"I wonder how Luther ever broke the spell"
#21
(09-27-2015, 11:50 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Qoheleth, you should be careful--if I'm not mistaken its a heresy to claim the diocese of Rome has defected (or can defect).
I'm not really sure what you're claiming "its not the faith". The rites? In what sense they are or are not the faith? And of course, you have the odd claims of people like Ferrara saying the NOM is actually the indult (and Benedict hints at this saying the old rites were never abrogated), so I'm not really sure what you're saying is officially not the Church.

GangGreen, if you read the pre-VII popes you might form a picture of a very unhealthy Church, not so much in the hierarchy but among the layfolk. If God is in charge (which He is--this is the most logical consequence of monotheism), then this is a punishment. We have the leaders we deserve.
Now, I know some people object to "trads", but from my experience the traditional priests are exceedingly good priests. If that is not a sign of God that He wants the old rites preserved and that He still loves us, then nothing can be said to be a sign of God. And we should honor this gift from God! Let us not take it for granted like most of our grandparents.

I think my own interpretation of things attitude is well summarized in this sermon.

It's kind of cyclical. Bad laity leads to bad priests and then bad bishops. Bad hierarchy leads to even worse priests and laity. Sure, pockets of holiness will exist and those will be the ones to eventually rebuild the mess. We can see similar issues in Israel throughout the Old Testament.
Reply
#22
(09-27-2015, 12:38 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: And that's just it, the type of Catholicism John Adams was captivated by literally does not exist today outside a barely tolerated minority, a good many who are outside the canonical boundaries of the Church!

It's precisely this disconnect between the Church of the past and the Church in reality that make stuff like Catholic apologetics tracts from the turn of the last century ridiculous...it's not even the same anymore except in fantasy. The Church of Fulton Sheen doesn't even exist anymore. 

All the triumphalist and smug stuff from ages past is laughable in the face of Francis and the average parish Novus Ordo.

This exact line of thinking led me out of the Church and into the Orthodox Church. 

Despite all that, somehow God brought me back to the Roman Church -- where I am now part of that "barely tolerated minority" about which you speak.  It is tough sometimes, especially right now to remain firm in the decision to come back.
Reply
#23
(09-28-2015, 09:43 AM)ermy_law Wrote:
(09-27-2015, 12:38 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: And that's just it, the type of Catholicism John Adams was captivated by literally does not exist today outside a barely tolerated minority, a good many who are outside the canonical boundaries of the Church!

It's precisely this disconnect between the Church of the past and the Church in reality that make stuff like Catholic apologetics tracts from the turn of the last century ridiculous...it's not even the same anymore except in fantasy. The Church of Fulton Sheen doesn't even exist anymore. 

All the triumphalist and smug stuff from ages past is laughable in the face of Francis and the average parish Novus Ordo.

This exact line of thinking led me out of the Church and into the Orthodox Church. 

Despite all that, somehow God brought me back to the Roman Church -- where I am now part of that "barely tolerated minority" about which you speak.  It is tough sometimes, especially right now to remain firm in the decision to come back.

I'm very glad you were brought back! :)
Reply
#24
(09-27-2015, 10:58 PM)Qoheleth Wrote: FB you said " The SSPX really are one of the only groups out there that are actually resisting the Pope, an ecumenical council and the worlds episcopate to the face,although I'm still up in the air as to where I stand with them. 

It's just troubling when the only way to be a Catholic in good conscience is to pretty much ignore the pope and the worlds bishops and reject the last half century of official rites,rituals and teachings while falling back on things that the modern hierarchy has largely shown nothing but scorn, derision and embarassment for. "


and RF you say  .."Well, most Catholics also contracept, divorce, etc., even a frightful number of them don't even believe in the Real Presence. Not sure “most Catholics” should be our guiding standard.


