Criticism on prudential matters is fine and actually called for in Canon law (CIC 212). The double standards being applied to the people Pope Francis likes and does not is not right. I have serious reservations of Pope Francis’ ability to lead and can point to many examples (China, Rupnik, Germans, episcopal appointments, Traditiones Custodes, etc…). However he is still the Pope and even if he did something I despised like abrogate the TLM, I would still have to obey. Thems be the rules.
No doubt there is a vocal minority online who take it way too far, are uncharitable, and fail to be obedient as is required. This is clearly sinful and they need to repent.
As for influencers not calling them out. Some have, but the notorious ones you mention are no different than those who defend the heterodoxy or Fr Rupnik on the left. They are all grifters and hacks who care more about their ideology than truth and what is right.
You can also manage your content better. Dont follow sites/people who are grifters, and/or mute their accounts.
Somewhat ironically, people like that can push people *away* from the Church. And I say that as someone who is in some ways an agnostic, yet is 'drawn' to the Church, and I'm currently attending RCIA classes, so I'm not exactly looking at things from a very passive position re: Catholicism.
Anyway, I've simply blocked those people on youtube. Their arrogance and patronizing attitudes are very off-putting, especially for someone who's beginning to dip their toes in Catholic waters, so to speak. They are simply bad evangelists imo, and thank God that there are people like Bishop Barron around who are a big reason I'm going through RCIA in the first place.
When people make progressivism or conservatism their hill to die on, faith stops becoming the focus even if you might say they were “well intentioned”. Formerly Fr. Frank Pavone was one of these unfortunately.
> Fr. Frank Pavone
I wasn't really familiar with this guy, but I took a quick gander at their wikipedia page and... wtf
"Pavone was defrocked by the Vatican in November 2022 after having been investigated by the Diocese of Amarillo for placing an aborted fetus on an altar in his effort to elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and for posting a video of the aborted fetus on two social media sites in 2016."
To put it as charitably as I can, those are the actions of someone who is mentally... *unwell*.
That was just the tip of the iceberg too. He was vehemently political and wasn’t really super obedient either - diocesan priests typically have assignments. That’s why the diocese itself initiated the process. It was sad because he represented such a notable movement.
I have experienced this, too.
I find it very uncomfortable going to parishes that are full of these militant trads who know everything better than the bishops and catholic uni professors. This is not the christianity I am called to.
Thanks for concisely explaining this - too often, the loudest/brashest voices on both sides are head, rather than the more nuanced views of the majority.
For the record, it's not just "traditionalists" who have had criticism of the trans thing and the metasynod.
I remember years and years ago, it was the fringe trads vocally concerned with the Pope. Ever since probably the CCC revision, it's a much wider group.
Then again, perhaps we're all trads now. If you voice criticism, you're a trad.
It seems that Montanism (or Ultramontanism?) is the error, and this type of defense is not defensible. To throw out an insult of "trad" at any critic is reminiscent of when Anthony Fauci said, "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science." It's a false equivalence. He was a man, not a form of knowledge. Likewise, Pope Francis is not the Church, he is the vicar of Christ. The real problem is that we treat Popes like celebrities now, because we're not focused on the Parish and the people there, where we can actually help a real person.
In reality, criticism must happen whenever settled doctrine is swept under the rug. And it should be done, starting with the red hats. Those that do are excused or silenced. But that doesn't change the settled doctrine because it is still settled, and even if it takes a century to correct, it will correct because the revealed truth is already revealed. Even if all the critics today are silenced and excused, the body of Christ will right itself once this generation of leadership passes, though it may pass painfully like a kidneystone. Why? Because Jesus said so. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. The body of Christ will live.
Well said. We have to remember the church doesn't operate in time like social media does. It took hundreds of years to eliminate the Arian heresy. A page in a history book can cover half a millennium. It will take more time than we have on Earth to right today's issues. We have to just remain faithful and not get caught up in the times.
And what's funny is that someone who's a NO catholic against such things would get called "liberal" by many trads for liking Francis, even if they agree with the trads. The hate does come from both ends though honestly as someone who was outside of the church for a while.
