I read these upsetting articles about liberalism and modernism in the Church...
#11
(07-27-2013, 12:10 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: 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 the message?  if there were more of him, we may not be in the state were in.

Voris is a single person in a huge crowd, which is one of the biggest reasons why it's so easy for his detractors to gang up on him and appear as if they are the ones who are right and he is wrong. There are such few who are as vocal as he is, if there were MORE, then it wouldn't be as easy to gang up on him and, in doing so, make his followers look crazy as well. When it comes to his style, well, sometimes (probably more often) you have to be blunt and harsh and loud to get the truth across. Which is why I don't really fault him at all for his style either.
Reply
#12
(07-27-2013, 12:10 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(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.
"

The tragedy of Vorris is not that he is misguided in his ideas, to my understand he is an orthodox member of the Catholic Church who does not support schism of any kind. The problem is his lack of solutions and frankly his fear mongering. It sounds more like talk radio than saintly advice.

For example he compares the Bishops of the U.S. to the state sponsored bishops in China. As much as I'd like to see some changes in the leadership of bishops I certainly don't think it is as bad as China.
Reply
#13
(07-27-2013, 11:56 AM)Farmer88 Wrote:
(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.

Since I have not advocated silence, I have no idea what you are referring to

"Where you find grievous error among the clergy, speak out"
Reply
#14
(07-27-2013, 03:39 PM)ForeverFaithful Wrote: The tragedy of Vorris is not that he is misguided in his ideas, to my understand he is an orthodox member of the Catholic Church who does not support schism of any kind. The problem is his lack of solutions and frankly his fear mongering. It sounds more like talk radio than saintly advice.

For example he compares the Bishops of the U.S. to the state sponsored bishops in China. As much as I'd like to see some changes in the leadership of bishops I certainly don't think it is as bad as China.

Well, maybe he wouldn't have to react that way if more people supported him and spoke out like him. I've listened to talk radio before, the way those presenters speak wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if they were actually getting somewhere. The problem is that they don't because even if they have their supporters, regardless of how numerous, if those supporters don't take action and at MINIMUM speak out loudly as well, nothing gets done.
Reply
#15
(07-27-2013, 03:42 PM)ForeverFaithful Wrote: Since I have not advocated silence, I have no idea what you are referring to

"Where you find grievous error among the clergy, speak out"

You basically said to not speak out against the clergy. This is your original post:

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.


Do you realize just how bad of a post that actually is? Not only is the second sentence just flat out historically wrong, but the first, as being further defined by a later post, you seem to think that the laity are only a bad force and can do no good, so we somehow must expect the clergy themselves to fix the problems. Except for the pure and blatant fact that half the time (if not more so), the clergy are the PROBLEM. We should not put blind faith in the clergy and expect them to fix the problems. We need to be vocal, we need to be willing to stand for the true faith, and most of all, we must be willing to suffer for the true faith.
Reply
#16

I don't think it's "populism" or evidence of seeing the Church as a democracy to deal with evil clerics -- or, at least, clerics who do evil. And the existence of nasty groups like "'Catholics' For Choice", et al, doesn't make lay groups in themselves a bad idea. I think the (relatively) few good Bishops out there and His Holiness would appreciate lay groups that keep them informed about what's going on and which deals with things they might not have the time or bravery to deal with themselves.

Me, I'm all for the faithful laity becoming more vocal and organized with regard to the ongoing problems and being more "in your face" with prelates like the Jezzie who encouraged a Christian to convert to Islam. I think the potential problems in doing all of this would be, off the top of my head:

1) Dealing with things and people, and speaking about the problems in a Catholic way -- i.e., assuming the best, not impugning motives, avoiding detraction and gossip, not allowing anger to get the better of you, speaking with charity and prudence, etc.

2) Figuring out the right way to deal with a specific situation. Take the example of the aforementioned Jezzie. What would be the right way to deal with this? Organize a group to write letters to him in order to complain and correct him, and then to pray for him? If that doesn't work, then what? How would we "go over his head" to try to get someone else to fix that?

3) I think the laity need to be organized to be effective, but an organization needs a leader. Or you could have a leader, someone willing to arrange things, but such a person would need followers, folks with follow-through who'd walk the walk and get 'er done. Trying to get trads to do anything is hard, though. To me, it seems that most trads are content to do nothing but complain and fret. I hate it, but I think it's true. People just aren't motivated.
Reply
#17
Vox, I couldn't agree more with you that people just aren't motivated. And it's a huge shame. So many of these trads believe so strongly in what they profess and are quite vocal about it among themselves, but they aren't motivated to go beyond a certain point and don't get very vocal once outside of like the parish basement or the living room.

Also, when it comes to dealing with certain situations, might as well be prepared to make a scene. Writing letters never seems to get anything done unless like 5 million letters swamp the mailbox. I think there's a charitable and peaceful way to make a scene, but we shouldn't let charity get in the way of actually preserving orthodoxy and the truth. What is better to do? Allow a Catholic to actively preach...I dunno, gay marriage, in the name of being charitable to the person? Or do you stand in his way and say "no, you can't do that" or something along those lines? There is always a point at which it becomes "do we stand by in the name of charity and being kind and good?" or "do we actively protect the truth, even if that may come across to others as being uncharitable or unkind or whatever?" Because I do know one thing, if we were doing things solely in the name of charity, then there wouldn't be all sorts of pro-choice people (among others) pissed off at the Church.

And yes, a organization does need a leader to stand around. Maybe one of these traditional and good bishops can be the leader or something. I do know it was often lesser clergy who would lead the refusals (and often riots) after the attempted unions. Or Voris, though I know there would be plenty willing to stand by him, there are a few of the trads who are turned off from his blunt and stern way of telling it like it is. Though, to be quite honest, that's the kind of thing you want in a leader for an organization like this.
Reply
#18
And now this FFI thing. Well...I don't even know what to say aside from literally unless the FFI were just botching the EF and making a huge disaster of it, forbidding it is a COMPLETE overreaction, as well as replacing their superior. I can't possibly see a logical reason as to why they took THOSE steps. It's like two kids fighting over a ball and instead of the dad splitting them up and giving them each a ball, the dad rushed in with a baseball bat screaming at one of the kids to get away.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)