Fr. Z writes about a meltdown in Knoxville, totally unnecessary by the way Press title for post:
@BpStika issues a Decree for @knoxdiocese and people react. Wherein Fr. Z makes an entreaty.
My comments: These have been stressful times. The Chinese Virus, also known as the Wuhan Virus, the Coronavirus, Covid-19 and One World Government Dictatorship has created all kinds of reactions across the secular and religious world. I know I get all kinds of comments and advice about reopening my parish and how many think this is all blown out of proportion.And yes, I think that it is unfair that so many places are open, like crowded grocery stores and Walmart, but churches can't even be open for private prayer.
But I get too much advice and in these post Vatican II days when the laity think the Church is a democracy, even traditionalists, think we have to follow their dictates. The good bishop of Knoxville seems to be asserting his pre-Vatican II authority but in the worst pre-Vatican II authoritarian way, in a way, similar to what happened to the Church when Vatican II was imposed in the most pre-Vatican II authoritarian way possible.
When human rights, like the right to work, are systemically dismantled overnight, dictators get ideas. And those in politics are often megalomaniacs prone to become dictators with their utopian ideas that always destroy people in their dystopian application.
One theologian, when Masses open, wants those who want to receive Holy Communion to remain at the back of the line so that only they get sick with the Coronavirus and not the obedient Catholics who receive in their filthy, dirty hands which the Eucharistic Ministers touch over and over and over again notwithstanding the one priest in the world who never does touch hands. Maybe he's a disembodied angel?
The good Bishop of Knoxville has adamantly refused to give Holy Communion on the tongue, although the USCCB is allowing it. Now he has gotten into a twitter rage with enraged, ugly, mean-spirited traditionalists who are "neo-Protestants" at heart, not all but a goodly number.
Susan Skinner in this post isn't the mean spirited one, but the ones that follow, especially the bashing the good bishop gets from traditionalists on his twitter account:
so are you stating unequivocally that if a person presents themselves to communion and uses their tongue (based on their conscience) you are instructing the Priests to deny communion? Is that correct?
Yes. They will not give Communion on the tongue as per my instruction. And if the person makes a scene, they will be asked to leave and not permitted to return unlike this passes. Reception of the Eucharist is NOT to be used as a statement of personal piety. Protection of others
Take a deep breath good bishops and everyone else. This too shall pass.
62 comments:
One of the bishop's main roles is to instruct people in his diocese how to receive the sacraments. Part of the problem is that everyone with the internet can find some document that supports their position.
Put simply, if people are in communion with their bishop, they must accept their bishop's instruction, especially regarding the sacraments. That's what bishops are for.
The Bishop is making the right decision from a flawed position. Pardon me for quoting myself, but here is my post to Fr Z’s site:
I conduct a lot of negotiations, often with people in a position of authority. When I see a string of responses from a person who is not only in position of authority but also responsible for providing leadership my take is that it is time to call for a break, take a walk, go to the pub, and get the pressure off the guy. He has, IMO, reached some limit within himself and is ‘locked up’ mentally. He may be physically exhausted, succumbing to fear, he may feel hounded and stranded by his staff and rest of the American bishops, etc. The Twitter hounds are nipping his heals with the sole purpose of winning some point, even if it’s a good one, and are trying to drive their win through the Bishop’s humiliation. That will leave the Bishop broken, resentful, and unconverted to the winning position. My ultimate goal is to win an ally and supporter for a liturgical alternative that emphasizes respect. I should model that with polite firmness.
Bishop Stika needs a remedial course in the Faith and Canon Law
Marc,
So if the bishop is mistaken or evil, accept his instructions, got it.
The Bishop was asked a number of times if he would deny communion to liberal politicians who say they are 'Catholic' but support abortion and homosexual unions. He never gave an answer. I guess the 'primacy of conscience' loophole only applies to liberal left ideology.