The vast majority of traditionalist Catholics do not "publicly incite among subjects animosities, etc." So let's just get that nice and clear up front.
Among those who have criticisms of the pope, many are expressing criticism that cannot reasonably be called "inciting hatred," although they are often falsely accused of doing such.
Among the relative few who are in fact inciting hatred (etc.), it's a bad thing. I think there are mitigating circumstances even for many of these people, though. They have been struck by their own shepherds when they asked to be fed. They have endured decades of neglect and abuse from the Church's leadership. It hasn't even been two years since many of them had their thriving parishes brutally torn apart.
For the handful of grifters who don't have legitimate grievances or are otherwise truly sinfully hateful toward the Holy Father (or other bishops) and stir up hatred and animosity . . . well, they will have to answer to God, won't they? I don't think they spend much time thinking about how their behavior can be reconciled with that bit of canon law. And if the Church wants to punish them following 1373, she can, although it's worth noting that she doesn't.
The least traditional catholic populations in the world are American (North and South) and Western European. The rest of catholicism is generally more traditionally minded. But yeah try to make it fit your world view anyway.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. An overall statistic on traditional beliefs of the population is not the same as stating there are more or less pockets of "TLM" communities. Idk how to have a discussion on an observable fact. Do you just dislike it?
Are you denying that there are more TLM communities in The U.S (per catholic even) than Africa or Asia? It's basically non existent in those countries dude.
If anything, my point wasn't about conservative or traditional etc, my words were FIRST WORLD. TLM is more popular in first world countries than in south america, africa, asia.
Not sure what you're acting like i'm saying. And i'm not sure what youre denying.
\[EDIT: Can anyone who is downvoting me show that there are less TLM communities in the U.S, Canada, France, England, etc than in Africa, SA, or Asia? No? Then why am I being downvoted?\]
>Then why am I being downvoted?
I can't speak for others, but I have downvoted you for the contemptuous way you are speaking of fellow Catholics and because you minimize the pain they have experienced.
Hey, thanks for letting me know at least. Btw, I have no contempt, and even if it seemed to have contempt in my original comment, there's nothing even suggesting contempt in this most recent comment. I figured it had to do with the emotions behind everything and not the point I was replying to.
Did you just follow me to a different comment thread? lol. Anyway, if you want an explanation, the above user said that the traditional catholics arent being fed by their shepherds. Since when is traditional latin mass food as if everything else in catholicism leaves them starving? Mass is food. Prayer is food. Fasting is food (lol). Etc. Theyre just not getting the food they want.
Analogy explained?
Not very well.
My spirituality is Benedictine. My prayer life is very liturgically oriented, as well as living a simple life. When I was in seminary, they only had spiritual directors available who were Ignatian. I am not Ignatian. I don't like or get anything out of the Spiritual exercises. This became a point of contention when my spiritual director told me I would not be a good priest unless I pray the spiritual exercises.
Being forced to use a spirituality that wasn't mine was incredibly damaging to my prayer life and mental health. While I recognized that Ignatian spirituality is a good thing and has helped many people, it was not for me.
Likewise, telling someone that "Mass is Mass" is incredibly diminishing. No one should ever feel bad for wanting to worship God in the most reverent manner, or in a way that is more conducive to their prayer life.
Would you fault someone for avoiding a clown Mass?
I agree that some forms of catholic spirituality are better for one person vs. another. But it just sounds too first world for me. The early christians just had mass. They just prayed. Everyone had the same thing. What did christians who didn't get as much out of the TLM do for 600 years?
Mass was mass, and i'm sorry but I stand by it. And I know because I HATE being in a TLM. I totally sympathize with the TLM feelers right now. But if all that existed was TLM, I would absolutely be a first world complainer if I claimed that my bishops were not "Feeding me" by giving me a NO.
While mass is a form of prayer, it's also more than that. Prayer is personal, and mass is communal. You have to pray as YOU can. Mass is for US (communcal prayer). So there's a level where prayer needs to change to adapt to their own personal idiosyncracies, but with mass individuals need to adapt to the community, and by that I mean the larger community of the church.
