Homily: Marriage Is Good, But Celibacy Is Better

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, to be honest I am not certain if I want to continue discussing pre-post-VII issues at this thread, simply because this is a topic that I spent much time trying to understand as a convert and later found 'my place' in the Latin Mass parish :) I think that today, many people are unaware of what the Mass is because of poor catechesis or a very casual approach to the topic (not blaming anyone in particular, just seems to be a general issue). Often just by looking at the Mass, I'm reminded of what the Mass is, and I like the Latin Mass because when I look at it, it's so clear. Regarding which way the priest is facing, the way I see it for the TLM, the priest is facing Our Lord and leading us in the prayers :) I don't find that unhelpful personally. Fr Z commented on this and apparently it's not forbidden in the Novus Ordo either: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-can-phrase-on-usccb-website-be-used-against-ad-orientem-worship/

 

Regarding VII, I don't really know what you mean by being out of touch before, I'm not saying that things were perfect and that nothing needed adjusting - but even though some things needed adjusting, I think what I said about continuity applies, and is not a wrong understanding, because this is what I read Pope Benedict said. He said there must be continuity. Here's a quote on that from Cardinal Burke:

 

"Cardinal Burke: What Pope Benedict XVI saw and experienced, also through those who came to him, who were very attached what we now call the Extraordinary Form - the Traditional Mass - was that in the reforms as they were introduced after the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding took place. Namely, this was that the reforms were undertaken with the idea there had been a rupture, that the way in which the Mass had been celebrated up until the time of the Council was somehow radically defective and there had to be what was really violent change, a reduction of the liturgical rites and even the language used, in every respect. So in order to restore the continuity, the Holy Father gave wide possibility for the celebration of the sacred rites as they were celebrated up until 1962, and then expressed the hope that through these two forms of the same rite – it’s all the same Roman rite, it can’t be different, it’s the same Mass, same Sacrament of Penance and so forth –there would be a mutual enrichment. And that continuity would be more perfectly expressed in what some have called the “reform of the reform”. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii

 

This points to the idea that it's not wrong to say that we shouldn't get rid of the past. Pope Benedict even hoped that the TLM would enrich the OF. Maybe there were small things that were going to be changed in the TLM, but sometimes really big changes happened.

 

I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right. When I first came into the Church, the liberal movements and things happening today were so confusing and I saw there's a crisis in our faith, and I see that as a Catholic teacher too. It was very difficult as a convert with this. I eventually found peace in a FSSP parish and reading books about spirituality and just living my life, going to Adoration, etc. I believe the Church's traditions are for everyone, so I'm trying to share them with others as well, if they are interested,  - for example I'd love to share them with my students. So many are not aware of them, but I'm glad to see them coming back more. :)

 

Maybe I don't understand what in specific you're referring to. Maybe you're talking about something specific. My experience of pre-VII books and liturgy has been entirely positive, and fitting to my spirituality, - I don't know anything about cultural thought, but this is not something that I read about, I just read things by the Saints and revelations to them :) I can't see what could be wrong with books like "Devotion to the Sacred Heart" by St Margaret Mary's spiritual director, or the "Golden Arrow" or "Way of Divine Love" or "Divine Mercy in My Soul". :) when I think of pre-VII, these are things that I think of, just because they were written before VII. I'm not talking about the cultural thought in the 50s and 60s and I don't know anything about it. I'm just talking about our traditions and spirituality based on the Saints and mystics and their revelations :) just that, not cultural things. With the Mass, I try to not approach it in any cultural way, but I try to read about how the Saints approached it, like St Padre Pio, and try to let that inform me. I think they had a beautiful and true understanding of it. I think we can also understand more about the Mass through catechesis and approaching it prayerfully. There were maybe people at all times who didn't understand what the Mass is if they weren't really taught about it, or for some other reasons.. the Saints can remind us..

 

I know that not everyone would agree with me on the Latin Mass, or like it as much, or have this spirituality... but it's my spirituality, and it's where I feel most at home. When people say that pre-VII things are unhelpful, like books or liturgy, - or that I should change, - I respond that Pope Benedict encouraged the Latin Mass. To be honest, the first time I went to the TLM, I cried because it's what I wanted the whole time I was preparing to be Catholic and going through my preparation. I like the Eastern liturgy too. I understand not everyone here shares my view, but I'd really rather not debate this further, because it's something very dear to me. I'll read any response to my post, but I'd rather not debate about it.

 

God bless :)

[MarysLittleFlower]

What a appears in the quotation box below was originally quoted by Mary's Little Flower in Post #76 :

 

Interesting quote from Thomas Aquinas.

 

 

This is in an ideal sense.  I think probably most of us know religious who think of many things other than God and His Rights.  Because one is a religious or CV for example is no guarantee that one is living out the vocation to holiness.  We hope and pray so while realizing that reality can fall short of our hopes and prayers, our ideals. 

 

All too often or on a regular basis in religious life (I don't know much personal about CV's - I know one CV personally in passing only - and what she had to say was not exactly edifying either) when life meets the ideals and the way of life does not match up to the ideal, either the person leaves the life, or begins to compromise with it, and slowly falls short of religious life ideals.  Not always thank goodness, perhaps even I hope not frequently, but it can happen.

One could indeed embrace the vocation of the highest superiority, but then live it out in a quite mediocre sort of manner and even worse.  We have the shocking example of this in our priesthood in the various scandals.

 

 

I think we all realize that living in a holy/special state in life is absolutely not a guarantee of holiness.  Ideally it should be and I think probably all of us keep our priests and consecrated members in prayer.  I know plenty of married people who to me would qualify as holy.  In fact, to be honest, more married people than religious for example.  Plenty!  All the vocations present very high ideals, but this does remain rather 'pie in the sky as pigs fly' in real daily life as it were unless the persons living out these vocations are at once living out very the very high ideals of their vocation.  We all fall far short somewhere or other.

 

Sure, I agree, which is why I'm trying to make it clear that this discussion is about the state of life itself   :)

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[BarbTherese]

Barbara, to be honest I am not certain if I want to continue discussing pre-post-VII issues at this thread, simply because this is a topic that I spent much time trying to understand as a convert and later found 'my place' in the Latin Mass parish :) This is fine, you don’t have to discuss it if you don’t wish to do so. 

 

 I think that today, many people are unaware of what the Mass is because of poor catechesis or a very casual approach to the topic (not blaming anyone in particular, just seems to be a general issue). Often just by looking at the Mass, I'm reminded of what the Mass is, and I like the Latin Mass because when I look at it, it's so clear. Regarding which way the priest is facing, the way I see it for the Traditional Latin Mass, the priest is facing Our Lord and leading us in the prayers :) I don't find that unhelpful personally. Fr Z commented on this and apparently it's not forbidden in the Novus Ordo either: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/09/quaeritur-can-phrase-on-usccb-website-be-used-against-ad-orientem-worship/

I have nothing whatsoever against the Latin Mass.  My preference is for the vernacular, but since Rome says we can have both, it’s fine.  I am just happy that people are happier with whatever form of the Mass makes them happy to be at Mass.  I would love personally to see a mixture of Latin and English, a bit of Gregorian chant.  Facing the altar or with Father’s back to the altar, it is still all The Mass.