TJM, the Catholic Church teaches that it is not possible for the Catholic Church to prescribe something evil. The Catholic Church prescribes people may receive communion in their hands. Therefore, it cannot be evil.
According to Catholic teaching, it is not the role of laity to determine if a bishop is mistaken. It is the role of the laity to do as the bishop instructs them.
TJM,
Sorry to bear the bad news, but if a bishop is mistaken, we still owe him our obedience. If he is evil, we still owe him our obedience or we can go elsewhere.
If a bishop is asking us to do something objectively evil...well, that's different.
Traditionalists have become the doormat of the Catholic Church.
It seems to me that the issue involves only the people in his own diocese. So people who are not in his diocese should butt out.
Here is a video that might pick up your spirits:
Marc and Vatican Zero,
St. Thomas More would disagree with you. With the exception of St. John Fisher the bishops in England sided with Henry VIII. Would you have followed the bishops'? Sorry, no sale
"So people who are not in his diocese should butt out."
Fr. AJM, "JR" has spoken. Please, therefore, close this post immediately to comments.
Marc said..."TJM, the Catholic Church teaches that it is not possible for the Catholic Church to prescribe something evil. The Catholic Church prescribes people may receive communion in their hands. Therefore, it cannot be evil."
For many years the Catholic Church tolerated the sale of indulgences. Was that a good thing?
You know, this has nothing to do with Modern Vs Traditionalist.
That's just hype.
It has to do with the health and well-being of the flock for which he, and no one posting here, has episcopal responsibility.
Were a bishop to cancel all public Masses in his diocese, or in part of his diocese, due to the impending landfall of a severe hurricane, no one, traditionalists included, would be calling for his head, suggesting that he needed remedial courses in faith and canon law, that anyone has been made a doormat, or suggesting that he has decreed something evil or sacrilegious.
It just would not happen.
So, you disagree with his decision. Fine. When the responsibility if yours, you can make different decisions under similar circumstances.
Good Luck.
The bishop is instructing the priests in his diocese not to give Communion on the tongue. He is not instructing the laity as to how they are to receive Communion. This is an important distinction. If a priest believes in all conscience that his lordship is acting ultra vires (which he probably is), and wishes to accommodate those faithful who prefer to receive on the tongue, then it is his call. But a parishioner cannot demand of a priest that he disobey an instruction from his ordinary.
A disabled person who hobbles up to the altar on crutches would be precluded from receiving in the hand, and an officious priest might refuse him Communion. He would rightly be called a jobsworth. (This is an English expression for someone who refuses a reasonable request with the expression 'it's more than my job's worth'.)
JR said.....It seems to me that the issue involves only the people in his own diocese. So people who are not in his diocese should butt out.
Uh huh.....but of course the Bishop took the opportunity to broadcast it on social media where for sure people outside his diocese would see his 'decree'.
TJM, St. Thomas More was on the side of the pope. What do you think Francis thinks about communion in the hand?
At the church I attend, just before the COVID-closure the priest asked that people only receive communion in the hand. I noticed that the lady who sits in front of me chose not to receive as her practice was to receive on the tongue. The week prior to that the same priest stopped the use of the common chalices. He let it be known without drama that this was because of a public health issue. During this public health crisis I had a tooth break off and so I called my dentist. My dentist told me he could not work on my teeth because of the current pandemic, and that he would call as soon as he was able to practice again. It is disturbing when people try to take a public health policy and twist it into a political or religious freedom battle. If a dentist cant work on my teeth, why should I be surprised that I cant receive communion on the tongue?
TJM,
I am sure my understanding of history does not have the breadth that your does, however, what I concluded with was saying, "if a bishop asks us to do something objectively evil...that is another matter."
Did not St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher resist doing anything objectively evil? My understanding (flawed as it may be) is that More went out of his way to be as obedient and respectful to the ecclesial authorities until it became impossible to do so, as recognizing the King's second marriage and denying the validity of his first would have been evil.