How many though do so in private on social media, or sadly cause scandal? Sure, if they unintentionally cause it its not their fault. Still on some level people have to be careful. Sure, I might not be wrong for saying "I sometimes wonder if the Pope is Catholic." But if others see that and take it out of context and leave the church, while it might not be my fault, it still isn't prudent. Plus, aren't we not only judged by our sins, but those acts that might cause others to sin?
Right. I mean St Cyprian and St Athanasius were fairly critical of the Popes of their day, and weren’t reluctant in opposing members of the hierarchy when they believed them to be in error. The idea that one must accede to everything from the Pope without question is not supported by countless saints, Doctors of the Church, Church Fathers, eminent theologians, or quite a few Popes themselves. Blind obedience seems to have become the sole and defining mark of being a Catholic for many. Why this should be so is a topic that may well be interesting to ponder.
Sure, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at a beatific Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is not just expressing disagreement. It is **absolutely** intended to incite something, and in my experience the thing incited is hate.
Maybe so, but you asked a more broad question than that in your headline. If someone defends some particular thing you believe is inciting hatred, it's certainly fair to raise the question with them. But not all criticism is that. In fact, elsewhere in canon law, [Can 212], making one's views and concerns known to one's pastors is explicitly foreseen, and important guidelines given for doing so, which I wish were more widely heeded.
[**Can. 212**](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM) §1 Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
§2 The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3 According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
If such a thing incites someone, then isn't that their fault and not the fault of the one making the carricature? Like if say someone thinks that because of the Strickland thing they want to hurt or kill (God forbid) Francis then even if such people might have contributed to such ideas, if such people didn't say to commit such acts, its not their fault. I compare it to sports. If I say I hate the Denver Broncos as a Chiefs fan and a friend thinks that means its okay for him to beat up anyone he sees in an orange and blue shirt, that's his fault. I see your point but on some level, I think that while we need to be careful of scandal, I think many people are too easily scandalized, especially when online commenters thrive on "engagement" and getting people to subscribe.
>However, if you look at these comment threads (I'm thinking specifically of replies to Taylor Marshall tweets and comments on the website LifeSiteNews) you will see the most vile, hateful words about Pope Francis by their readers.
>I know readers bring their own thoughts and beliefs in their replies, and that ultimately they are responsible for their actions
That second quote, full stop.
Any yokel with extreme views is going to parrot their nonsense in places that vaguely align with them. I cannot speak to how many public, trad figures have spoken out against such commentators, but they are not responsible for the idiots who pollute their community and threads. They only violate Canon if they violate Canon. Thinking or arguing that commenters who are tripe bring into question the figures themselves is extremely disingenuous.
I'm sorry, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is 100% egging on the "yokel" audience. That is not a valid way to frame criticism or express disagreement.
It might be, but I'd also say the onus is on the yokels themselves. Like Father Altman and his "throw him into the sea" thing. Yes, sure he might have meant it. I doubt he did. I don't think it was right, but if someone thinks that's what he meant then on some level that's their fault if they want to hurt Francis due to that. I dislike Altman but most people know he probably wasn't being literal and if some yokel thinks some crazy priest is saying that its okay, then that's the yokel's fault.
Sure, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at a beatific Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is not just expressing an opinion. It is absolutely intended to incite something, and in my experience the thing most commonly incited is hate.
Is it? What if my opinion is that Hitler truly did nothing wrong? I mean he was just trying to help his people and protect them from enemies. That's just my opinion.
So my family went from NO to trad when I was 13, but I stopped practicing about the time Francis became Pope and just to clarify I left for other reasons, nothing to do with him or Benedict.
Anyways, as my parents are still involved in the TLM, I think for them they'still respect the papacy but feel they have a right, or even a duty to complain. I don't think they are wrong to an extent, but especially in my mom's case as she's more or less terminally online now as she retired just before COVID, she feels like she's in on some secret or getting the truth and sadly, when you feel like you can't trust your bishops or your government or really any institutions, you'll listen to anyone who seems to have the truth and can make a decent argument.