Regarding VII, I don't really know what you mean by being out of touch before, I'm not saying that things were perfect and that nothing needed adjusting - but even though some things needed adjusting, I think what I said about continuity applies, and is not a wrong understanding, because this is what I read Pope Benedict said. He said there must be continuity. Here's a quote on that from Cardinal Burke: I am not contesting continuity – this is what Vatican II was all about – getting us in touch with our roots once more.

"Cardinal Burke: What Pope Benedict XVI saw and experienced, also through those who came to him, who were very attached what we now call the Extraordinary Form - the Traditional Mass - was that in the reforms as they were introduced after the Council, a fundamental misunderstanding took place. Namely, this was that the reforms were undertaken with the idea there had been a rupture, that the way in which the Mass had been celebrated up until the time of the Council was somehow radically defective and there had to be what was really violent change, a reduction of the liturgical rites and even the language used, in every respect. So in order to restore the continuity, the Holy Father gave wide possibility for the celebration of the sacred rites as they were celebrated up until 1962, and then expressed the hope that through these two forms of the same rite – it’s all the same Roman rite, it can’t be different, it’s the same Mass, same Sacrament of Penance and so forth –there would be a mutual enrichment. And that continuity would be more perfectly expressed in what some have called the “reform of the reform”. http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii

This points to the idea that it's not wrong to say that we shouldn't get rid of the past. Pope Benedict even hoped that the Traditional Latin Mass would enrich the OF. Maybe there were small things that were going to be changed in the Traditional Latin Mass, but sometimes really big changes happened.

I am not saying at all to “get rid of the past” nor is Vatican II.

I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right.  Wow, if you had lived pre V2 you just might have a different attitude.  I could never understand why I saw religious in habit take a strap or a cane and strike another person and in real anger.  Never!  It did not gel with what I read in Scripture.  I could not understand why when I went to Sunday Mass without a hat because I couldn’t find mine, I was told I was going to Hell.  I couldn’t understand why I was told I should not talk to non Catholic children or neighbours because they were non Catholic, when Jesus mixed with prostitutes and sinners.  There were many ways we needed to get back into actual touch with what our Catholicism was all about, not by changing the past, but by going back to it and in the main to Scripture.

 

When I first came into the Church, the liberal movements and things happening today were so confusing and I saw there's a crisis in our faith, and I see that as a Catholic teacher too. It was very difficult as a convert with this. I eventually found peace in a FSSP parish and reading books about spirituality and just living my life, going to Adoration, etc. I believe the Church's traditions are for everyone, so I'm trying to share them with others as well, if they are interested,  - for example I'd love to share them with my students. So many are not aware of them, but I'm glad to see them coming back more. :)

I am very happy that you have found Peace.  We are still in post Council mode where discussion and debate takes place as to what The Council was all about.  But if you feel at rest not discussing V2 documents, that is fine.

Maybe I don't understand what in specific you're referring to. Maybe you're talking about something specific. My experience of pre-VII books and liturgy has been entirely positive, and fitting to my spirituality, - I don't know anything about cultural thought, but this is not something that I read about, I just read things by the Saints and revelations to them :) I can't see what could be wrong with books like "Devotion to the Sacred Heart" by St Margaret Mary's spiritual director, or the "Golden Arrow" or "Way of Divine Love" or "Divine Mercy in My Soul". :) Nothing at all wrong with them and I have not stated that there was, nor has V2.  I have had great devotion to The Sacred Heart since childhood and have a large ancient artwork of Him here in Bethany.  I am also a fan of St Faustina and got to know her when she was still frowned upon. It was a great day of celebration for me when she was finally canonized.  when I think of pre-VII, these are things that I think of, just because they were written before VII. I'm not talking about the cultural thought in the 50s and 60s and I don't know anything about it. I'm just talking about our traditions and spirituality based on the Saints and mystics and their revelations :) just that, not cultural things. With the Mass, I try to not approach it in any cultural way, but I try to read about how the Saints approached it, like St Padre Pio, and try to let that inform me. Beautiful! I think they had a beautiful and true understanding of it. I think we can also understand more about the Mass through catechesis and approaching it prayerfully. There were maybe people at all times who didn't understand what the Mass is if they weren't really taught about it, or for some other reasons.. the Saints can remind us.. Very true!

I know that not everyone would agree with me on the Latin Mass, or like it as much, or have this spirituality... but it's my spirituality, and it's where I feel most at home. When people say that pre-VII things are unhelpful, like books or liturgy, - or that I should change, - I respond that Pope Benedict encouraged the Latin Mass. I am not stating that pre V2 books and liturgy are unhelpful.  The Latin Mass was beautiful in its Majesty and I loved the Mass in Latin, shocked when it went into English.  But I have adjusted and prefer it now in English and probably I "hear" more through hearing than I do through reading.  Just the way I learn and we all have different ways of learning, of "hearing".  But this is just my preference.  We can choose nowadays and I have no problems whatsoever with those who choose the Traditional Latin Mass – none whatsoever.  I am just happy that people are able to find a form of The Mass which moves their hearts.  Mine is the Mass in English.  But then I could go to a Latin Mass and be very moved also.  It is The Mass.  To be honest, the first time I went to the Traditional Latin Mass, I cried because it's what I wanted the whole time I was preparing to be Catholic and going through my preparation. I like the Eastern liturgy too. I understand not everyone here shares my view, but I'd really rather not debate this further, because it's something very dear to me. I'll read any response to my post, but I'd rather not debate about it.

 

You’re fine. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't.  But I do thank you very much for sharing your thoughts..............Barb  :)

 

[BarbTherese]

Sure, I agree, which is why I'm trying to make it clear that this discussion is about the state of life itself   :)

 

...........and why this quote you gave from St Thomas Aquinas is very interesting:

 

"§ 3. The virgins “follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth,”1 because they imitate Christ, not only in integrity of mind, but also in integrity of flesh; and therefore they follow the Lamb in more things than others do. Still it is not necessary that they should follow Him closer than others, because other virtues than virginity make a closer adherence to God by imitation of Him in the qualities of the mind. The “new canticle” that the virgins alone sing, is the joy that they have for having kept the integrity of their flesh."

[BarbTherese]

 Double Post.

What came up on my computer was "Bad Gateway" and I thought it had not been posted.

Edited August 20, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[Nunsense]

Nunsense, I agree with you about the need for humility and not trying to be superior to other. I guess I just feel like we're not talking about superiority... but about acknowledging the vocations for what they are. The quote above I gave by St Thomas Aquinas - he talks about what is special about virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, but He then talks about how a married person might be holier, so it's just talking about the state itself. It's not an attempt at superiority I think, because it's a Church teaching.

 

 

 

Well, I disagree with you about the intent of this thread and several others on VS. They ARE talking about superiority. If not, why is it even necessary to keep posting so much about them? What is their purpose???

 

So answer me - do you think St Therese spent her time talking about how she was superior to others because she was a nun? When someone came to visit her who was married, do you think the first think she wanted to point out to them was how superior her celibacy was to their marriage??

 

Here in VS we have debates over whether nuns are even REAL Brides of Christ if they aren't CVs. How can any of this kind of comparison be useful to anyone?