Bishops who may not be very good men frequently make unjust decisions and demand the obedience of the faithful. To the point where the faithful are not asked to commit sin or do something evil, don't they owe their obedience? If going along with the English bishops in the majority meant respecting their authority and refusing to impugn their authority, I suppose, well I like to think that I would do so. However, if it meant following them in lying about the validity of King Henry's adulterous marriages, I would like to think I would show the courage of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher. I like to THINK I would, but that's easy to say when you're not under the hatchet and you have 500 years separating you from events!
JR said.....It seems to me that the issue involves only the people in his own diocese. So people who are not in his diocese should butt out.
Uh huh.....yet the bishop felt the need to broadcasted his 'decree' on social media where many outside his diocese would see it.
Vatican Zero and Mark,
The example of St. Thomas More and the majority of bishops who supported the Arian heresy shows that a faithful Catholic should disregard bishops teaching error. We are human beings with intellect and free will, we are not slaves. If anything the implementation of Vatican Disaster II shows how terribly wrong our bishops can be. Too bad so many Catholics were in the pray, pay and obey mode.
Here is a quote from a wonderful priest comment on Bishop Stika’s ultra vires action:
I”t baffles me that priests in the Ordinary Form, which is supposed to be a “reformed” liturgy, would allow flashes of anger and confrontation to mar this sacred time. If my bishop forbade me to give Communion on the tongue, with his recommended punishment that I should turn people away for insisting on receiving on the tongue, I would certainly disobey that order.
TJM, you're missing the point here: Rome decides whether something is error or not, and Rome cannot err in its determination.
Rome says that communion in the hand is not error. Therefore, the bishops teaching this are not in error.
So in both of your examples, people could follow Rome and not be in error. You, on the other hand, are disregarding Rome. If you believe what Rome teaches about itself, then you're fomenting schism by suggesting people disregard what Rome says.
Marc,
I did not say Bishops cannot teach CITH is fine after Rome caved to dissidents. Rome has said Holy Communion on the tongue is fine. Bishop Stika says no. So who controls? Is the bishop in effect teaching error through his ultra vires act?
TJM -
Decentralization at its finest! Currently, I don't think it matters who's in charge - the progressives are so entrenched, everything from fundamentals to dogma will be effected - at least in the Roman Church. In the East, we just watch and shake our heads and thank goodness it rarely impacts us.
Whether Rome caved to dissidents is not the point. The point is that, according to Rome, Rome cannot err in its prescriptions for the manner in which the sacraments are carried out.
One of a bishop's role is to tell people how to receive the sacraments in his diocese. If he tells them to do something that Rome allows, then the people have to do it. Disregarding the local ordinary is schism.
Or, just maybe Rome is wrong, huh?
If a Catholic is free to conclude that the authoritative teaching of the Church is incorrect and, therefore, can be rejected, that Catholic may conclude that the taking of innocent life is not morally wrong, that Jesus did not rise bodily from the tomb, and/or that Pelagianism is a perfectly acceptable understanding of the ability of humans to achieve perfection without Divine grace.
Marc,
You are skirting the issue. Bishop Stika is wrong and teaching error: he cannot deny the Faithful Holy Communion on the tongue. In a just Church he would lose his See. Please respond to that. We don’t need another Mark Thomas here dodging the point that was being made. And you also never addressed the point that a majority of bishops supported the Arian heresy
TJM, you are the one skirting the issue: you suggested that this bishop was taking either evil or mistaken action. I've argued that it cannot be evil because, according to Rome, Rome cannot promulgate an evil practice, and Rome promulgated the practice of communion in the hand.
While the bishop might be mistaken (according to your judgment), he has the option -- from Rome -- to allow communion in the hand or communion on the tongue. He has elected to allow the former and not the latter. It is the role of a bishop to make such an election.