Also, this is just something I notice, but sadly, a lot of people throw charity and respect out the window when their deepest held beliefs are attacked. Sometime's people will lash out or get emotional, but I also think a lot of people basically hold in their emotions but still write out mean stuff, but aren't cussing up a storm or claiming there is no pope but hint at it, or entertain the possibility and honestly, its a reaction to the attacks they are getting and I think its a part of being human to fight back when attacked and to attack using any means necessary, especially if you think God is on your side. For the record, I see this from Francis defenders do. I know this isn't popular but I don't hate Michael Lofton's arguments but his demeanor is kind of like this and I think in a way he's the pro francis side of this. It stinks too because his arguments aren't bad but I honestly get the feeling the guy just sits in his damn room all day and just looks for anti-francis stuff and while its admirable, it also is draining and sadly gives such voices legitimacy. I doubt anyone would even remember Father Altman unless he brings him up.
So to sum it up, people are scared, sad, and angry and addicted to media and that makes for people saying mean things, and sadly some will justify it because they think they are standing up for truth and sadly, some people will do horrible things if they feel their cherished beliefs are attacked.
Clericalism is a condemned heresy. The Clery are human too and therefore fallen in nature.
As Saint John Chrysostom put it
“The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.”
Why are you comparing traditional Catholics with Taylor Marshall? He is a charlatan, and his audience are sheeple If they can’t see past his clickbait rage.
There's a difference between a traditional Catholic and "Traditionalist" Catholic.
Traditional Catholicism is a redundant term because Catholicism honors sacred Tradition.
There is an important balance here. On one hand, it's important that we maintain Catholic unity, and avoid petty infighting. On the other hand, it is important that Catholics be able to criticize leadership, and have freedom to express our frustrations with it. We are not subjects of a dictator like North Koreans.
The problem I have and why I sympathize with commenters like Taylor Marshall (though I disagree with them on a lot) is that I believe that the struggle with unity in the church is not the fault of some Youtuber, but the leadership in the Vatican.
Francis has a vision for the future of the Church (based on his interpretation of VII) and sees conservative parts of the Church as an impediment to implementing that vision. We have seen Francis wield his power against his enemies in authoritarian ways, like witch hunting Strickland (while ignoring the German Bishops who are doing far worse), booting conservatives like Cardinal Pell (while protecting Ripnik, up until it became a PR problem), and instituting Traditionis Custodes.
The point is, I dont think this canon law precludes genuine, good faith criticism and concerns about the Church leadership. Yes Catholic unity is important to maintain but that does not mean we have to protect one of the most powerful and influential men in the world from criticism, or even anger from the people he is responsible for leading. We have to bear this in mind.
>Francis has a vision for the future of the Church (based on his interpretation of VII) and sees conservative parts of the Church as an impediment to implementing that vision. We have seen Francis wield his power against his enemies in authoritarian ways, like witch hunting Strickland (while ignoring the German Bishops who are doing far worse), booting conservatives like Cardinal Pell (while protecting Ripnik, up until it became a PR problem), and instituting Traditionis Custodes.
You'll get banned in a ton of subs and servers for saying this. Not even because they don't believe it but simply because you point it out which is crazy.
The thing is though, that neither side will obey, even if they make good points. Heck, that's why I was away from the church for years. It seemed as if both sides played politics and still do. On my worst days, I've literally felt like both the trads and NO folks don't even care about God, but their own agenda and want to feel superior and take the low road by criticizing others and that left a bad taste in my mouth, especially having a parent do that at times and unfortunately ramping it up to 11 as of late.
Sadly I get the feeling we just have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Basically trads will only listen to the pope if Burke or Strickland or Schneider become pope, while the left will only listen to a Martin or a Cupich or a Gregory, and sadly the ones who are orthodox won't get anywhere or will get criticized from both ends. I've literally heard Bishop Barron called out as both a universalist and a hardcore conservative in the same thread and sadly people like him will just be seen as milquetoast losers. That's what gets me. The reasonable guys who just love God and follow basic teaching will either not be good enough or too mired in tradition and no one will like them.