 

Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in heaven - an objective reality - so do you know why he fell? Because he just couldn't get over it!  He thought his 'objective truth' made him superior to everyone else, especially humans and in his pride he just couldn't see that we ARE ALL DUST! Only God is great. So all of this posturing and declaiming these oh so vital objective truths that some people think need to be stated over and over again is just a lot of hot air. Instead of focusing on all of this comparison, we would be much better off proclaiming that we are all as nothing except for the love and the grace of God.

 

Not every nun or CV or priest - despite their objective superiority over all others - is going to make it into heaven. St Faustina even had a vision about all of the religious she saw in hell. So what does it matter their status on earth? I really and truly don't get the point of these superiority threads. Honestly! :shock:

[abrideofChrist]

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

[Nunsense]

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

 

 

I am sorry that you feel your vocation is worthless if it isn't superior to others. That is very sad.

[abrideofChrist]

I am sorry that you feel your vocation is worthless if it isn't superior to others. That is very sad.

 

You are mischaracterizing what I DID say.  QUIT IT. 

 

I did say this:

 

Ladies, I do not know where you are pulling the whole idea from that I or any other CV is saying that Consecrated Virginity makes a person superior (or a CV superior to a nun).  I NEVER said that.  What I DID say was that ALL CONSECRATIONS in the Consecrated Life are EQUAL.  That means that I was saying is that I did NOT and do NOT believe the Consecration of Virginity to be SUPERIOR to the Consecration of Religious.  If you are going to go full out and jump in on a thread that is lengthy to attack what I supposedly said, please do me the courtesy of carefully reading what it was that I DID say.  I have been very, very careful to make sure that I understood where people were coming from so as to not characterize what it was that they said.  That means that to be rigorously fair, I actually read the 400 or so pages of that dissertation that God's Beloved linked to earlier in this thread.  Why?  Because I wanted to make SURE we had common ground and that I had respectfully and carefully considered someone else's position!

 

What I WAS saying was NOT that CVs are superior, but that there is a vast difference between HOW and WHAT they consecrate.  Consecrated virginity specifically consecrates a woman as bride.  Religious consecration specifically consecrates a woman as a disciple following Jesus according to the evangelical counsels, etc.  A CVs vocation participates in the following of the evangelical counsels (all Christian vocations do!) but not in a VOWED manner and certainly not in the way the essence of religious life would require.  A nun's vocation participates in the bridal aspect of the Church/ CV vocation, but not in the consecrated manner (for if it were, then priest-monks would be Brides of Christ), nor in the same essential way that the bridal identity of CV's consists of.

 

I did give an analogy to Laurie that made her think of Aquinas's work on analogy, and I do think that what he says about it is valuable for understanding the nuances of this subject. 

 

The analogy I keep thinking of when I read the venom on this thread towards myself, is that it is analagous to the venom directed towards the Church for supposedly saying that gay people are going to hell.  The Church doesn't say that a gay person is going to hell, but that a person who sins  with full knowledge that homosexuality is seriously sinful will go to hell if they die unrepentant.  There's a huge difference, isn't there?  It's in the nuances of what the Church actually says vs. what some people want to say the Church says.  I do not think there would be such an uproar if people carefully read what it was that I actually said.  If this is too much work, then please, don't skip over what I said and just post an ad hominem because that doesn't really bring the conversation forward.

 

[abrideofChrist]

I am pasting a copy of my post on my thread, Nunsense that you should read carefully because I answer you with MY words.  This is post #469 on my thread http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2615229

 

It appears that a deep undercurrent of those who oppose this thread is the concern that by uncovering differences in consecrations, people can be made to feel inferior.  This has been said in a number of ways.  

For example, one person has copied and pasted things to make it appear as if everyone is equally part of the Bride of Christ and therefore no distinctions can or should be made.  The driving force behind this is the idea that if we say that someone is a bride of Christ by essence of vocation and that someone is NOT a bride of Christ by essence but by participation, somehow we are discriminating against the fundamental equality of the baptized.

Another person has said it is not Christian to say that there objectively superior states in life (339):

Quote

I simply cannot believe the tone of this whole thread - nor can I understand why it is even necessary. It seems to be trying to prove a point in order to make one group of people appear superior in some way to other groups of people. Is this even Christian?

 

Although I have stated multiple times that holiness is not dependent on one's state, I do not get the impression that people have read or understood what it was I was saying.  For this reason, I'm going to clarify my meaning with the Church's own teaching so that we can move on in this discussion in peace.

In the first place, the Church has what is known as the hierarchy.  The ordained priesthood is higher than the lay priesthood.  This is a fact, and the word "hierarchy" itself references the fact that the ordained priesthood is indeed higher than the lay priesthood.  What people don't appear to realize is that a devout married man can be more HOLY than a lousy priest.  Let me say this a different way.  The state of the priesthood is higher than the lay state OBJECTIVELY.  Subjectively, people's souls in the different states will be higher or lower according to their love of God.  

Let me also interject that the DIGNITY of each person as a human being, as a member of the Church is EQUAL in the eyes of God.  Their state in life may be, and their personal holiness is UNEQUAL.  

The Consecrated State is Unequal to the Lay State.  This is a matter of Dogma, not a matter of elitism:
 

Quote

32. This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Finally, We and Our Predecessors have often expounded it and earnestly advocated it whenever occasion offered. But recent attacks on this traditional doctrine of the Church, the danger they constitute, and the harm they do to the souls of the faithful lead Us, in fulfillment of the duties of Our charge, to take up the matter once again in this Encyclical Letter, and to reprove these errors which are so often propounded under a specious appearance of truth.  (Sacra Virginitas)

 

Even within the Consecrated State, there are unequal forms of life which mirror the Church more or less closely:


 

Quote

The nuptial dimension belongs to the whole Church, but consecrated life is a vivid image of it, since it more clearly expresses the impulse towards the Bridegroom.(17)   In a still more significant and radical way, the mystery of the exclusive union of the Church as Bride with the Lord is expressed in the vocation of cloistered nuns, precisely because their life is entirely dedicated to God, loved above all else, in a ceaseless straining towards the heavenly Jerusalem and in anticipation of the eschatological Church confirmed in the possession and contemplation of God. (18) Their life is a reminder to all Christian people of the fundamental vocation of everyone to come to God; (19) and it is a foreshadowing of the goal towards which the entire community of the Church journeys, (20) in order to live for ever as the Bride of the Lamb. (Verbi Sponsa)  [My Comment:  You can't have a "still more significant and radical way" unless you are comparing the rest of consecrated life forms to cloistered life.  Also, people reading this should realize that this was written after Sponsa Christi and therefore cloistered nuns did have CVs among their ranks]

 

Let me recap what was just said:

1)  All baptized are EQUAL in dignity as members of the Body of Christ.
2)  All baptized are UNEQUAL in the degree of charity or holiness they possess.  This holiness does not correspond to their state in life.
3)  All states of life are unequal and this is a matter of dogma.
4)  Within the consecrated state there are degrees of conformity to the image of the Church as Bride.


