Legitimacy in some of our traditions.

[signumcrux]

Hello all!

I am new to this forum but I am not new to The Faith. I was born Catholic and grew up in a Traditional Catholic family. I really need some support. I have so many doubts about The Church its taking over my life. I have no doubts about The Lord but mainly the direction our church is going.

I really need some outside input on a few concerns I have. I have discussed these with my parish priest until blue in the face, but I need some help from my fellow laity.

I feel like the church is burning more bridges with the world than unifying it.

Christ broke bread with Judas Iscariot and let him partake in his body but we cant let a homosexual? I couldn't imagine Christ denying himself to a homosexual who wanted the lord. How can we?

The cover-up of abuse cases and the pardoning of Cardinal Ratzinger by George Bush while he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Can anyone go into more detail about this? An apologetic view would be nice (since I'm going off the word of Richard Dawkins...)

Also, on a somewhat related note. How does the Pope have the ability to make religion changing decisions? New Mass, Papal Infallibility and The Immaculate Conception. I don't understand how one man can change and add to our faith so much. I understand apostolic succession but I feel that if the Pope decreed that all of the apostles were sin free we would accept it. I may have this all wrong so please; correct me.

I feel that the unifying force of our faith was lost with Vatican II. When I go to mass I constantly see these sites:

The female music director approaching the altar, in her sandals, to set out the gifts of the Lord.

Usually anyone can gallivant around the altar to help prepare for mass.

Altar Servers wearing tennis shoes during mass.

My parish priest wheres Velcro sandals in the summer time.

The Statues and Crucifixes only have a thin shawl around them during Lent instead of covered.

Playing of the Trombone. Trumpet, and Saxophone during Mass.


I'm hoping that maybe this is just the parishes that I've seen and I have it all wrong.

I know this may sound trivial but am I just out in left field for believing this is wrong? I feel really confused and it is getting in the way of receiving the Lord. If anyone has any advice, correction, or just some personal experience I would really appreciate it.

[ahs]

Originally Posted by signumcrux

Hello all!

I am new to this forum but I am not new to The Faith. I was born Catholic and grew up in a Traditional Catholic family. I really need some support. I have so many doubts about The Church its taking over my life. I have no doubts about The Lord but mainly the direction our church is going.

Welcome to Catholic Answers. You should open up different threads that can address your topics individually to give them the attention they deserve. I'll provide short bits though.

I really need some outside input on a few concerns I have. I have discussed these with my parish priest until blue in the face, but I need some help from my fellow laity.

I feel like the church is burning more bridges with the world than unifying it.

Christ broke bread with Judas Iscariot and let him partake in his body but we cant let a homosexual? I couldn't imagine Christ denying himself to a homosexual who wanted the lord. How can we?

The Church does not call same-sex-attraction a sin and being a homosexual is not necessarily something a person can be held accountable for (depends on how you define "being a homosexual"...attraction vs. action). It's the acting upon the attraction that is sinful. A person in a state of mortal sin cannot partake of the Eucharist because, as Paul warns us, we'd be eating damnation upon ourselves.

The cover-up of abuse cases and the pardoning of Cardinal Ratzinger by George Bush while he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Can anyone go into more detail about this? An apologetic view would be nice (since I'm going off the word of Richard Dawkins...)

Also, on a somewhat related note. How does the Pope have the ability to make religion changing decisions? New Mass, Papal Infallibility and The Immaculate Conception. I don't understand how one man can change and add to our faith so much. I understand apostolic succession but I feel that if the Pope decreed that all of the apostles were sin free we would accept it. I may have this all wrong so please; correct me.

The Pope doesn't make religion changing decisions. You should start a topic about something you feel meets this definition so it can appropriately addressed. You'll want to understand the difference between a practice/discipline and a doctrine.

I feel that the unifying force of our faith was lost with Vatican II. When I go to mass I constantly see these sites:

The female music director approaching the altar, in her sandals, to set out the gifts of the Lord.

Usually anyone can gallivant around the altar to help prepare for mass.

Altar Servers wearing tennis shoes during mass.

My parish priest wheres Velcro sandals in the summer time.

The Statues and Crucifixes only have a thin shawl around them during Lent instead of covered.

Playing of the Trombone. Trumpet, and Saxophone during Mass.

Yeah...there are some liturgical abuses and such going on...we need unity and prayer and good examples from our Bishops and Priests. Pray for Priests! Not all Churches have these goings-on.

I'm hoping that maybe this is just the parishes that I've seen and I have it all wrong.

