Saturday, August 9, 2014

CAN ONE SIMPLY BE A CATHOLIC WITHOUT BEING IDEOLOGICAL OR CORRUPTING THE PRACTICE OF CATHOLICISM ACCORDING TO POLITICAL DIVISIONS?


We know Catholics are sinners, miserable sinners and the EF Mass makes that more abundantly clear than the Ordinary Form. So there will always be the categories of faithful or unfaithful Catholics.

There will always be orthodox and heterodox Catholics until the heterodox Catholic is excommunicated.

What needs to come to an end, as it is in the category of the false "spirit" of Vatican II is the politicization of Catholics according to the terms liberal, conservative, left leaning or right leaning. Usually these terms are used in the same categories as political divisions. Republicans are pro-life and thus conservative. Democrats are pro-choice and thus liberals. Democrats support the poor and thus are liberals, Republicans support fiscal restraint to the detriment of the poor and are conservatives, and on and on and on.

Catholics, on the other hand, who are orthodox and faithful do not divide the Church according to political divisions. We are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church in the areas of faith, morals and Canon Law. We are faithful to our local bishops who can legislate as well. We are faithful to the highest papal teachings, such as encyclicals, like the ones on social justice and Humanae Vitae.

We are respectful to our pope and bishops in the areas of faith, morals and canon law and other types of legislation. And while there are degrees of importance in papal teachings (encyclicals being the highest) we are respectful even of papal interview which carry less authority (although a papal interview can contain infallible truth!).

We are also respectful of all the liturgies of the Church and the manner in which they are celebrated which gives the Church a great deal of latitude.

We are respectful of Summorum Pontificum a very high level of papal legislation that allows the laity freer access to the older manner of celebrating the rites of the Church.

We acknowledge what is the normative form of the Mass and sacraments and accept that as doctrine!

We embrace the flexibility built into the post-Vatican II revisions of the liturgical celebrations.

BOTTOM LINE COMES NOW: WE ARE FAITHFUL CATHOLICS!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Every pope, bishop and priest has a duty to be a shepherd to the souls entrusted to their care. That means not only smelling like them but protecting the sheep from the wolves.

Why are we supposed to respect men who compromise the Faith and could care less about the scandal they cause to faithful Catholics?

Believe it or not some Catholics are scandalized by a pope who tells an atheist or a Protestant to stay where they are and not convert to the one, true Faith.

Catholics are also scandalized by cardinals who say to people who lead open immoral lives "Bravo!", yet silences a priest who promotes the traditional liturgy.

Catholics are scandalized by cardinals receiving "blessings" from Protestant lay people.

Catholics are scandalized by sloppy, pseudo Protestant Masses in most parishes.

Catholics are scandalized by open defiance of Church teaching by entire religious orders that spread error with no correction, while a faithful order is crushed. And the list goes on and on and on.

Why should I respect a pope or bishop who refuses to teach the Faith without compromise and allows error to Are these men are fit for office if they can't lead and protect the souls they are responsible to protect and guide? I believe Our Lord Himself said it would be better had they not been born and a millstone tied around their neck and cast into the sea for causing scandal to the least of the little ones.

Anonymous said...

Actually, a "Motu Proprio" such as Summorum Pontificum, is among the lower levels of authoritative papal documents, not "a very high level of papal legislation..."

Apostolic Constitutions

Apostolic Exhortations

Apostolic Letter

Declaration

Decree

Encyclical

Instruction

Institutio

Motu Proprio

Promulgation

Recognitio

Anonymous said...

There were many years I stayed confused politically. No wonder!
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, nor the Federalists nor the Whigs, nor the Tea Party or the Libertarians contain "the Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth".

Only the Catholic Church does.

At at given election..the party that resembles the Church the most gets my vote..provided it allows people to actually get born.

Thanks,
Sheila

Cameron said...

We condemn to hell Satan and all the evil clowns that prowl about the Masses seeking the ruin of souls.

JBS said...