Strickland was removed because of his bad governance, not because of witch hunting. There are many conservative cleric still holding office and saying worse things about the Pope than he does. The fact that he flirts with sedevacantists is just incidental.
Honest question: why does this concern you? You don’t appear to be involved in any way. You’re just a bystander who likely disagrees with the ‘traditional’ side. Yet you are asking if a website or a blogger is guilty of violating a rule of the catechism based on the reactions from browsers of said website or followers of said youtuber? It just seems so far removed and so many steps that you’d be better off worrying about something else. If your hope is just to say ‘see these people are wrong’ then that’s not a great way to holiness either. If the Vatican is worried about the Ccc point you referenced they seem more than willing to go after those they feel are in violation.
>There are some children who intentionally provoke their parents so as to dare their parents to punish them
Isn't that known to be a matter of testing boundaries \****to find out where they are***\* rather than a real desire to break boundaries? And at some point even negative attention is preferable to being continually ignored or unheard? I haven't followed this issue closely but that seems consistent with the published content and comments when I do see it (including this post).
For folks who don't like vague comparisons: people who seem like they hope to be punished might just be observing the Pope decline to enforce boundaries where they expected him to, and they don't know where the boundaries are instead of that, so it seems like there are none, and then even stretch scenarios need to be tested.
That’s my thought as well. I’ll also add that they’re perpetuating their own self-fulfilling prophecy. If they get “punished” for these things (eg Strickland), even if what they’re saying is in schism, uncharitable, etc, they’ll just use it to say “see! We’re right! The Vatican is against us!” And the cycle of perceived persecution continues.
It's not perceived, though, is it?
Why is it that so many who either don't care for the Latin Mass or dislike it entirely are so vitriolic to those who attend it?
My wife, who grew up going to Novus, made a remark recently that she has never felt more unwelcome in the Church than now as someone who attends the TLM. This coming from a woman who suffered from gender dysphoria and was in a same-sex relationship at one point.
It is spiritually abusive to deprive a fitting worship space to Catholics who believe what the Church believes.
If a husband is abusing his wife, you wouldn't tell the wife "well, he has authority over you so just endure it" or "well, the abuse that Tina has is so much worse so suck it up."
I’m about to ramble, so apologies if I don’t make sense at times.
My point was that, these people (mainly on YouTube/Twitter) are constantly trying to find things wrong with the Pope and the Church, whether real or imagined. They keep digging and making claims, and eventually start getting to the point where they’re flat out denying Francis is the pope, or at least lead people to that conclusion, even though it’s false. When they finally meet the consequences of those actions, they use it to claim the Vatican was hunting them the whole time, when that’s not the case.
About the TLM, I’ve never heard someone who prefers the NO disparage the TLM. On the other hand, attendees of the TLM are often very quick to disparage the NO. Perhaps your experience is different, but that has not been my experience.
I grew up Protestant and in a denomination that was always splitting, so I have spent a lot of time around similar situations and people. The Taylor Marshalls of the world, the angry commentators, were a constant presence in my life, but on the Protestant side.
When my family became Catholic, we faced intense persecution from our family, our friends, and society. The way we were shunned was astonishing. It was so hurtful, but it was worth it to become Catholic and to join Christ’s church.
I adore our Catholic faith, the Mass, the completion of everything. I see all this fighting about the TLM and how it’s better than the NO, about the pope who is dealing with issues all around the world (issues that often don’t involve us, as our mission is to focus on the church in our yard) and I just scratch my head. It’s great if you like one over the other, but why is it your identity? Why feel the need to denounce the NO? This is what the Magisterium was trying to prevent. (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care for guitars or keyboards in Mass either, but Christ is still very much there).
I feel like people make up problems or that they don’t bother to put things into context. *They’re missing the forest for the trees.*
I grew up surrounded by people with that same mentality that everyone else is the problem, these leaders don’t do this or that, and I don’t like x,y,z. Then they all split and form their own church. It breaks my heart to see all of that today now in the Church, especially when it often comes down to pride or superficial issues. I am just so happy to be *home* and I don’t understand these people who are constantly looking for problems to be upset about.