I know this may sound trivial but am I just out in left field for believing this is wrong? I feel really confused and it is getting in the way of receiving the Lord. If anyone has any advice, correction, or just some personal experience I would really appreciate it.

My advice is to start separate threads for each issue that deserves a good explanation.

[signumcrux]

Thank you for replying and letting me know. I will do that now.

[Daniel1Catholic]

With regard to the liturgy, what you have stated are not "abuses", simply, the priest and congregation are not respecting the sacredness of the event. Try to lead by example. If there is a church nearby that is more traditional, perhaps an Tridentine mass, you should attend there. With regard to Judas Iscariot and holy communion, an artical here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...udas+communion That should help clear things up. As for Cardinal Ratzinger, Dawkings is lying, how can Bush pardon him if he was never an American citizen? Furthermore, the sexual abuse scandle among the clergy is blown way, way out of proportion. In fact, less then 1% of Catholic Priests were ever charged with abuse, while more then 3% of school teachers have been charged with a form of abuse, (Sexual, physical, ect). This is according to a News Researcher poll conducted in July 2010, at the height of the scandle. The reality is, only 2 bishops have been convicted of a coverup in the USA. With regards to homosexuals, the church regects the person no more then a heretosexual, but SIN is always rejected.

[Abu]

Signumcrux #1
Christ broke bread with Judas Iscariot and let him partake in his body but we cant let a homosexual? I couldn't imagine Christ denying himself to a homosexual who wanted the lord. How can we?

The reception of Our Lord is for those who are not in mortal sin at the time – those with the homosexual disorder are not condemned because of that, and are to be welcomed, but chastity is required of all men and women.

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by signumcrux

The cover-up of abuse cases and the pardoning of Cardinal Ratzinger by George Bush while he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Can anyone go into more detail about this? An apologetic view would be nice (since I'm going off the word of Richard Dawkins...)

You are quoting an avowed atheist who claims that President Bush "pardoned" Cardinal Ratzinger who is allegedly your Pope? You can google the issue and discover for yourself that the U.S. Attorney's office in 2005 suggested to a circuit court in Texas that a lawsuit against the Pope alleging conspiracy should be dismissed since he is a head of state. It was not a 'pardon' which implies guilt.

Implying that a Pope is guilty of conspiracy is almost as bad as wearing velcro sneakers in the sanctuary, no?

[R_C]

Hi, I'll try to give some thoughts on your questions. Remember that the Catholic Church is the Lord's Church, and that to Her Christ gave power to bind and unbind things on earth, validating those choices in heaven. Thus is not up to us to disagree with the Church, much less to abandon it: for to do so is to offed the Lord in the worst possible way.

I feel like the church is burning more bridges with the world than unifying it.

No: it is the world, or better, modern societies and states, that have lost all respect for the Church. Emperors and kings bowed down before an institution that had brought light and morality for centuries, but modern societies reject the teachings of the Church and instead expand Satan's projects, defending them and financing them.

Christ broke bread with Judas Iscariot and let him partake in his body but we cant let a homosexual?

You answered your own question. Homosexuality is not the issue. The issue is chastity. Just like a heterosexual person that commits mortal sins of lust is excluded from Communion, so is a homosexual person. A homosexual and a heterosexual who strive for chastity and confess their sins regularly are properly disposed to receive the Eucharist. Of course, the cross for those who experience same-gender attraction is much heavier.

The cover-up of abuse cases and the pardoning of Cardinal Ratzinger by George Bush while he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith.

You are going on a dangerous ground. Contrary to what Satan's servants want us to believe, there is no cover up by the Church. Do not confuse the ecclesiastical hierarchy with the Church. If some of our pastors have betrayed the Lord in such ways - as they have - they shall pay the price in full. If the hierarchy has not done a good job in eradicating these viscid serpents from the Church, they shall pay ten times the price. But the Church cannot be blamed for these terrible things.

Let me ask you a question that you may answer in your mind: when Jesus was brought out by Pilate, the High Priest of the Hebrew people yelled: "may his blood be upon us and our children". Do you think that God listened to the High Priest? That He punished innocent people because of something horribly wrong that the ecclesiastical hierarchy had done? Do you think the people should have abandoned the religion because of what the High Priest had said or what the hierarchy had been doing?

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.

How does the Pope have the ability to make religion changing decisions? New Mass, Papal Infallibility and The Immaculate Conception. I don't understand how one man can change and add to our faith so much.