Given the above facts of life, I can conclude the following:

That the title of Bride of Christ can be given to those who share in the Church's identity and charism as Virgin, Bride, and Mother most perfectly and that saying this does not imply inequality of the dignity of the baptized.  It does imply inequality of the state of life, which is fine because the Church herself talks about this in relation to cloistered nuns.  (Should active sisters be offended and start attacking the Church because their way of life doesn't reflect the bridehood of the Church as well as the cloistered nuns?)  It does not imply any degree of holiness on the part of those who are conserated virgins relative to other baptized Catholics.

 

[beatitude]

I am sorry that you feel your vocation is worthless if it isn't superior to others. That is very sad.

 

Nunsense, to be fair, I think this is a mischaracterisation of what Abrideofchrist wrote. Wanting people to recognise that your vocation is different from theirs is not the same as wanting them to treat it as superior.

 

With that said, I agree that this thread and others like it do contain an unfortunate amount of one-upmanship and superiority in other ways. BarbaraTherese, who is not a philosopher or a theologian but who always tries very hard to relate well and kindly to others, got a rather sarcastic tongue-lashing for not grasping the content of previous posts fast enough. If there is anything being treated as superior in this thread, it is philosophical and theological knowledge, with those who have it belittling those who do not.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Barbara, I'll try to respond to some of your points...

 

"I am not contesting continuity – this is what Vatican II was all about – getting us in touch with our roots once more."

 

What I meant by continuity, is that the way we need to understand today's Church is  by intergrating and not ignoring what came before VII.. so that there's a continual understanding, not an understanding that ignores what came before VII or rejects it. I mean doctrine, morals, and spiritual topics. Pope Benedict meant different things with 'continuity' but this was one of them. He talked about with "organic development": organic development is developing gradually by building on what came before, not ignoring it. So in fact, I believe Pope Benedict spoke against this idea of today's Church making a "rupture" with pre-VII and us rejecting what came before. Ideally it should be like a continuous line, and that's what we should strive for. Please take a look at the quote by Cardinal Burke I wrote before... he said that we went too far maybe in rejecting what came before VII, and so TLM can balance this out. There are many who believe that people who were into Modernism (which was declared a heresy earlier in the century) made lots of dramatic changes (like consider how originally they wanted to keep some Latin and chant, and take a look at how Communion in the hand came to be: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616 even though the Vatican eventually gave an indult for it, the preferred way is still on the tongue, and certain Cardinals and Bishops encourage receiving Communion on the tongue). Cardinal Burke said that some of these changes went too far in one direction and that we need to integrate aspects of pre-VII back into our Church life. He said that's one of the reasons why Pope Benedict encouraged the TLM: to inform the NO. If the NO is altogether superior, and if TLM should be discarded, why did Pope Benedict say these things? I'm not saying you think it should be discarded, but I'm a little confused by what you said about your definition of continuity. Continuity actually means NOT rejecting what we had before, if it wasn't bad, - and there's also a comment that what the Church decided is good, continues to be good:

 

"it does mean that authentic Catholic doctrine can never develop in a way that contradicts itself, and that what the Church has officially regarded as good and true in the past cannot suddenly become bad or false."

 

So if there's an actual mistake somewhere, the Church corrects it, but there's no reason to reject what the Church previously decided to be good. The Church goes through growth... and some people have rejected all the growth that it went through after the early Church days, calling it the opposite of growth, but it was in fact growth. For example, I read that previously, sometimes people received Communion in the hand (not like people do now... they received the Host on some fabric - or something like this - and didn't actually touch it) - but then abuses came up because people began losing the sense of the Real Presence as much, so the Church introduced Communion on the tongue. When people say that today we returned back to the "ancient practice", they don't mention how there's a reason why that practice was abandoned! Not to mention that Communion in the hand today was introduced by Bishops who didn't consult the Vatican and actually went in opposition to a previous decision - check out that article I posted earlier in my post about that...

 

Please take a look at this interview with Archbishop Athanasius Shneider about what continuity means:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT0FGB24l8M

 

He also mentioned Communion in the hand: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=57981

 

There's an article that mentions about what continuity is and what it is not... the whole idea that we need to discard what came before VII, is an understanding of "rupture" not continuity. We can correct mistakes, but not "start a new Church", and if some people think this way, it might be good to reintegrate aspects of pre-VII, as Cardinal Burke said :)

 

Here's a quote from an article:

 

"For over two centuries now, Western intellectual life has been dominated increasingly by a “hermeneutic of rupture”, a broad principle of interpretation of the Good which dismisses tradition and opts instead for the latest ideas, as if by the very fact of coming later in time, these ideas must be superior—a misconception arising largely from the Western notion of “progress”. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this hermeneutic of rupture tended to be imported into Catholic theology by those who fell victim to Modernism. Modernism essentially finds religious truth in the current lived experience of Christians (with an unerring emphasis on those “intellectually elite” Christians who have been infected by the growing secularization of Western culture). While Modernism was formally suppressed in the early twentieth century, it simmered below the surface wherever Catholic “intellectuals” had been secularized and, in the massive cultural “liberation” of the 1960’s, it emerged in full force within the Church even as its completely secular counterpart wrought massive changes in the surrounding culture"

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296

 

Maybe we're talking about different things, I don't know... another poster advised me to not focus on pre-VII books, and Saints and  mystics (maybe I misunderstood the poster) - and I was replying to them, not to you, when I said that I like books by the Saints :) I'm glad that you also like the Sacred Heart devotion and St Faustina and everything.

 

"I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right.  Wow, if you had lived pre V2 you just might have a different attitude.  I could never understand why I saw religious in habit take a strap or a cane and strike another person and in real anger.  Never!  It did not gel with what I read in Scripture.  I could not understand why when I went to Sunday Mass without a hat because I couldn’t find mine, I was told I was going to Hell.  I couldn’t understand why I was told I should not talk to non Catholic children or neighbours because they were non Catholic, when Jesus mixed with prostitutes and sinners.  There were many ways we needed to get back into actual touch with what our Catholicism was all about, not by changing the past, but by going back to it and in the main to Scripture.

 

I said that some things maybe needed adjusting, but not everything. I also think we need to kind of define what we're discussing... striking a student was never a spirituality or a Church teaching. If anything it was probably cultural: it was done in other schools too. It wasn't a 'Catholic thing' - it happened generally. Regarding headcoverings, this was in canon law and also it's in Scripture.. I personally wear a headcovering to Church. I wouldn't mind if it were a requirement again.

 

I'm not saying that nothing needed altering... I'm just saying that some things, got altered too much in the opposite direction, like what Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Shneider said. Maybe we're talking about different things, because you seem to be talking about things that people did, and I'm talking more about liturgy and spirituality... maybe we're just talking past each other, I don't know! Sorry if I've misunderstood.  I'm glad that you don't have a problem with choosing the Latin Mass if that's what they prefer :)

 

God bless!

[MarysLittleFlower]

Well, I disagree with you about the intent of this thread and several others on VS. They ARE talking about superiority. If not, why is it even necessary to keep posting so much about them? What is their purpose???

 

So answer me - do you think St Therese spent her time talking about how she was superior to others because she was a nun? When someone came to visit her who was married, do you think the first think she wanted to point out to them was how superior her celibacy was to their marriage??

 

Here in VS we have debates over whether nuns are even REAL Brides of Christ if they aren't CVs. How can any of this kind of comparison be useful to anyone?