If you believe he should lose his see as a result of doing what Rome tells him he can do, I would suggest the problem lies with Rome, but of course, Rome cannot err in these things, according to Rome.
I already addressed the Arian issue above by stating that, at that time, people could depose their bishops. Rome took away people's right to depose their bishops. So the situation at present is quite different than it was during the Arian crisis. Now that Rome has assigned itself as having immediate jurisdiction over every Christian in the world and now that the pope selects every bishop in the world, one's only recourse is to Rome. That was not the situation during the Arian crisis.
TJM - You're grasping at straws AND Fr. McDonald has described why you are wrong.
His post today: "In the EF Mass, it is only required that the priest complete the Sacrifice by consuming the Holocaust for the validity of the Mass. The Laity may share in the Sacrificial Banquet if they are in a state of grace, but they are not required to do so. Thus if Hosts run out, no problem or if there is a pandemic and Hosts can’t be distributed because of spreading a pandemic, no problem."
No one other than the priest should expect to receive since the EF mass is "perfect" with no one there or no one receiving communion.
Sooooo, no on is being denied anything if, for their own pious reasons, they decide not to receive Holy Communion in the hand.
Case Closed. Step Down. Thirty Days. Next case.
Marc is wrong in claiming that a bishop 'has the option to allow communion in the hand or communion on the tongue.' He only has the option to allow (or forbid) Communion in the hand. Reception on the tongue remains the universal norm.
In the present unusual circumstances The Holy See could certainly allow bishops to forbid their priests to administer Communion on the tongue, but it has not done so; in the light of this the bishop is clearly acting ultra vires, and his instruction therefore does not require obedience.
Anonymous (above), in trying to be clever, has shot himself in the foot. No-one has the option of receiving in the hand in the EF, so 'their own pious reasons' don't come into it. And an OF Mass is equally valid if none of the laity communicates, or indeed if no laity are present.
Since the bishop has the option to allow communion in the hand (from Rome), it is not evil.
The bishop functionally has the option to allow communion in hand and forbid communion on the tongue since he can disallow the people's communion all together, if they fail to receive in the hand.
The point being that the bishop rules his diocese, and it is not the role of the laity to tell the bishop what universal law allows or requires.
Marc said..."TJM, you're missing the point here: Rome decides whether something is error or not, and Rome cannot err in its determination."
Putting aside the issue regarding Holy Communion, there is plenty of historical precedence to demonstrate the opposite of the above sentence.
Pope Stephen VI dug up the deceased Pope Formosus' corpse, put it on trial, and then had it thrown in the river.
"Rome" then declared that Pope Formosus was an antipope, and all his acts were annulled. Clergy ordained by Formosus were required by "Rome" to renounce their orders because "Rome" ruled that said orders were invalid.
Obey?
Then after Stephen was murdered, "Rome" in the person of Pope Theodore II, annulled the prior ruling of "Rome" and stated that Formosus was actually a valid pope.
After Theodore, Sergius III was elected to the papacy and subsequently deposed. John IX took his place and reiterated Theodore's ruling re Formosus.
Several pontificates later, Sergius III again took the papacy, this time by force, and deposed both the reigning pope (Leo V) and the antipope Christopher.
"Rome" then declared that Sergius had been elected pope the first time and that all the popes in between his first stint and his current stint were antipopes.
"Rome" also re-declared that Formosus was an antipope, his ordinations were invalid, and he required all Formosus clergy to be re-ordained.
Obey?
Auxilius, a French priest, disobeyed "Rome" and became famous for his defense of the legitimacy of Pope Formosus. Others disobeyed the ruling of "Rome" in that regard.
What the "obey no matter what crowd" is basically stating is that Catholics were required to believe that Pope Formosus was a pope… until "Rome" required them to believe the opposite.
And then "Rome" changed its mind and required them to contradict themselves… until "Rome" changed its mind again and required them to contradict their contradiction.