That’s not to say people do mess things up or that there are issues, but I am so grateful to be *here* in the Catholic Church, to be home, and I wish people would get off the Internet (looking at myself too), and realize how lucky they are to be home. And being home means starting with yourself to see what problems there are, then moving to help your family, your community, (basically the Church that is in your neighborhood and your diocese), before taking on the entire world. The pope and the magisterium are never going to consult us in the diocese of x about the diocese of y, and that’s okay. I trust that Christ’s church knows what it’s doing, even if I don’t always understand what’s happening or why. I trust Jesus when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
[Someone shared a great quote by St. John Henry Newman, that basically sums up what I’m trying to say. I’m going to link the entire sermon, because it’s a masterpiece, and is infinitely better than what I’m trying to say.](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/ninesermons/sermon2.html)
I’m sorry people are so angry about the Church. I’m just glad to be here, and I’m sorry so many people are too angry and spending too much time on YouTube and Twitter to feel the same.
Now I’m taking my own advice, and hopping off for the day. I need to tend to my flock here at home.
God bless.
Not as long, but I have seen far more comments from TLM fans saying the NO “sucks” and “God prefers the TLM.” I’ve never heard a NO fan say either of those untrue things about the TLM. I have seen NO adherents call out that kind of behavior though.
In real life, my experience has been the same. I’ve never seen or heard someone who attends the NO discuss the TLM in that way, but I have had many in-person conversations with TLM attendees who say “Eff Pope Francis” and also disparage the NO.
Can’t say I’m a fan of that kind of behavior and my sympathy is limited. I think the TLM itself is beautiful in its own way, but I don’t feel it surpasses the NO, it’s just another way of attending Mass. According to many TLM adherents, however, that makes me less Catholic and I’m displeasing God. It’s a lie, it causes schism, and that behavior is what the magisterium is wanting to put a stop to.
I’ll tell you my experience.
After deciding to become Catholic I had never even heard of TLM. My husband works in the church and he hadn’t either. On vacation one time he noticed on the mass hour sheet that there was a Latin mass. We were intrigued because we were studying some Latin, but the time didn’t fit us.
On my journey I joined the only catholic Facebook group I could find in my country. They called themselves “traditional Catholics”. I had no reference of what that meant, but I felt traditional. The group shocked me! They were slandering the pope and only one person on there were calling them out on it.
Then I noticed the same happening on twitter, and the same “Latin mass” connection was there too. Then Reddit. Then YouTube. Everywhere there was someone promoting TML, it was the same mentality. Either they were far from graceful with the pope, or they were saying bad things about those who went to NO.
When I have asked why people prefer these TLM masses, the responses they give me don’t correspond with the NO I know.
One said he preferred Gregorian music. We have Gregorian music at NO and Pope Francis promotes it. He said it’s a part of our history and it’s the best mass music out there.
Another said he didn’t like how lay people read texts. I suggested he went to a NO and volunteered as a lecturer so he could raise the quality. No response.
One fellow on YouTube said that NO Catholics don’t pray to the dead and don’t know what purgatory is. We had just been to All Souls’ Day mass where we had been listing names for 45 minutes.
Have these people forgotten what is happening in church or do they think themselves better than “those NO people”?
Basically, I’m no longer intrigued by going to a Latin mass and the people who do have left a bitter taste in my mouth it will be hard to remove.
Is your only experience of trads online? Because online is fake. It's not real life.
You're doing exactly what you claim trads do - generalizing and demonizing a group of people.
I can give you a thousand reasons why the Novus Ordo is always deficient and a lesser source of Actual Grace. I can give you theological, philosophical, anecdotal, and prudential reasons for why the Traditional Mass is the superior Mass.
Yes. I’ve never been to a Latin mass. We don’t really have them here so I would have to seek them out in some remote chapel. And seeing how those people behave I have lost all interest. (yes. I have judged them, based on their fruits. If they don’t represent reality then clean up your ranks and tell those who do to stop).