 

Lucifer was the most beautiful angel in heaven - an objective reality - so do you know why he fell? Because he just couldn't get over it!  He thought his 'objective truth' made him superior to everyone else, especially humans and in his pride he just couldn't see that we ARE ALL DUST! Only God is great. So all of this posturing and declaiming these oh so vital objective truths that some people think need to be stated over and over again is just a lot of hot air. Instead of focusing on all of this comparison, we would be much better off proclaiming that we are all as nothing except for the love and the grace of God.

 

Not every nun or CV or priest - despite their objective superiority over all others - is going to make it into heaven. St Faustina even had a vision about all of the religious she saw in hell. So what does it matter their status on earth? I really and truly don't get the point of these superiority threads. Honestly! :shock:

I don't want to assume that the intentions of the OP were not humble and just wanting to share information.... since Friar John Paul is a Friar, it makes sense to me that he would share about the Church teaching on religious life, in an informative way :)

 

A person can believe what the Church said on this (in fact I think we should, since there's an anathema attached to it...) - but still be very humble in their own vocation. Believing that religious life is a special state doesn't mean the person would look down on married people, because even if a state if higher, doesn't mean that we deserve it (we can't really deserve it and God gives it to whom He chooses), and a married person can still be holier than an individual religious. For example, a faithful and saintly married person can be more holy than an unfaithful or lukewarm priest or nun. So we're not talking about superiority here, but just what is special about a calling to devote everything to God....

 

we're not praising people, but the gift :) and marriage is a good gift too, no one is disagreeing!

 

Regarding the brides of Christ discussion - personally I don't understand the topic very well, I'm trying to not reject anything that could be true and just pray about it and research...

 

But if God called me to be a consecrated person, of course I hope that I would be humble, and would realize that I'm nothing... I don't think that He would call me because I'm somehow "deserving" - I think such a call would probably be humbling in itself... especially because I'm a sinner and my past sins are very serious. There's absolutely nothing that makes me better than anyone here, I'm probably much worse. But if God called me, I wouldn't think I'm better, but I wouldn't minimize the beauty of the vocation because of my sins either - the way I see it, it would be a beautiful gift given to someone very unworthy. I hope I wouldn't focus on how it's a "higher state" than something else - because in the end, what matters is following God's will - but I'd be kind of amazed at what it is in itself, that it is a calling to live such a supernatural sort of life here on earth. That's a reason to rely on God fully for grace, and not on ourselves, because by ourselves we would certainly not live our vocation well at all! I'm not saying married people can make it on their own! we all need grace. But if something like religious life were given to someone, as a vocation, I think it would make the person realize all the more that they NEED God's grace, because they'd see themselves in comparison to their calling, and how they are in fact not worthy of it. I'd get worried if someone felt worthy of a vocation, and sometimes I notice pride in myself and that scares me, and I'm sure there's much more pride in me than what I notice. But anyways... I wouldnt' focus on how it's a "higher state" than something else, I mean I wouldn't focus on comparisons, but I woudll remember it's something very special and this is exalting the giver and the gift, not the recipient, who might have been a great sinner. I guess what I'm saying is that I accept what was said in Trent, etc, but I wouldn't focus on it for my own vocation or apply it to myself.

 

For that reason, I don't think the teaching itself contains pride... the pride is in people not in the teaching. We can believe this teaching and humble ourselves all the more for discerning something so beautiful, while we're nothing before God.

 

I would still believe this way about religious life even if I'm not called to it... of course in that case I hope I'd focus on my vocation and not on comparing myself, but my pride comes from me, not from the Church teaching on religious life.

Nunsense, don't judge us rashly.  I and other CVs are not interested in claiming superiority over others.  I am interested in the truth, and part of it is distinguishing the meaning of the term Bride of Christ.  That is what the discussions have been about, with some interjections from people like you and Anneline who choose to focus on something the rest of us are NOT focusing on.  How many times have I explained to you about the equality of the dignity of consecrations, of the equality of the dignity of human beings?  You know, if you were called to marriage, would you be insulted if everyone said that your marriage to John Doe was no more of a marriage to him than to anyone else because everyone has a spousal vocation because they are part of the Bride of Christ the Church?  That is the way I feel when you consistently reject the idea that the CV has a spousal vocation that is both different and deeper than the common spousal vocation of the baptized.  If we all are brides of Christ and there is no real difference in HOW, then my vocation is worthless, thank you very much. 

 

I think that there is a difference in being a bride of Christ as a vocation, and being a bride of Christ as one baptized... and there's a reason the Church talks about this, rather than only talking about mystical espousal.

I am pasting a copy of my post on my thread, Nunsense that you should read carefully because I answer you with MY words.  This is post #469 on my thread http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122838-bride-of-christ/?p=2615229

 

It appears that a deep undercurrent of those who oppose this thread is the concern that by uncovering differences in consecrations, people can be made to feel inferior.  This has been said in a number of ways.  

For example, one person has copied and pasted things to make it appear as if everyone is equally part of the Bride of Christ and therefore no distinctions can or should be made.  The driving force behind this is the idea that if we say that someone is a bride of Christ by essence of vocation and that someone is NOT a bride of Christ by essence but by participation, somehow we are discriminating against the fundamental equality of the baptized.

Another person has said it is not Christian to say that there objectively superior states in life (339):

Quote

Although I have stated multiple times that holiness is not dependent on one's state, I do not get the impression that people have read or understood what it was I was saying.  For this reason, I'm going to clarify my meaning with the Church's own teaching so that we can move on in this discussion in peace.

In the first place, the Church has what is known as the hierarchy.  The ordained priesthood is higher than the lay priesthood.  This is a fact, and the word "hierarchy" itself references the fact that the ordained priesthood is indeed higher than the lay priesthood.  What people don't appear to realize is that a devout married man can be more HOLY than a lousy priest.  Let me say this a different way.  The state of the priesthood is higher than the lay state OBJECTIVELY.  Subjectively, people's souls in the different states will be higher or lower according to their love of God.  

Let me also interject that the DIGNITY of each person as a human being, as a member of the Church is EQUAL in the eyes of God.  Their state in life may be, and their personal holiness is UNEQUAL.  

The Consecrated State is Unequal to the Lay State.  This is a matter of Dogma, not a matter of elitism:
 

Quote

Even within the Consecrated State, there are unequal forms of life which mirror the Church more or less closely:


 

Quote

Let me recap what was just said:

1)  All baptized are EQUAL in dignity as members of the Body of Christ.
2)  All baptized are UNEQUAL in the degree of charity or holiness they possess.  This holiness does not correspond to their state in life.
3)  All states of life are unequal and this is a matter of dogma.
4)  Within the consecrated state there are degrees of conformity to the image of the Church as Bride.


Given the above facts of life, I can conclude the following:

That the title of Bride of Christ can be given to those who share in the Church's identity and charism as Virgin, Bride, and Mother most perfectly and that saying this does not imply inequality of the dignity of the baptized.  It does imply inequality of the state of life, which is fine because the Church herself talks about this in relation to cloistered nuns.  (Should active sisters be offended and start attacking the Church because their way of life doesn't reflect the bridehood of the Church as well as the cloistered nuns?)  It does not imply any degree of holiness on the part of those who are conserated virgins relative to other baptized Catholics.