You have it all wrong. The Pope is not a totalitarian ruler. He is a bishop, who was given the honorary title of cardinal meaning that many other bishops trust and rely on him. When the Pope - successor of Peter and vicar of Christ as visible head of the Church - dies, all those important and trustworthy bishops that are known as cardinals meet, and then by the guidance of the Holy Spirit they elect the Pope.

The Church has Congregations, Councils, and Papal Commissions (among many other things) that for centuries have studied the theology and the liturgy and teachings of the Church. The Pope did not write the Catechism, or the Missal, and certainly cannot do things beyond the power that Christ gave the Church. Some examples:

• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
• Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
• Congregation for the Causes of Saints
• Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples
• Congregation for the Clergy
• Congregation for Catholic Education
• Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
• Pontifical Council for the Family
• Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue
• Pontifical Biblical Commission

Papal Infallibility is a very misunderstood topic. The Church has professed ever since the earliest times that the visible head of the Church is endowed with a special blessing of the Holy Spirit so that when ex cathedra, that is, by virtue of his office, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he cannot be wrong because the Holy Spirit will enlighten him perfectly on the matter. Indeed, the only teachings that we know that are sealed by Papal Infallibility are:

• the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
• the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

Biblical evidence and revelations for these teachings are so overwhelming that even if the Popes had not made them dogmas of faith, we would still take them as truths.

I feel that the unifying force of our faith was lost with Vatican II.
That is just a temptation. The Church will never lose its unifying force, because faith is the rock on which the Church is built, and the bound of unity is the Holy Spirit itself. Now perhaps things could have been done differently or better in the Ecumenical Council that you mention, but it is not the first one, and us lay faithful have no authority to make decisions or judge the decisions of our superiors in the faith.

The female music director approaching the altar, in her sandals, to set out the gifts of the Lord.
Well, that may or may not be a liturgical abuse that took place in your Parrish. Why are you blaming the Church.

Usually anyone can gallivant around the altar to help prepare for mass.
No, you are wrong. Try and walk up to the Altar and see how they will call your attention. The fact that some lay faithful are entrusted by the Parrish to aid the Priest and the Deacons in setting up the Altar or other things does not mean they are anyone. The first time I saw a woman giving the Holy Eucharist I was terrified but I bowed in obedience to the Church and received the Lord. Later I found out she received a special training and blessing, and that she was an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, so she had authority to do what she was doing.

Altar Servers wearing tennis shoes during mass.
Discalded religious wear sandals...in the past, literally no shoes...if the altar server had been discalded, would that have been reason for scandal?

My parish priest wheres Velcro sandals in the summer time.
Perhaps he is also a religious, or follows a religious rule. What do you think the Apostles used to wear? Who knows, he may be wearing a painful cilice without anyone noticing.

The Statues and Crucifixes only have a thin shawl around them during Lent instead of covered.
According to the Sacramentary, "The practice of covering crosses and images in the church may be observed, if the episcopal conference decides. In a 1995 issue of the Bishop's Committee on the Liturgy Newsletter (official publication for the liturgical committee of the United States), it was stated that the US bishops had never voted on this provision so in the United States at least, this practice is not mandatory.

Playing of the Trombone. Trumpet, and Saxophone during Mass.
Again...local problem...You don't like those instruments? Talk to your Pastor and express your concerns. Talk to other faithful perhaps and go together to kindly propose that more solemn and elegant instruments be played. Remember that you may only suggest, not request or impose, for you are not in your house, but in the Lord's house, and the Priest is the Lord's minister over that house. You should have seen how noisy Mount Calvary was when the Lord was dying on the Cross, yet the Blessed Virgin and St. John had other things in mind to pay attention to the noise.

Personal advice: focus on the Eucharist. Christ is dying before your eyes, and that's all you should care about. When you receive Him, He is uniting Himself with you...you and Christ become one...His resurrection is taking place in your heart. If you meditate more on this, you'll worry less about what others around you are doing. As for the Liturgy of the Word: God Almighty is lowering Himself so much as to talk to us, rebellious sinners. That alone can bring tears to our eyes.

[jschutzm]

Originally Posted by signumcrux

.......I feel like the church is burning more bridges with the world than unifying it.