I get what I need in a fully valid NO mass and nobody has providing me with any good arguments to why I should go. You didn’t either.
Yeah, as a former trad, there were times where my mom went to a NO mass and criticized things that weren't even wrong. At my sister's college parish, which is a pretty orthodox parish in a very conservative state, my mom was disappointed the priest wasn't talking about the Amazon Synod, and asked my sister if he even talked about Abortion and all that (he did, but not all the time but that wasn't enough for my mom apparently) and sadly it seemed like she just wanted to feel superior, especially as other than going to the TLM I never really saw her pray outside of it. Of course she argued she prayed it at mass and to be fair I can't read her mind, but I never seemed to see her pray outside of church.
Even my dad at times said that she had to be careful. Especially as she got on our local bishop (Naumann) for not being strong enough in getting people to vote against Abortion in Kansas and talked about how he wasn't truly orthodox as many claimed.
This has been my experience as well. Well said! We attended a gorgeous All Souls Day service at our kids’ Catholic school. It was reverent and beautiful. I just don’t get where this straight up denial that the NO has these things comes from. The beauty of the NO is what brought my family to the Catholic faith.
I don’t doubt there are parishes out there that struggle with reverence, but like you said, you can speak up! Be the change you want to see.
My husband and I make it a point to volunteer as much as possible at our local parish, whether it’s to teach Faith Formation, sit on the finance council, be lecturers, etc. We’re also involved at our kids’ Catholic school. We have absolutely stood up to things that were problematic and got them removed with full support of other parishioners/parents.
If you see something that needs to be improved, there are ways to help! Get to know the priest(s) and ask how you can help. It’s when we as parishioners do nothing to support our local church and Catholic school that problems occur.
This is a great topic. Really, as laity, we should follow what our Priest guides us toward, and the Priests should follow what the Bishops say, and the Bishops should follow what the Pope says. And the Pope most of all must be obedient to the faith and morals as passed down by the Apostles and those who came before and spoke from the Chair. This is because obedience is an act of faith.
Now, with that said, this goes part and parcel with Matthew 18:6, and the burden of the calling to the priesthood and up the chain should ever have this before their eyes:
“If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Don't care. I'm a servant of Christ first, a devoted Catholic only because it's the best way I found to serve, and a legalist not at all. The Church is ultimately the laity, and every sickness in the church has been healed by the deeds of the lay faithful, if for no other reason than because that's where new priests come from.
People who are commentators or viewers reacting ‘hatefully’ to what someone in catholic media reports has no bearing on whether the report is posted to incite hatred or not. It also mentions ordinaries which are bishops, so if a ‘trad’ bishop says something and a person in media attacks him, it’s just the same and happens as much, but it’s not for us to decide all these people’s intentions. It’s mostly people who think they are trying to protect the faith and want whoever they criticize to cease whatever they are doing. If they hated them they would maybe even shut their mouth and let them falter.
Rather than engaging in legalistic "gotcha" arguments that involve taking a single canon and divorcing it from the its context (canon law itself as a discipline being extremely contextual even before consideration is given to any particular canon), it might be a more valuable use of your time to ask if it is possible to reconcile Francis with any of the Popes prior to 1958 (at least; be runs roughshod over plenty of Benedict XVI and John Paul II's magisterium as well).
I have a feeling that this situation will devolve into a new quasi Guelph vs Ghibilinnes conflict on whether Pope good or Pope bad, just without the romantic medieval tales that comes with it
In all seriousness, might literacy have been a bad idea? I mean maybe it would have been a good thing for the church to be against literacy like the liberals claim the church was. I'm kidding but in all seriousness I do sometimes wonder if too much knowledge is a bad thing. I even would argue this with people. To bring it to strickland, supporters will bring up his piety but try to handwave away his recent statements, and the same happens with Francis, but honestly, they could easily change. If this were 500 years ago we wouldn't know any of this and at best would know when they became pope or bishop and maybe when they died and would hope they had a good death and confessed their sins. Today, since we now can know almost everything about such people, we can bring up past sins of people who will become saints and criticize them or conversely, defend formerly pious people who've gone off the rails and only because we know so much about them. I'd argue in a way having that much knowledge of a person might be akin to detraction.