There are many historical instances where disobedience was required, even to "Rome." I suggest reading The Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D. Kelly, a reputable British Protestant theologian/academic.
"Anonymous (above), in trying to be clever, has shot himself in the foot. No-one has the option of receiving in the hand in the EF, so 'their own pious reasons' don't come into it. And an OF Mass is equally valid if none of the laity communicates, or indeed if no laity are present."
No kidding. "Their" own pious reasons include EF attendees.
"Their own pious reasons" are why the EF exists today.
Marc,
I will leave this discussion if you admit the bishop is dead wrong when he forbids Holy Communion in the hand since he lacks the authority to do so, according to Rome.
DJR, I agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The error is not communion in the hand itself. That is merely a symptom of a much larger and more longstanding error that becomes evident by a cursory examination of history.
Marc,
I meant to type "he forbids Holy Communion on the Tongue since he lacks the authority to do so, according to Rome."
Of course the bishop is wrong. He’s wrong because Rome is wrong. But Rome can’t be wrong, according to Rome. Yet, it is! I wonder...
Marc said..."DJR, I agree with you. That was the point I was trying to make. The error is not communion in the hand itself. That is merely a symptom of a much larger and more longstanding error that becomes evident by a cursory examination of history.
I see now, yes, and I understand the point.
Here is my take on it.
We live in the modern era where we can now know, within moments, any time a pope sneezes.
Immediately after Vatican II, the ordinary Catholic in the pew became disoriented as a result of the obedience factor. He was told to be obedient to his priest and bishop, but he sensed something wrong because they were telling him to do things that, just a short time prior, he knew to be wrong.
"Conservative" Catholics, in an effort to make sense out of the increasing mayhem coming from parish priests and diocesan ordinaries, hitched their wagon to the only star that they figured would never let them down: the pope.
"Even though the parish priest is nuts and the bishop is bad, we know we can always rely on the pope."
That's the only thing they could do.
Along came John Paul II, and the program worked. It was even more anchored under Benedict XVI.
And then 13 March 2013 hit, and all of a sudden the "conservative" Catholics were propelled back to the 8th, 9th, 10th, or 11th century. Take your pick.
It is way past time to stop looking at the Bishop of Rome as some type of hands on CEO who is supposed to send out daily tweets about everything under the sun.
In the old days, popes lived and died without having any impact on, say, the Catholics of India. There were times when they wouldn't even have found out that a pope had died, his successor died a few days later, and now we have the third pope in less than a month.
And they couldn't have cared less.
A long time ago I heard someone I know use the term "pope worshipper," and I thought at the time it was a terrible thing to say.
I no longer think so.
Marc,
Let’s just leave it that the bishop is wrong because he is elevating an indult practice above the normative practice. You’re getting to sound like Mark Thomas, ignoring the elephant in the room. Never go Mark Thomas
A bishop may be right or wrong in his belief that Communion in the hand is safer from a public health point of view. That is, assuming that he is motivated by public health considerations rather than ideological preference, which we have no way of knowing. Whether he is right or wrong is entirely beside the point. Does he have the authority to instruct his priests to deny Communion to those faithful who for whatever reasons wish to exercise their right to receive on the tongue, a right given by a higher authority? Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, he most certainly does not.
TJM, respectfully, you're the one ignoring the elephant in the room.
Rome has universally allowed a practice that you (rightly) say is evil. Yet, Rome teaches that Rome cannot promulgate an evil practice.
Either you're wrong that the practice is evil. Or Rome is wrong that Rome cannot promulgate an evil practice.
That is the elephant in the room that must be confronted.
Marc,
You're moving clearly into Mark Thomas territory, ignoring what I said to make an inane point. The Bishop is acting ultra vires by forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue. John Nolan has also pointed that out. Holy Communion is a ridiculous practice, which is likely undermined belief in the Real Presence, but is licit because Rome caved to left-wing loonies. Are you in favor of left-wing loonies dictating practice? The fact remains, Holy Communion on the Tongue is the normative practice in the Roman Rite whereas Holy Communion in the hand is an indult. So stop being like Mark Thomas.
