I read these upsetting articles about liberalism and modernism in the Church...
#1
I say we actually DO SOMETHING about it. I study history. I read a lot about the Eastern Christians. I can tell you all one thing, when the clergy did something that the laity did not like, the laity made it VERY clear how they felt about it. Ignoring the fact that the attempted unions failed, when the clergy all signed these papers declaring themselves united to Rome and went back home, they were all faced with riots. The laity would not put up with any crap that the clergy would try to force upon them. This same thing happened countless times, especially in the East. The laity would not take any crap from the clergy when they tried to force things that the laity did not want. The schism between the Old Believers and the Patriarchate in Russia was huge at the time because many of the laity and lesser clergy did not want to have what they considered heterodox views pushed upon them.

We should not have to just bend over for this crap. Something seems to have just clicked in me earlier when I was reading that article about the student being told by Jesuits to basically go back to Islam. Why should we even remotely put up with that? Just because the clergy say so does not mean that they are right. They can be wrong, pretty easily too.
Reply
#2
(07-26-2013, 09:01 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: I say we actually DO SOMETHING about it. I study history. I read a lot about the Eastern Christians. I can tell you all one thing, when the clergy did something that the laity did not like, the laity made it VERY clear how they felt about it. Ignoring the fact that the attempted unions failed, when the clergy all signed these papers declaring themselves united to Rome and went back home, they were all faced with riots. The laity would not put up with any crap that the clergy would try to force upon them. This same thing happened countless times, especially in the East. The laity would not take any crap from the clergy when they tried to force things that the laity did not want. The schism between the Old Believers and the Patriarchate in Russia was huge at the time because many of the laity and lesser clergy did not want to have what they considered heterodox views pushed upon them.

We should not have to just bend over for this crap. Something seems to have just clicked in me earlier when I was reading that article about the student being told by Jesuits to basically go back to Islam. Why should we even remotely put up with that? Just because the clergy say so does not mean that they are right. They can be wrong, pretty easily too.

Any criticism you have of the clergy is only amplified by the laity.

We must not put blind faith in populism, lest we start a schism just like the East.
Reply
#3
Populism isn't why the schism between the East and the West occurred and way oversimplifies it at best. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking when it comes to the Schism about to be quite honest. Also, not criticizing the clergy when they do improper or wrong things is a bad idea and makes us look like bad Catholics by not speaking out against them.
Reply
#4
(07-26-2013, 09:01 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: I say we actually DO SOMETHING about it. I study history. I read a lot about the Eastern Christians. I can tell you all one thing, when the clergy did something that the laity did not like, the laity made it VERY clear how they felt about it. Ignoring the fact that the attempted unions failed, when the clergy all signed these papers declaring themselves united to Rome and went back home, they were all faced with riots. The laity would not put up with any crap that the clergy would try to force upon them. This same thing happened countless times, especially in the East. The laity would not take any crap from the clergy when they tried to force things that the laity did not want. The schism between the Old Believers and the Patriarchate in Russia was huge at the time because many of the laity and lesser clergy did not want to have what they considered heterodox views pushed upon them.

We should not have to just bend over for this crap. Something seems to have just clicked in me earlier when I was reading that article about the student being told by Jesuits to basically go back to Islam. Why should we even remotely put up with that? Just because the clergy say so does not mean that they are right. They can be wrong, pretty easily too.

To speak out takes courage, especially when your run of the mill catholic is quite happy with the status quo, putting those who are offended in a distinct minority. I myself, as easy as it is to talk big when posting, have the conviction but need to pray for the courage to not just let things slide but to speak out against the priest, deacons, and church laity, because it is polarizing. BUT...It is also the right thing to do, so I pray for courage daily.
Reply
#5
(07-27-2013, 10:12 AM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(07-26-2013, 09:01 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: I say we actually DO SOMETHING about it. I study history. I read a lot about the Eastern Christians. I can tell you all one thing, when the clergy did something that the laity did not like, the laity made it VERY clear how they felt about it. Ignoring the fact that the attempted unions failed, when the clergy all signed these papers declaring themselves united to Rome and went back home, they were all faced with riots. The laity would not put up with any crap that the clergy would try to force upon them. This same thing happened countless times, especially in the East. The laity would not take any crap from the clergy when they tried to force things that the laity did not want. The schism between the Old Believers and the Patriarchate in Russia was huge at the time because many of the laity and lesser clergy did not want to have what they considered heterodox views pushed upon them.

We should not have to just bend over for this crap. Something seems to have just clicked in me earlier when I was reading that article about the student being told by Jesuits to basically go back to Islam. Why should we even remotely put up with that? Just because the clergy say so does not mean that they are right. They can be wrong, pretty easily too.

To speak out takes courage, especially when your run of the mill catholic is quite happy with the status quo, putting those who are offended in a distinct minority. I myself, as easy as it is to talk big when posting, have the conviction but need to pray for the courage to not just let things slide but to speak out against the priest, deacons, and church laity, because it is polarizing. BUT...It is also the right thing to do, so I pray for courage daily.

I'm guilty here too.  Having said that, I do find I have more courage when I attend a reverent mass offered by a reverent, courageous priest. 
Reply
#6
(07-26-2013, 10:10 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: Populism isn't why the schism between the East and the West occurred and way oversimplifies it at best. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking when it comes to the Schism about to be quite honest. Also, not criticizing the clergy when they do improper or wrong things is a bad idea and makes us look like bad Catholics by not speaking out against them.

Where you find grievous error among the clergy, speak out. I don't mean to condone sede-vacante nonsense or Vorris like rhetoric that lacks charity and sounds as though he got his information from Jack Chick. There is zero merit in dissent for dissents sake or a  general discontentment over the state of things.