 

I see what you are saying here....

 

Maybe it could help someone to understand hierarchy like this. Let's say I go to Heaven and see the Blessed Virgin. There's no way that i'm even approaching being equal to her. She will always be  the Mother of God, the Queen of Heaven and Earth. I'll just be a little servant. Then, there would be martyrs and Saints who gave everything for Christ and loved Him very much. They would have a special glory in Heaven. The glory of the elect is not all the same, though each soul is filled with God's love to their own capacity: as St Therese described. So I'd be in union with God, but there would be degrees of glory. There would still be a hierarchy, and people would all be loved but would not all be the same. Sometimes it could be difficult to accept that.. but that's just how it is. But everyone would be in union with God.

 

When I was a Protestant, there wasn't this concept... it was believed that everyone was kind of the same in Heaven... but it seems different in Catholicism. I'd never ever be equal to the Blessed Virgin, no matter how much I try - so at least one creature would ALWAYS be above me. Not to mention the Saints who lived much holier lives than me.

 

This is just an analogy to describe how there can be a hierarchy AND humility at the same time, because everyone is humble.

 

Regarding vocations... a person might be a bad priest, or a good married lay person, as you said. Priests and consecrated souls must still cooperate with grace, not sin, etc - so they can be saved. However, if a consecrated person IS saved and goes to Heaven and lived their life well, - they gave up everything for God and this love that they put into their vocation would count. Just as if someone gave their life for Christ, that would count. Everyone would be in union with God, but how we lived on earth would reflect on the glory of the soul. This is simply what we find in Catholic teaching and even revelations to the Saints... some souls would shine with a special brightness, but we're ALL called to holiness and to be in union with God. Being in union with God is already a tremendous undeserved gift. And if someone is called to be little, that's a grace, because in this way God is glorified. I actually read that often He chooses the little and the weak. So even with religious life, a person might be chosen who is very little. That gives God opportunity to work in them and through them, in a way that it's obvious it's His work, and He can overcome their littleness. So I think we should all strive to be little :)

 

But anyways, yes there is a difference in vocations, but that doesn't mean those who are called are greater, in fact they might be smaller and weaker souls, and that's beautiful :)

 

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Lilllabettt]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread anymore because it actually makes me feel sick to my stomach, but I just wanted to clarify that I do not disagree with the Church's teaching - as she is the final authority. I did think that dogma related to articles of the faith and doctrine was more about things like this - but I am not a theologian nor am I interested in doctrinal debates so you have to forgive me for looking to Jesus for guidance rather than to what I thought were simply Church guidelines. Once upon a time there was a place called Limbo - this is gone now. So sometimes we poor ordinary Catholics get confused about things like what is dogma and what is doctrine and what is a guideline.

 

But I still don't see how any good can come of proclaiming the superiority of one state of life over another. Someone brought up the angels as an example - how they wouldn't be upset if Michael declared he was superior to the other angels. Really? Does anyone believe that St Michael is going to stand in front of all the other angels and remind them how he just happens to be objectively better than they are? So I suppose St Therese is standing up to her parents and saying, yeah you may be saints too, but I am objectively better than you because I am a Doctor of the Church are you aren't.

 

So why do humans feel a need to do this? Because we are fallen and full of pride. And that is why Jesus told the Apostles not to 'lord it over others'. And guess what? Even Catholics can love scripture - so the Protestant comment was really uncalled for.

 

I can see that to some people the whole concept of superiority is very important; we already have several threads in VS about how one state of life is so much better than another - but so far I haven't seen anything come out of all these threads but division and a lack of charity - so I wonder how that can be of God. Nothing is going to make me feel good about the way these 'objective truths' have been proclaimed nor do I see any point it proclaiming them here in VS and in the way they have been. I'm probably in the minority though. Pax Christi.

 

Nunsense, I want to apologize. I don't think of you as an ordinary Catholic. With as much time as you've served the Lord in religious life, I thought you probably knew about the dogma and were disagreeing with it.   I learned it during postulancy.  But truly most very devoted Catholics don't know about it, it isn't taught. Not to make excuses, but I know what got into me: its the tone of VS lately. Read lots of venom and pretty soon it poisons me too. I agree 100% with your last paragraph.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Rosita]

I've been a lurker for sometime. I agree VS seems to have morphed from a place you felt you can go for answers and support into a place where you feel you need to already have the answers and proof to support those answers.

 

I think Lilllabet is right. The venom can easily seep into anyone. I think the quote below from St. John of the Cross can help steer VS back to a place of charity:

 

 "Where there is no love, put love -- and you will find love."

 

 

[BarbTherese]

One of the reasons I left monastic life was during recreation (we were not allowed to read even Catholic newspapers, only books in the library assigned by Mother), Mother read out of a Catholic newspaper about a missionary nun and several women who had been murdered in a missionary country.  The horror of it all to my sisters was that a nun had been murdered.  I tried to point out that the horror of it all was that several women, even mothers, were murdered.

 

This started up a discussion about the superiority of the religious vocation over and above other vocations (including motherhood and amongst the murdered women). Children were left suddenly without a mother in life. I was expected to see and experience myself as superior because God had called ME to a religious vocation in the discussion that followed.  That I was superior in the Mind of God by virtue of endowing me with a religious vocation.  I could not experience nor see myself in that light at all.  I came away from that recreation experience very disturbed to add to a few disturbances on other levels I was experiencing. Not only this, but I did not feel that I did have a religious vocation as a confirmed matter - rather I was in the discerning process still. 

 

I guess I finally left because I realized something in all my struggles.  I had left behind a very busy life indeed.  A lifestyle of constant interruptions.  That I was running away from people who did seek me out for some sort of assistance and had grown weary and jaded with it all.  Hence my primary motivation in seeking monastic life was to run away from a busy life.  I then found myself in monastic life and growing just as weary and jaded but for other reasons.  What I need to do, I know, is take breaks regularly from doorbell and phone - and at least once yearly to get right away from Adelaide altogether which I am planning to do for a week in September this year.  My Rule does include a particular provision for regular breaks.

 

When I returned to Bethany, I found that I was renewed in outlook and energy and took up my Bethany way of life.  I have never been weary nor jaded since (this was around 44 years of age).  At 64 years of age (4 years ago), The Lord took me out of the suburb and residence I had been living in and I am now in a more affluent, a decidedly more affluent, suburb.  The whole way of life in Bethany has changed and towards something for which I had always longed.  I still have doorbell and phone to contend with, but there are days of breaks too.  Bethany was always about and is always about Divine Providence.  I was able when I returned to Bethany to embrace Divine Providence in a new way.  It was never people at the door or on the phone, it was God calling to me and His Grace would be sufficient and possibly might ask suffering and The Cross.  I had stumbled over Abandonment to Divine Providence by de Caussade and this opened up a whole new world of attitudes and perspectives for me.