I don't feel like you're actually reading what I've written here, TJM.
I'll be clear: The bishop is wrong. Rome is wrong. Communion in the hand is wrong. Left-wing loonyism is modern Catholicism, and it too is wrong.
But, that's what you have to deal with in order to be in communion with the Catholic Church and its bishops.
Since an action which is ultra vires is ipso facto illicit, the bishop's instruction does not forbid anything; nor can it command obedience since legally it is merely a blank sheet of paper.
TJM
What Marc is doing, and none too subtly either, is to try and trap you into accepting his sedevacantist position. Don't rise to the bait.
CITH as practised nowadays is objectionable on a number of grounds, but is not intrinsically evil. A bishop may allow it or forbid it in his diocese, but he cannot mandate it.
Marc is religiously confused and suffers from the sin of pride having converted ti Catholicism in the ordinary form only and through me to discover the EF Mass and then the Orthodox Church and back and forth to the FSSPX. He as we, are disillusioned by sin, in particular the egregious sex abuse scandal revealed first in the fullness of the Church, but also in the so called pre-Vatican II Church and its kind of current expression in the FSSPX. It is in the Boy Scouts too.
Marc has a pick and choose authority problem, except when it comes to his own authority evolving from Adam’s Apple.
The bottom line for Marc is an intellectual deficiency which creates a mental block he can’t overcome. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ for disordered sinners to offer eternal salvation. It is the true Church because of it. And where Peter is, there is the true Church. Marc’s pride spread by Adam’s apple he consumes, does not allow him to accept the Supreme Pontiff as the sole Vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church.
I might add, if he prefers the EF Mass and sacramental expressions, it should be readily available either in the normalization of the SSPX with the pope or more FSSP or diocesan EF parishes or at least regular EF Mases.
John, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m not a sedevacantist.
I’m pointing out the problem for traditional Catholics: we want traditional doctrine and practice, but traditional doctrine requires adhesion to the pope and the local bishop. It is a paradox of traditional Catholicism that is problematic.
John Nolan,
Thanks for pointing that out. I am not really familiar with Mark.
You and I are on the same page, it is an ultra vires act. The bishop should back down. Even the USCCB (which hardly ever cloaks itself in glory) says Holy Communion on the Tongue can continue to be done, so I don't understand Bishop Stika going out on a limb here.
Father, I appreciate your attempt to diagnose my problems, but I think you’ve missed the mark. I simply have no desire to be in communion with Francis because I don’t believe the religion he teaches is true.
I had been pretty content with the SSPX, but the authority paradox I mentioned above has become increasingly problematic for me. Their ecclesiology is simply not traditional. And then, it turns out, they were moving around priests accused of impropriety just as Rome had done. So I can’t we’ll let my kids around them since many of those accused were priests we saw regularly around here even as the leadership knew about the accusations.
I don’t go to the Novus Ordo because it doesn’t represent what I believe. I don’t go to the FSSP or similar groups because I refuse communion with bishops who teach what I don’t believe. And now, the SSPX is pretty much out for.
When the churches reopen, I’m not sure what I’ll do. Is it pride to assess what one believes and act accordingly? If it is, then I guess I’m prideful. But I don’t think you’d call it pride if I believed like and worshipped with the local Novus Ordo parish. Even though that too would be merely acting upon belief.
Marc, it is Protestant what you want which is the perfect church/sect and disillusionment with the nature of the world after Adam and Eve’s sin of pride, wanting to be god themselves, which is your sin too and mine I might mention. That pride and the disorders that lead to sinful behavior all of which separate us from God and eternal life in heaven is the reality on this side of heaven. You can’t get around it and you can’ escape it even if you and your family become a hermitage and celebrate Mass on your own as you like for it to be. Even parents sexually abuse their children, siblings abuse their siblings and the spiral continues.