Meditate with the Holy Rosary, wear the prophetic scapular of Mount Carmel, read the Bible, study the Catechism, crawl humbly to confession, skip joyfully to Mass, perform the Works of Mercy, listen to the snapping tunes of Bing Crosby, and we'll all be fine. God is in charge and he is ever near us.

Henry said...

Anonymous @ 8:21 AM,

Your statement about the level of authority of Summorum Pontificum is incorrect. As you can see at

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

Summorum Pontificum is an Apostolic Letter--which ranks 3 steps above an Encylical and 2 steps below an Apostolic Constitution.

In the case of SP, the descriptor "motu propio" is not a noun designating the level of authority of the document. Technically. calling Summorum Pontificum a "motu proprio" (as though the phrase designated a noun) is incorrect, even though in English this usage is almost universal.

In the case of SP, the correct phrase is "motu proprio data" (given on his own impulse) describing not the level of authority, but the manner in which this Apostolic Letter was promulgated.

George said...

"Can one be a Catholic without being ideological or corrupting the practice of Catholicism according to political divisions?"

No, not to me if one is applying a political attitude toward the Holy Father, bishops or priests. The big push in our own time is to keep Catholics and others of faith out of the Public Square. I've never formally joined or worked for any political party or candidate. That in itself could be considered to be not good (not being involved enough). I do vote however. I do support Pro-Life groups which as much as the law allows do support certain political candidates. We cannot succumb to believing that the political parties are equivalent, that one is just as good as another, just in a different way. As Americans increasingly lose their faith, it is having its effect in the political realm, I acknowledge that. What concerns me (and should concern all Catholics) is that this present administration has been on a dedicated and concerted mission to promote and spread abortion, contraception, and gay marriage in countries around the world that have up to now been resisting these things. It is using money to do this. Our money. American taxpayer money. It also has not handled the immigration situation well at all. It is using taxpayer money to fund Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in the U.S. Mr Obama has not up to now handled the situation in Iraq well where for months now many of our brothers and sisters in the faith have been suffering and even being martyred.
Initially, the Nazi party and Hitler did a lot of good things for the German nation. Was the good that was done enough to outweigh the bad so that a Catholic could support that party? Not if one was truly a faithful Catholic. Father Mcdonald, think about the question you ask and how a truly faithful German Catholic a would have answered it. Can it be any different for us today?

Matthew 10:34

Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set
a man ‘against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me

It is not how history will judge us that is of greater importance, but rather how God will judge us.

rcg said...

How do we respond to people who support political movements that work against the Church and her teachings? What do we do when people can't or won't acknowledge the damage, persecution and even evil they support with their political actions?

Gene said...

RCG, I know how we SHOULD respond to them…but, that is considered naughty now.

Joe Potillor said...

I tend to echo some of the comments of Anon at 8:14..

But as long as there's ambiguities and subjectivisms through the Liturgy and issues of prudential judgement....there will be a "division along political lines" so to speak...Certainly we can be faithful Catholics with different expressions, and different opinions on the varying issues of the day.

George said...

JBS:
I second you on all those things except the skipping to Mass part and listening to Bing Crosby (although I have nothing against Bing Crosby)He was a giant in both
motion pictures, radio, and audio recording.

Anonymous said...

Some nuance is called for... both political parties are coalitions with internal hardliners and moderates. So not every Republican is the same, nor are all Democrats clones of each other on every policy or proposal.

On the other hand, both parties do have "platforms" which they expect their candidates to generally accept and push for.

Between the RNC and DNC platforms, only one has as official party policy the promotion of intrinsic evils (abortion, IVF, embryo-killing research, gay marriage) that Catholics cannot support as a means to some end of "helping the poor" or making the bureaucratic trains run on time.

Speaking of helping the poor.... it's odd but every city that has been run by Democrats for over 20 years has a permanent underclass of mostly minority poor people stuck in ghettos, failing schools, amid high crime and decaying infrastructure even though the local government is entirely in the hands of these so-called champions of the poor and the minority. How does one explain such a universally occurring coincidence?