This is the situation we are ALL going through and yes it is very hard to just go with plain common sense and admit the truth of the situation.  When i look at the Church of the past 2000 years and compare it to the Church of the last  fifty years., it is plain to see it is not the same Church, except in  name only.  Except for a few groups with a really tough resolve to maintain the actual Catholic  Faith, it is all but lost for the most part.  The Church of the last  fifty years is NOT the Catholic Church i signed up for and i will not close my eyes and hold my nose as it were and continue to pretend  that  the Church of present day is satisfactory when it is plainly not the case.  In no way can i begin to imagine Jesus telling His people to accept this mess and  let the faith  that was handed down for so long just evaporate from the memory of men, and that is what is happening today.  With every generation that passes it will be harder  and harder for anyone to have the understanding  or the  will to put it all back together.  Only by the Grace of God will it return to what it is supposed to be.  The Faith is being  preserved but it is not because of the faithfulness of Rome but of scattered  groups here and there. For years everyone with eyes to see, saw the faith eroding away,  myself included  and all the while making up excuses  and more or less just kept hoping that it would  start heading back in the right direction, but we all know how that went don't we.

Seems to me none of us are going to have any real peace in this world.  All we can do is Pick Up Our Cross Daily  and with our dim vision try to somehow stay on that very narrow path. 

God Help us.

The bold part really resonated with me,it makes me think there really is something to the Slavic Orthodox idea of Sobornost, and how it is mysteriously the Holy Spirit guiding the faithful that preserves the Faith and not the Pope or the bishops. Of course maybe I'm not understanding Sobornost or the real role of the papacy and the bishops, who knows? Just thinking out loud so to speak. All I know is that it does seem like the Catholic faith has been gutted and hindered by the Popes and the bishops and that by and large the faith has been kept intact by, well, by the faithful.

It's hard for me to believe that what I see on an official level in most parishes and all the way up to the cheesy papal liturgies themselves anything of Catholicism as our Western ancestors knew it for almost 2000 years. The Church has been reduced to an arm of UNICEF with a cheesy figurehead who speaks in vague platitudes and quasi spiritual language about politics and worldly things. The liturgy has been reduced to a lowest common denominator spectacle about as tacky and boring and pedestrian as a preschool music recital. This is official papally sponsored Catholicism.

It makes me feel like the Pope and the hierarchy are untrustworthy and unable to do anything more than destroy, mock and get in the way of our Faith and its hallowed expressions. Maybe had I been born in an era where the Faith was intact in its externals all the way up to the Vatican and the Pope and bishops were more trustworthy I'd feel differently, but as it stands in this era I find myself I've got no reason to see the papacy or the episcopate through anything but skeptical and jaundiced eyes.


Believe me I'm not going Orthodox although I'm very close to the East in my outlook and prayer style and always will be. I just find the modern Catholic Church to be like an unsolvable zen koan that somehow points to the truth but simply defies logic. The moment I think too hard about it I feel like it's a joke and just doesn't add up, the more I let go,keep my head down and stick to my prayers the easier it gets to survive as a Catholic with an Eastern and Benedictine bent way out on the margins far far away from the Pope, the hierarchy or any parish offering up drivel.




Reply
#25
(09-27-2015, 08:36 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-27-2015, 01:03 AM)Poche Wrote: This afternoon’s entertainment was to me most awful and affecting. The poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood, their Pater Nosters and Ave Marias. Their holy water– their crossing themselves perpetually– their bowing to the name of Jesus wherever they hear it– their bowings, and kneelings, and genuflections before the altar. The dress of the priest was rich with lace– his pulpit was velvet and gold. The altar piece was very rich– little images and crucifixes about– wax candles lighted up. But how shall I describe the picture of our Saviour in a frame of marble over the altar, at full length, upon the cross in the agonies, and the blood dropping and streaming from his wounds.

I think that if it was in the afternoon it was not mass. Maybe it was Vespers?