 

Some post exchanges in this thread are really disturbing.  Really disturbing, and a reminder of why in part I had left monastic life with a resolution finally to never seek out religious life again.  So far has that initial aspiration faded, that I can't really believe I ever had the aspiration in the first place.  Having entered twice in my life, both times I found attitudes within religious life quite alarming and that the world was just as present as it was outside of the cloister.  In fact it was more present because in an enclosed environment one either embraced the prevailing attitudes or became an outsider, on the fringe, on the inside in the cloister.  This included in the noviciate which embraced the attitudes of leadership as religious life attitudes and concepts. On the outside of the cloister, one can hold contrary notions to the prevailing culture and not be day and night in its midst.    Just as I see worldly attitudes alive and well and flourishing in some posts into this thread and by women whom I think are consecrated women.  There were women I experienced in religious life who did not embrace these attitudes but these were isolated individuals.  They tended to remain very quiet and hidden and no wonder.

These are all simply my experiences and by their very nature therefore are limited experiences.  But The Lord speaks to us in our circumstances and in our experiences also.  I don't share my experiences for the sake of sharing them - rather, I share in the hope that someone will glean something somewhere that speaks to them also.

 

Some posts protest that they are speaking on an objective theological level, but then wording in some of the lengthy posts do incline me as a reader of what is written to think "Au contraire", not at all on an objective theological level, my dear friend.  Protesting that all is simply the objective theological level is a way of being safe about who one really is and what one is really thinking.  I am not saying all posters, but some.  The objective of consecrated life, its very purpose of existence, is to enshrine and proclaim ways of living that will more easily lead to the perfection of CHARITY.  Love of God and neighbour.  I can't even say nowadays that I love my brothers and sisters because of God.  Rather I can see them as beloved of God just as I am.......all our various kinds and degrees of warts, boils, bites and scars...... and all.

Consecrated CV's as a vocation in  life seems to be the subject of so much contention and unrest. Since one lives it in the midst of the world, why not simply embrace it for what The Church states that it is.......then live it.  If one thinks one has a CV vocation, then approach one's diocese and spiritual direction and have one's ideas and concepts, personal notions, all sorted out 'from the horses mouth' as it were.

The very fact that the objective theological level of the CV vocations is needed to be established in the minds of all in this thread and beyond speaks for itself without anything further at all. To protest that one only wants to establish what The Church has to say is simply a garment of disguise at times in my book - and due to the wording used in some posts.

 

All in all to me it is a very sad thread and conversation indeed.  And a very sad witness to Catholicism in a public forum.  Just as public as if standing on a box in Times Square with a microphone.

 

[BarbTherese]

Barbara, I'll try to respond to some of your points...

 

"I am not contesting continuity – this is what Vatican II was all about – getting us in touch with our roots once more."

 

What I meant by continuity, is that the way we need to understand today's Church is  by intergrating and not ignoring what came before VII.. so that there's a continual understanding, not an understanding that ignores what came before VII or rejects it. I mean doctrine, morals, and spiritual topics. Pope Benedict meant different things with 'continuity' but this was one of them. He talked about with "organic development": organic development is developing gradually by building on what came before, not ignoring it. So in fact, I believe Pope Benedict spoke against this idea of today's Church making a "rupture" with pre-VII and us rejecting what came before. Ideally it should be like a continuous line, and that's what we should strive for. Please take a look at the quote by Cardinal Burke I wrote before... he said that we went too far maybe in rejecting what came before VII, and so Traditional Latin Mass can balance this out. There are many who believe that people who were into Modernism (which was declared a heresy earlier in the century) made lots of dramatic changes (like consider how originally they wanted to keep some Latin and chant, and take a look at how Communion in the hand came to be: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616 even though the Vatican eventually gave an indult for it, the preferred way is still on the tongue, and certain Cardinals and Bishops encourage receiving Communion on the tongue). Cardinal Burke said that some of these changes went too far in one direction and that we need to integrate aspects of pre-VII back into our Church life. He said that's one of the reasons why Pope Benedict encouraged the Traditional Latin Mass: to inform the NO. If the NO is altogether superior, and if Traditional Latin Mass should be discarded, why did Pope Benedict say these things? I'm not saying you think it should be discarded, but I'm a little confused by what you said about your definition of continuity. Continuity actually means NOT rejecting what we had before, if it wasn't bad, - and there's also a comment that what the Church decided is good, continues to be good:

 

"it does mean that authentic Catholic doctrine can never develop in a way that contradicts itself, and that what the Church has officially regarded as good and true in the past cannot suddenly become bad or false."

 

So if there's an actual mistake somewhere, the Church corrects it, but there's no reason to reject what the Church previously decided to be good. The Church goes through growth... and some people have rejected all the growth that it went through after the early Church days, calling it the opposite of growth, but it was in fact growth. For example, I read that previously, sometimes people received Communion in the hand (not like people do now... they received the Host on some fabric - or something like this - and didn't actually touch it) - but then abuses came up because people began losing the sense of the Real Presence as much, so the Church introduced Communion on the tongue. When people say that today we returned back to the "ancient practice", they don't mention how there's a reason why that practice was abandoned! Not to mention that Communion in the hand today was introduced by Bishops who didn't consult the Vatican and actually went in opposition to a previous decision - check out that article I posted earlier in my post about that...

 

Please take a look at this interview with Archbishop Athanasius Shneider about what continuity means:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT0FGB24l8M

 

He also mentioned Communion in the hand: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=57981

 

There's an article that mentions about what continuity is and what it is not... the whole idea that we need to discard what came before VII, is an understanding of "rupture" not continuity. We can correct mistakes, but not "start a new Church", and if some people think this way, it might be good to reintegrate aspects of pre-VII, as Cardinal Burke said :)

 

Here's a quote from an article:

 

"For over two centuries now, Western intellectual life has been dominated increasingly by a “hermeneutic of rupture”, a broad principle of interpretation of the Good which dismisses tradition and opts instead for the latest ideas, as if by the very fact of coming later in time, these ideas must be superior—a misconception arising largely from the Western notion of “progress”. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this hermeneutic of rupture tended to be imported into Catholic theology by those who fell victim to Modernism. Modernism essentially finds religious truth in the current lived experience of Christians (with an unerring emphasis on those “intellectually elite” Christians who have been infected by the growing secularization of Western culture). While Modernism was formally suppressed in the early twentieth century, it simmered below the surface wherever Catholic “intellectuals” had been secularized and, in the massive cultural “liberation” of the 1960’s, it emerged in full force within the Church even as its completely secular counterpart wrought massive changes in the surrounding culture"

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296

 

Maybe we're talking about different things, I don't know... another poster advised me to not focus on pre-VII books, and Saints and  mystics (maybe I misunderstood the poster) - and I was replying to them, not to you, when I said that I like books by the Saints :) I'm glad that you also like the Sacred Heart devotion and St Faustina and everything.

 

"I don't think that pre-VII we were all in some sort of grave error like the Church had gone astray - some things needed adjusting maybe but it's not like pre-VII everything was wrong and now everything is right.  Wow, if you had lived pre V2 you just might have a different attitude.  I could never understand why I saw religious in habit take a strap or a cane and strike another person and in real anger.  Never!  It did not gel with what I read in Scripture.  I could not understand why when I went to Sunday Mass without a hat because I couldn’t find mine, I was told I was going to Hell.  I couldn’t understand why I was told I should not talk to non Catholic children or neighbours because they were non Catholic, when Jesus mixed with prostitutes and sinners.  There were many ways we needed to get back into actual touch with what our Catholicism was all about, not by changing the past, but by going back to it and in the main to Scripture.