As for me and my household, we will follow the Lord and the Church he founded for the salvation of disordered sinners but with physical spacing from anyone who would do us harm be it the pope, bishops, priests or others in an authority who show an inordinate attention to me and mine. But no matter my precautions, we and my children don’t live in a bubble and need to be taught self defense in the world and churches and sects. And when we are harmed, we will get over it, suck it up, seek forgiveness and reconciliation and keep on trucking.
Father, I don’t think it’s pride to want to go to a church that teaches what I actually believe. I also want to follow the Lord, whatever that entails. I don’t think that being in communion with Francis and his ilk accomplishes that goal, though.
To try to say this another way: is it prideful for you to not go to services at the local Episcopalian church and refuse to follow the local Episcopalian bishop? No, it’s not. You don’t do those things because you don’t believe what they teach.
That's the pride, Marc, "what I believe" and then trying to find a church/sect that suits it or making one up that conforms to what you believe. It is not only the sin of pride; it is the sin of presumption, the sin of Gnosticism (heresy).
Protestant have done this ever since Martin Luther. Gnosticism is at its root.
And as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Catholics are obliged to be obedient to their pope and bishop in union with him in the areas of faith and morals and canon law, meaning the means by which the order of the Church will be governed by THEM, not us.
This includes in a pandemic, rules and regulations for the common good of the Church they rule. We are to be obedient to canon law and yes, bishops, too, unless they can dispense from it in this or another case, which might mean under exceptional circumstances no public Mass or no Communion at Mass or Communion in the hand.
The authority of the bishops is the teach, rule and sanctify.
I disagree with your definition of pride.
If you were right, it would be prideful for one to convert to Catholicism, if one did so because it was what one believed.
Marc, that's ridiculous. The Catholic Church is the true Church and converts convert by way of conversion to the truth of the Catholic Church which means purifying anything from their faith life that is false. There is no pride in that because the Truth is God, not my truth and belief--pride and Gnosticism Marc.
Yes, assuming it’s the true church. That it is presently run by Francis is sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of that claim, though.
Marc, I am arguing with you thinking you are a Roman Catholic in union with the pope and of course you aren't. It's like hitting my head against the wall with a fundamentalist Gnostic Protestant which, sadly, you have converted too or at least a Calvinistic way of thinking about the church. I am sad about that and praying for you because I know you aren't stupid.
I don’t think I’m a Gnostic Protestant since what I believe is about as far from that sort of thing as possible. And I’m definitely not a Calvinist.
My beliefs line up pretty well, if not exactly, with Orthodox Christianity. But I do love the traditional Roman Rite.
Marc,
To say that I am less than thrilled with Pope Francis would be an understatement and I was no fan of Paul VI either who damaged the Church far more than this amateur, but popes come and go, but the Deposit of Faith remains. If my Catholic Faith was based on who is serving on the Throne of Peter I would have left when Paul VI was Pope. The Church being the True Church has nothing to do with who is currently Pope.
You’re right, TJM, but the Church is indefectable in its teaching. The problem is much larger than Francis or Paul VI. But I’ll not go into it further out of respect for Fr. McDonald.
Marc said..."My beliefs line up pretty well, if not exactly, with Orthodox Christianity."
As someone who has cousins who are Orthodox, I would say that, unless a person's beliefs line up exactly with Orthodox Christianity, the Orthodox would not consider him orthodox. He would be considered a heretic. The essence of the word means "to choose."
If this is doubted, it could easily be demonstrated by merely speaking with an Orthodox priest and telling him which beliefs he holds that don't line up exactly with yours.
A person whose beliefs do not "line up exactly" with any church is nothing other than a Protestant. The person himself controls which beliefs he accepts and which ones he denies.
That's the essence of Protestantism.
Post a Comment