How common was solemn vespers in Philly during John Adams time? I've no clue,just asking. I'd love to see more public recitations of the Office,like Vespers on Sunday's and on the eves of feast days.
It was very common, much more common than it is today.
Reply
#26
(09-28-2015, 11:13 PM)Poche Wrote:
(09-27-2015, 08:36 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote:
(09-27-2015, 01:03 AM)Poche Wrote: This afternoon’s entertainment was to me most awful and affecting. The poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood, their Pater Nosters and Ave Marias. Their holy water– their crossing themselves perpetually– their bowing to the name of Jesus wherever they hear it– their bowings, and kneelings, and genuflections before the altar. The dress of the priest was rich with lace– his pulpit was velvet and gold. The altar piece was very rich– little images and crucifixes about– wax candles lighted up. But how shall I describe the picture of our Saviour in a frame of marble over the altar, at full length, upon the cross in the agonies, and the blood dropping and streaming from his wounds.

I think that if it was in the afternoon it was not mass. Maybe it was Vespers?


How common was solemn vespers in Philly during John Adams time? I've no clue,just asking. I'd love to see more public recitations of the Office,like Vespers on Sunday's and on the eves of feast days.
It was very common, much more common than it is today.

I've seen it a few times at an FSSP parish and it was very nice. I'd love to see a return of parish vespers,especially on the eves of feasts and on Saturdays. The big problem is getting people to see that there is great value in the official prayer of the Church,that the Office is important even if one does not recieve communion.  I'd even be happy to see it offered in a hieratic vernacular if that's what it would take to get people to attend. Parish life is severely truncated when there's no public recitation of the Office. The hymns, psalms, collects and antiphons immerse one in the liturgical year and would complement the Mass very well.
Reply
#27
(09-28-2015, 07:22 PM)Share Love Wrote:
(09-28-2015, 09:43 AM)ermy_law Wrote:
(09-27-2015, 12:38 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: And that's just it, the type of Catholicism John Adams was captivated by literally does not exist today outside a barely tolerated minority, a good many who are outside the canonical boundaries of the Church!

It's precisely this disconnect between the Church of the past and the Church in reality that make stuff like Catholic apologetics tracts from the turn of the last century ridiculous...it's not even the same anymore except in fantasy. The Church of Fulton Sheen doesn't even exist anymore. 

All the triumphalist and smug stuff from ages past is laughable in the face of Francis and the average parish Novus Ordo.

This exact line of thinking led me out of the Church and into the Orthodox Church. 

Despite all that, somehow God brought me back to the Roman Church -- where I am now part of that "barely tolerated minority" about which you speak.  It is tough sometimes, especially right now to remain firm in the decision to come back.

I'm very glad you were brought back! :)

Thank you!
Reply
#28
If the Catholic Church wasn't divinely protected, it would have fallen to ruin ages ago with some of the people that have been in charge of things.
Reply
#29
(09-29-2015, 05:14 PM)GangGreen Wrote: If the Catholic Church wasn't divinely protected, it would have fallen to ruin ages ago with some of the people that have been in charge of things.

Just to play Devils advocate,the Orthodox could say the same thing. They have largely kept their rites and teachings intact for the same time period as Rome, mostly under hostile muslim or communist rule. Or what of the Copts who have pretty much the same style of worship and prayers for over a millenia, and all without a Pope ( not the same kind anyway) and under hostile muslim servitude till this day.

I suppose so could the muslims who have been spreading like wildfire for over a thousand years and seem to be heading towards a new golden age.  Buddhists might also say something similar, as the Buddhas teaching has also been intact for at least 2500 years despite having different styles like Rinzai or Soto Zen, Pure Land, Thervada or Tibetan.

The point is, every religion on the planet claims some special protection, and at least at face value most of them seem to have fared pretty well.

Given the near total renovation of nearly every iota of Roman Catholic praxis and externals at the hands of the popes and bishops in the last 100 years it's hard to make that same claim for Rome unless we appeal to sedevacantism or claim that the externals simply don't matter and that the faith is really still the same. I'd lean towards the latter in that there is nothing that bad in the new catechism, but I'd disagree that the externals don't matter. I suppose I'd argue that given Romes penchant for liturgical novelty and destruction, the popes and the bishops do not think the externals are important at all.