Actually, not counting the secular media, I feel the exact opposite.
For one, the Church has reached out to the Jewish community in a very BIG way and repaired a lot of broken bridges.
Secondly, the Catholic church has stepped up its attempts to have inter-faith dialogue with many of our separated Protestant brethren. Issuing joint statements of belief.
However, the Church CAN NOT compromise on the truth.. but it can foster cooperation on issues that unite all of Christianity. Other denominations are not trying to do this.. but the Catholic faith is.
Thirdly, The Orthodox Anglicans who petitioned the Catholic church to be allowed to rejoin have been given their own mini-branch of the faith. Married Anglican priests are allowed to rejoin, they are allowed to keep their 'Book of Common Prayer' (kinda like our missal and hymnal) and even their own Saints and Holidays. -- So the Catholic church is opening its arms to heal a 400 yr. old schism.
When the Pope issued his statement about condoms and how it is not a cure for AIDS, an independent Harvard study that took 20 years came to the EXACT same conclusion.

Christ broke bread with Judas Iscariot and let him partake in his body but we cant let a homosexual? I couldn't imagine Christ denying himself to a homosexual who wanted the lord. How can we?

There is a difference...
1) Christ broke bread with Judas BEFORE he betrayed him..this shows that God doesn't hold us accountable for sins we have not YET committed. Kinda like "innocent until proven guilty"
2) The issue with "homosexuality" is NOT their feelings, not the attraction itself. But acting upon it and following an entire 'homosexual lifestyle' as is promoted by the secular world. People assume that being homosexual means you are living a homosexual lifestyle. In fact, many people feel that it is oppression to even suggest that a person not act on their sexual desires. However, the church maintains that if we MUST act on them..then they define us and control us. It is far healthier for us to have full control of our desires and only act upon them in an orderly way which is open to life and cooperates with God's plan for humanity.

The cover-up of abuse cases and the pardoning of Cardinal Ratzinger by George Bush while he was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Can anyone go into more detail about this? An apologetic view would be nice (since I'm going off the word of Richard Dawkins...)

President Bush never pardoned him, for one.
Secondly, if you allow the actions of a few to dictate your faith, then your FAITH was based on 'man' not God. Because when you lost faith in the men, you lost faith in your entire belief system.
Far BETTER is if you continue on in the faith despite what individual men do, so long as they don't TEACH those lies or CHANGE the faith.
Ask yourself THIS... would you find ALL the same truths professed outside of the Catholic faith as you do within it? OR, would you have to compromise on the truth and accept a lie as being true in order to leave. Even the Orthodox faith has some core differences between it and Catholicism, so even if you left Catholicism for Orthodoxy you'd have to profess a different truth.
You should be Catholic, NOT because of what the men do, but because of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit means that none of these men will change the doctrines or the dogmas of the faith.

Also, on a somewhat related note. How does the Pope have the ability to make religion changing decisions? New Mass, Papal Infallibility and The Immaculate Conception. I don't understand how one man can change and add to our faith so much. I understand apostolic succession but I feel that if the Pope decreed that all of the apostles were sin free we would accept it. I may have this all wrong so please; correct me.

It seems like you have some misconceptions about Papal Infallibility.. don't worry, many do.
1) Papal Infallibility is a doctrine bore out of the council of Bishops as they thought about the implications of Christ's promise to Peter. In the bible you have Christ saying a VERY important thing.. that Peter has the power to bind and loose in HEAVEN as well as Earth. Now, Christ could have stopped with simply "on earth" and that would have been significant. But look closer.. Christ gives Peter.. the Bishop of Rome, the power to bind and loose in heaven. What is the significance of this? -- Well can a LIE exist in Heaven? NO... so if Peter can bind and loose in heaven, then what he binds MUST present TRUTH.

Secondly, Papal Infallibility is NOT about the Pope..but about a Promise to the Church from Christ. Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church. Teaching a lie as a truth would be something that the Devil would rejoice in. So we know because of Christ, this will never happen.
So Catholics don't believe in Papal Infallibility because of their deep faith and devotion to the Pope.. NO!, quite the contrary. We KNOW there have been very bad Popes. Instead our faith in that doctrine lies in Christ and the Holy Spirit, NOT man.
And so far.. history seems to bare this out. For all the bad Popes, those that assinated people or had mistresses -- NONE changed the doctrines of the faith.

Thirdly, Infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals when clarifying an issue that is dividing the Church and which is central to the faith. i.e. a doctrine or a dogma. And it must agree with Scripture and have the support of the Council of Bishops. Not every encyclical is dogmatic.

The immaculate conception has been believed throughout time. It was not a NEW belief. If you look back in History.. Christianity professed an immaculate conception from the beginning. So the Pope was just making it dogmatic because it needed to be clarified.. there was a lot of confusion over the issue because of Protestant questioning on the matter. It was not a NEW idea, it was simply making official, what had always been the case.