 

I said that some things maybe needed adjusting, but not everything. I also think we need to kind of define what we're discussing... striking a student was never a spirituality or a Church teaching. If anything it was probably cultural: it was done in other schools too. It wasn't a 'Catholic thing' - it happened generally. Regarding headcoverings, this was in canon law and also it's in Scripture.. I personally wear a headcovering to Church. I wouldn't mind if it were a requirement again.

 

I'm not saying that nothing needed altering... I'm just saying that some things, got altered too much in the opposite direction, like what Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Shneider said. Maybe we're talking about different things, because you seem to be talking about things that people did, and I'm talking more about liturgy and spirituality... maybe we're just talking past each other, I don't know! Sorry if I've misunderstood.  I'm glad that you don't have a problem with choosing the Latin Mass if that's what they prefer :)

 

God bless!

 

MLF - I am just concluding reading Ecclessia de Eucharistia (The Eucharist and Its Relationship To The Church) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html and I read this in the Conclusion the following, and thought of you:

 

"....As I wrote in my Apostolic Letter "Novo Millennio Incunta HERE- "it is the SAME AS EVER.  Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ Himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in Him we may live the life of The Trinity, and WITH HIM transform history until its fulfilment in the Heavenly Jerusalem". The implementation of this programme of a renewed impetus in Christian living passes through The Eucharist".

 

 

I am just as pre V2 as I am post V2, while I can see pre V2 how we went too far off centre and how we have done the same post V2.  Pre V2, we hardly ever heard the words of Scripture but it so happened that at home during my childhood, we had a family Bible which I frequently read. By the time I was 7yrs old and my First Holy Communion I had read it cover to cover as a whole story: the original people, the event for which God had prepared them, what happened after.  I found it at times quite impossible at the worst and often very difficult to reconcile what I was reading to the way we lived and were taught pre V2.  V2 altered all that.

I find the liturgy pre V2 in Latin extremely beautiful and Majestic.  I am also an avid reader of the lives of the saints and their writings.  But I also read post V2 commentaries on those writings.  I may accept the latter, I might reject them.  I have a foot in both worlds (pre V2 and post
V2) as a bridge between the two and this is also what Vatican II actually was (a bridge between the two: original teaching and the modern world) - a pastoral council bringing The Church into modern thought and culture within Catholicism and without without abandoning the Teachings of Christ, rather with a very real and acute accent on Scripture as never before almost.  To reject V2 outright is to reject The Church Herself (and I am not stating at all that all this is you!).  She never set about altering what we believe, while she did alter incidentals (what were "beside the real point of what we believed").  It is far right understandings of V2 that challenge a valid and legitimate Vatican Council of The Church, although Pastoral in nature.  It is far left or liberal attitudes post V2 that do the same.

 

What The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ is still trying to effect is to fully understand and insight V2 and implement it adjusting Catholic culture to the Mind of Christ.  For this is what a Vatican Council is all about, even as pastoral in nature, establishing beyond challenge in Catholic culture The Mind of Christ.

 

If one can grasp what the word "culture" means (culture can be behavior and characteristics of a social group or organization), then you will insight what I mean by "Catholic culture" both pre V2 and how it has shifted and is shifting post V2.  Post V2 thinking is not necessarily liberal thinking, while liberal thinking and secularization do exist, but they are just as wrongful as far right thinking or holding on to pre V2 Catholic cultural thought to the extent of rejecting V2 outright is quite wrongful.

[BarbTherese]

"....As I wrote in my Apostolic Letter "Novo Millennio Incunta HERE- "it is the SAME AS EVER.  Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ Himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in Him we may live the life of The Trinity, and WITH HIM transform history until its fulfilment in the Heavenly Jerusalem". The implementation of this programme of a renewed impetus in Christian living passes through The Eucharist".

 

 

I am just above to begin reading Novo Millennio Incunta (At the close of the Great Jubilee Year of 2000)

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20010106_novo-millennio-ineunte_en.html

 

APOSTOLIC LETTER
NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
CLERGY AND LAY FAITHFUL
AT THE CLOSE
OF THE GREAT JUBILEE OF THE YEAR 2000

 

To my Brother Bishops,
To Priests and Deacons,
Men and Women Religious
and all the Lay Faithful.

1. At the beginning of the new millennium, and at the close of the Great Jubilee during which we celebrated the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of Jesus and a new stage of the Church's journey begins, our hearts ring out with the words of Jesus when one day, after speaking to the crowds from Simon's boat, he invited the Apostle to "put out into the deep" for a catch: "Duc in altum" (Lk 5:4). Peter and his first companions trusted Christ's words, and cast the nets. "When they had done this, they caught a great number of fish" (Lk 5:6).

Duc in altum! These words ring out for us today, and they invite us to remember the past with gratitude, to live the present with enthusiasm and to look forward to the future with confidence: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (Heb 13:8).

 

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

This might have been quoted before, but in Scripture (I think in maybe the Psalms), it says "When a man and woman join in marriage, they are no longer man and woman, but an image of the living God." If we truly believe that Scripture is inspired by God, I don't think married people should feel inferior with that verse in mind.

 

Edit: My apologies. That quote above is in fact a quote from an early Church Father, not the Bible. I was reading The Fathers Know Best last night and seemed to have gotten my sources mixed up.

Edited August 20, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[BarbTherese]

This might have been quoted before, but in Scripture (I think in maybe the Psalms), it says "When a man and woman join in marriage, they are no longer man and woman, but an image of the living God." If we truly believe that Scripture is inspired by God, I don't think married people should feel inferior with that verse in mind.

 

Edit: My apologies. That quote above is in fact a quote from an early Church Father, not the Bible. I was reading The Fathers Know Best last night and seemed to have gotten my sources mixed up.

 

 

The problem can be, and not intended perhaps, but if one is told one's vocation is inferior to another vocation, that one feels somehow inferior.  This is only a natural reaction.  By the very same, if one is told one's vocation is superior, then it is only natural to somehow feel somehow superior.

Therefore, if it is not really necessary to get onto the subject of objective theological considerations, why go there in the first place?  We can create all sorts of rationalizations for doing so, but is it our actual motivation?  Certainly rationalizations might be able to hide ourselves from each other, but not The Lord.

 

Celibacy is superior to non celibate states, The Church tells us.  Informing married people that they can be far more holy than a person in a celibate state of life is entirely true and valid, but it can come across as a patronization and condescension - a dismissive pat on the head.

 

Sometimes in reading these posts while a rationalization is presented as objective theological consideration only for the purposes of discussing on an objective theological level only.  As one reads on in the post, words and phrases actually used can trigger doubts re stated motivation and actual discussion level.  One has every right, to my mind, to butt in and point out the subjective level is what is important to The Lord and that marriage can be made more holy than non celibate states simply because the persons living in the married vocation live it in a more holy manner than those in celibate states or vocations.  There is just as much right to present this case as those presenting the case on the objective theological level only - and for the sake of those who are not quite grasping the very huge difference between the objective theological level and the subjective level within any vocation whatsoever.

And that what The Lord considers is the subjective theological level alone.  Quite obviously,if I am a very holy person in marriage and prayerful, then my prayer is far more powerful than a person in a consecrated state who is not living out the Graces granted to their vocation.