All I'm saying is the appeal to divine protection given the evidence of other religious groups and the near total wreckovation of Roman Catholicism in recent history is not really a strong argument.

Reply
#30
(09-29-2015, 06:18 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Just to play Devils advocate,the Orthodox could say the same thing. They have largely kept their rites and teachings intact for the same time period as Rome, mostly under hostile muslim or communist rule. Or what of the Copts who have pretty much the same style of worship and prayers for over a millenia, and all without a Pope ( not the same kind anyway) and under hostile muslim servitude till this day.

I suppose so could the muslims who have been spreading like wildfire for over a thousand years and seem to be heading towards a new golden age.  Buddhists might also say something similar, as the Buddhas teaching has also been intact for at least 2500 years despite having different styles like Rinzai or Soto Zen, Pure Land, Thervada or Tibetan.

The point is, every religion on the planet claims some special protection, and at least at face value most of them seem to have fared pretty well.

Given the near total renovation of nearly every iota of Roman Catholic praxis and externals at the hands of the popes and bishops in the last 100 years it's hard to make that same claim for Rome unless we appeal to sedevacantism or claim that the externals simply don't matter and that the faith is really still the same. I'd lean towards the latter in that there is nothing that bad in the new catechism, but I'd disagree that the externals don't matter. I suppose I'd argue that given Romes penchant for liturgical novelty and destruction, the popes and the bishops do not think the externals are important at all.

All I'm saying is the appeal to divine protection given the evidence of other religious groups and the near total wreckovation of Roman Catholicism in recent history is not really a strong argument.

You're right, every religion could claim its the one true religion because it was protected for some millenia: the Jews, the Muslims, etc.

The argument of survival is not really an argument for the true religion, but a consolation for those easily scandalized: if one already believes in the Church, and given that God haven't abandoned the Church just yet, then it follows God just might not abandon His Church now.

There are other signs for determining the true religion: the saints (whose existence is striking, and the sheer number of saints—saints, not good persons—in the Church shames all other religions), miracles, prophecies, and good ol' reason. To quote Leo XIII, ”Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.”

As for the destruction of the externals: as much as I love the aesthetics of the Liturgy (and I was the only one to defend it contra Merton on one thread here), it is a fact that it is not strictly necessary. The first Christians congregated in the catacombs, the Irish during the persecution would worship in little houses on the open air, and even today we see pictures of the Eucharistic sacrifice happening in utterly destroyed churches in the Middle East. And as long as the words of institution are said we have Jesus Himself.
Not to mention that the usual conservative story says that much of the disasters we see now are not officially warranted (in fact many are prohibited and the very opposite explicitly encouraged, like the use of Latin and Gregorian chant). And of course, the New Mass is here, unfortunately, it doesn't mean it will always be, though, or that it is the higher form of Catholic worship (remember that article by Fr. Rippeger I linked to you a few months ago?), and as the old Rites were never abolished and the way the new Rites were introduced—as a series of experimental changes—it stands to reason the new rites are actually the indult, they are the contingent thing open to more changes, which is quite a different mode of being than the old rites.
I know what you're going to say: this is all too subtle and I'm picking and choosing. Well, subtlety is on the eye of the beholder. And yes, I'm picking and choosing the orthodox bishops.

Things are ugly. But at the end of the day we can't allow to be swallowed up in despair. The Church is the Church even if small.

By the way, this links that other thread on the Orthodox: just like we can't establish the true religion by its sheer survival, we cannot establish the true religion by its well being today. Think of how fickle such criteria is: a couple of decades ago Catholicism was officially (though we know the full story from the writing of the popes) very strong and the Orthodox weak, with the Turks, communists and all. Now Putin is in power and the Orthodox seem strong—did they suddenly became the true Church? A couple of decades ago the Jews were in quite a predicament, now they are very powerful and have a powerful nation. The Muslims are having their victory too. And of course, atheism is dominant today.
No, this is not a good criteria for determining the true religion. And we know from prophecies that the Church would suffer—we follow a crucified King.

I know you have heard all this before, I just hope it can help someone who might be struggling with this.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)