest. I think we all know why she was so highly esteemed by the world media and by the vast majority of Catholics. She would be placed on a pedestal for this perception of charity (as she has been). She was "charitable" according to the world's standard of charity. But then again, the world media hasn't the slightest idea of what charity is. To them, charity is not interfering with homosexual marriage, abortion rights, or anything else that "expresses" human rights. Charity is being accepting of all, of not condemning anything, of never reproving malefactors, of remaining indifferent, of believing in the salvific nature of all faiths, and of not condemning other faiths. Of course, as we know, this is not true charity.
Reply
(04-12-2010, 10:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: INPEFESS

If your problem is that the wrong facets of her life are being held up, then I would think you would want to address that rather than attack the whole of her mission.

Perhaps you are mistaken. If you recall, in my original post, I said:

Quote:That's something that has never made sense to me. These two (JPII and Mother Theresa) receive so much love and praise from the media for their (false) ecumenism. I have my own private opinions about JPII, but how did Mother Theresa justify such actions? Did she ever write explaining how she justified these things?

I never said or implied I had a problem with the mission. I said that the love and praise from the media was directly in response to false ecumenism. I most certainly have a problem with this being held up.
Reply
(04-12-2010, 10:19 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 09:29 AM)Nic Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 09:23 AM)In nomine Patris Wrote: Amen sister. The authority of the pope is foremost. Thank you. I agree.

There isn't a true Catholic who will disagree with that obvious statement, but his infallibility is only exercised in very specific ways, and we are duty bound to resist ANY prelate who speaks contrary to truth.

The authority of the Pope is not limited to infallible statements.  Here is how magisterial authority is explained in Donum Veritatis  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...on_en.html:
Quote:23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.

The Pope has taught in Summorum Pontificum :
Quote:The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
You are rejecting this teaching.

Hmmm... that's funny.  Nowhere in my very short post did I say that the authority of the Pope is limited to infallible statements.  Why don't you quit trying to "burn me" on things I never said and quit making silly implications just because I have pushed you into a corner that you cannot logically get out of.  I think you know wht I meant - and that is people these days place authority on EVERYTHING a Pope says and does, when what he says and does has to be measured by the unchangable Catholic Faith.  If what he says and does doesn't jive with revealed Truth, then we are duty bound to resist.

Also, show me how that "teaching" that I am so-called "rejecting" is in any way an infallbile declaraton from Holy Church.  It isn't, and since it places an experimental, sacriligious "rite" as the "ordinary form" of the Mass, I am obliged to RESIST it.  But, if you want to play this game, I could show some teachings that you reject as well by your stance of attending the N.O. over the Latin Mass.
Reply
In nomine Patris Wrote:The authority of the Pope is not limited to infallible statements.  Here is how magisterial authority is explained in Donum Veritatis


If Pope says to this bishop, "go there,"  this bishop has two legitimate options: he can go there, or he can petition that pope to reconsider about him going there.  But should "going there" whatever it is, be sinful, immoral, and prohibited by divine law, apostolic or ecclesial constitutions, then bishop so-and-so may lawfully refuse and any punishment inflicted would have no legal effect. 

So if JP2 were to say that mumbling Kumbaya around the presider's table (formerly called an altar) will fulfil your Sunday obligation, would this be worthy of obedience, since it would violate every known divine, apostolic, and ecclesial laws? I mean Kumbaya is not revealed!!! 

Something similar did happen where some "Eastern" sect does not have even a consecration, and and somehow the host is consecrated. The only thing present is the matter.  No intention is externally discernable, nor does the form (the words) exist!!!

In Nomine Patris Wrote:23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

So does this apply to Pascendi Dominus Gregis, Mortalium Animos, Singulari Quadem, Syllabus of Errors, Humani Generis, all using the Ordinary teaching Magisterium?  Or does Donum Veritatis make void the ordinary Magisterium of John XXIII and all his predecessors irrelevant.  Or was it for a joke that John XXIII promulgated Veterum Sapentia in a most solemn form, not usually done by most pontiffs before him?

In nomine Patris Wrote:When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

God is truth. You lost me there.


In nomine Patris Wrote:When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

So if is not acting definitely, why is it acting in anyway, and why would obedience ever be due?


In nomine Patris Wrote:24. Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

Again, nothing can be contrary to divine law, apostolic or ecclesial tradition.



In nomine Patris Wrote:The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.

Yes, laws regarding abstinence and fasting are reformable (within strict limits) but are also infallible that those who follow these laws know that these are positively salvific (it would not lead them to mortal sin).


In nomine Patris Wrote:The Pope has taught in Summorum Pontificum :

The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same 'Lex orandi,' and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church's 'Lex credendi' (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
You are rejecting this teaching.

John XXIII may have changed the rubrics, but he DID NOT re-issue the Roman Mass.  It has been extraordinarily codified once and for all by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primas.  Are you going to obey the extraordinarily promulgated and infallible Quo Primas of a canonized Pope?

Again, ask yourself if this teaching or any teaching consistent with divine law, apostolic or ecclesial tradition?

And when and were exactly did Paul VI promulgate the NO??  The constant repeating of something does not make it very real.





Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)