The Church has unfaithful clerics, just as it always has. However you seems to imply, intentionally or not, in your OP that the laity is simply sitting by. No the laity is adding fuel to the fire, in a state of affairs wherein a group called "Catholics for Choice" exists and "Catholics" show support for things such as gay "marriage" and contraception in numerous polls,  thus there will be no revolution until the state of things change.

You're own OP shows the flaws of Populism, as laity in the East revolted against bishops who sought to restore union to the Church. I'm sorry if I find that less than idea, and hardly worthy of praise. The bishops should not be at the mercy of the mobs, but should preach the truth to all humanity.
Reply
#7
(07-27-2013, 11:04 AM)ForeverFaithful Wrote: Where you find grievous error among the clergy, speak out. I don't mean to condone sede-vacante nonsense or Vorris like rhetoric that lacks charity and sounds as though he got his information from Jack Chick. There is zero merit in dissent for dissents sake or a  general discontentment over the state of things.

The Church has unfaithful clerics, just as it always has. However you seems to imply, intentionally or not, in your OP that the laity is simply sitting by. No the laity is adding fuel to the fire, in a state of affairs wherein a group called "Catholics for Choice" exists and "Catholics" show support for things such as gay "marriage" and contraception in numerous polls,  thus there will be no revolution until the state of things change.

You're own OP shows the flaws of Populism, as laity in the East revolted against bishops who sought to restore union to the Church. I'm sorry if I find that less than idea, and hardly worthy of praise. The bishops should not be at the mercy of the mobs, but should preach the truth to all humanity.

You're literally expecting the bishops to take care of affairs themselves completely and for the laity to be, more or less, COMPLETELY uninvolved in affairs of THEIR OWN Church. What if the situation arises where they CAN'T? Which is why those laity in the East DID take matters into their own hands. Remember this list, especially the bolded one:

The 9 Ways We Participate in Others' Sins
By counsel
By command
By consent
By provocation
By praise or flattery
By concealment
By partaking
By silence
By defense of the ill done

You also keep jumping to the revolts over the attempted unions of the Church. Ignore the fact that, yes, they DID revolt against attempted unions of East and West. Look at what they believed they were doing rather. They were doing it out of defense to their own faith. Can't really blame them, they (and remember, it wasn't merely laity, many minor clergy were among them, especially parish priests) were reacting against, what they considered to be, heterodox actions occurring. It was often because, unlike in the West, in the East, much of the laity were extremely knowledgeable about their faith and one could find theological discussions and debates being held in all corners of Constantinople. It had a lot to do with the language(s) of the Church being the languages of the people as well. So the laity were extremely well educated in their faith, much more so than in the West where the average peasant or even nobleman could barely read a word of Latin. Also, your use of the term "populism" to describe it falls short as well. Populism has to do with "the people" versus "the elites." These theological topics crossed class borders. It just so happens that, at least in comparison to the attempted unions, it was the highest clergy (and the emperor who was looking more for defense of the empire) who supported it and just about everyone else who opposed it. More of a coincidence when it comes to that comparison.

As well as your comparisons of laity "adding fuel to the fire." You do realize that laity could EASILY combat those kinds of things. I just don't see it very often, and when I do, it is often a bunch of radical sedevacantist nutjobs. The only really effective lay groups I see in sizable numbers are the pro-life groups. While a very honorable cause, it should not be the only thing that the laity concern themselves with.
Reply
#8
By silence means you know them personally and can go to them and correct them directly.

tim
Reply
#9
(07-27-2013, 11:04 AM)ForeverFaithful Wrote:
(07-26-2013, 10:10 PM)Farmer88 Wrote: Populism isn't why the schism between the East and the West occurred and way oversimplifies it at best. You sound like you have no idea what you are talking when it comes to the Schism about to be quite honest. Also, not criticizing the clergy when they do improper or wrong things is a bad idea and makes us look like bad Catholics by not speaking out against them.

Where you find grievous error among the clergy, speak out. I don't mean to condone sede-vacante nonsense or Vorris like rhetoric that lacks charity and sounds as though he got his information from Jack Chick. There is zero merit in dissent for dissents sake or a  general discontentment over the state of things.

The Church has unfaithful clerics, just as it always has. However you seems to imply, intentionally or not, in your OP that the laity is simply sitting by. No the laity is adding fuel to the fire, in a state of affairs wherein a group called "Catholics for Choice" exists and "Catholics" show support for things such as gay "marriage" and contraception in numerous polls,  thus there will be no revolution until the state of things change.

You're own OP shows the flaws of Populism, as laity in the East revolted against bishops who sought to restore union to the Church. I'm sorry if I find that less than idea, and hardly worthy of praise. The bishops should not be at the mercy of the mobs, but should preach the truth to all humanity.

I agree with all you say about the laity, but that has to be countered with the faithful having the courage to stand for the truth and denonce abuses. Let's take Voris, so unfortunate that his greatest detractors are catholics who dislike his "rhetoric". Too many people get on Voris for having that courage that is lacking in the clergy, the media, and the laity to speak the truth. He endures ridicule and rejection for the action of calling out those who allow liturgical abuses to happen, and the politicians they pander to.  And he has done what he can to bring that message to the masses who do not know better. There are some who don't like the style, .. what matters more... What about his message? He is not wrong, and is saying what few others dare say. Kudos to him, regardless of the rhetoric.
Reply
#10
(07-27-2013, 12:04 PM)Tim Wrote: By silence means you know them personally and can go to them and correct them directly.

tim

Not necessarily. There's no implication on knowing the person personally.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)