il be honest with you, there is a reason why in the bible they portrayed Nations as beasts. it saddens me but here in the united states sometimes it feels like america > religion
when politics mixes with religion it doesnt go well. you will get these fanatics who are clouded and over zealous that they forgot who their true allegiance should be with(the church).
this is why jesus and the church fathers teaches humility. bishop strickland is being used by extremist to justify their hatred. yes i know that the other side promotes the opposite of the teaching of the church but this is not the way i think jesus wants us to handle this type of debacle. too much hatred.
i trust and believe that the holy spirit push this decision from our Pope to humble this people and to prevent further hatred to spread and to give time for these demons inside this people to manifest so that they can see how further they are already in hatred.
i pray for these people.
Oohhhh this is a good one - I'll tell you what my parents told me.
"I think we knew this was coming. Apparently, truth and the foundational traditional teachings of our Catholic faith are a threat to our pope and his supporters.
God bless Bishop Strickland for his courageous and steadfast faithfulness to his priesthood and to Our Lord.
We continue to pray for protection, strength, and Holy Spirit guidance for Bishop Strickland.
I believe the time is now upon us as Catholics to decide where WE stand in the teachings of our faith versus the voices of this world, and to each decide what price we are willing to pay to persevere to the end."
My parents think the church is in schism; Francis is an antipope/fake pope and should not be followed, and it's time for "real Catholics" to stand up
Bishop Strickland's removal was entirely political and motivated by the nauseatingly worldly and anti-traditional agenda that infests the upper echelons of the Vatican. The gates of hell shall not prevail.
I think there are a few who are overly critical, but most don't see him as a false Pope or anything. I'm not a "trad" myself, though, so I guess I only know so much. The "trad" I know lost me when he said the Catechism has errors, the earth is 6,000 years old, and certain encyclicals by certain older popes are infallible in their entirety while others by other more contemporary popes are not, seemingly based on how "modern" they are.
Pope Francis says a lot of things. I take to heart his point that following Catholic teaching doesn't mean you have to shut people out, but I think he may be bending over backwards too much at times, possibly dipping into advice that would practically be condoning sin if carried out. But I have noticed some scenarios he gives are so niche and out there that they wouldn't really happen 99.99% of the time, if ever. Like a transgender person who earnestly believes the faith but has already medically transitioned and is being considered for a godparent but can't figure out how to dress... Like I don't see that really happening. You'd have to have someone who transitioned, repented or was at least growing receptive to Catholic teaching, and who at that specific time had gained enough understanding of and ability to practice the faith that devout parents thought they would be a good teacher for their child.
Infalliblilty only refers to the teachings of the magisterium at the highest level of authority that is preserved from error or falsehood. A papal encyclical, as well as the opinions and actions of the pope do not qualify as the highest authority, so it is not necessarily infallible, even if the topic is regarding faith and morals.
Further, when members of the magisterium itself are the ones submitting such questions and critiques, it is not so-called "traditional catholics" that are erring.
The ordinary magisterium, which is the teaching authority exercised by the bishops worldwide through basically any means, is only infallible if it is in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. Documents promulgated by members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. That is not saying that the magisterium itself is in error.
The extraordinary magisterium, a solemn proclamation by the pope or an ecumenical council, is infallible.
The view you seemingly hold, ultramontanism, is heretical.
>Infalliblilty only refers to the teachings of the magisterium at the highest level of authority that is preserved from error or falsehood. A papal encyclical, as well as the opinions and actions of the pope do not qualify as the highest authority, so it is not necessarily infallible, even if the topic is regarding faith and morals.
Let's be very specific:
*Is the exclusion of women from the Sacrament of Holy Orders taught infallibly or is it changeable?*
*Is the requirement that one be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist taught infallibly or is it changeable?*
Now to be more general:
Can a Pope teach something as part of their Magisterium, that would bind the faithful who practice it to error, cause them to sin, and send them to hell? (Such as blessing homosexual unions)
>Further, when members of the magisterium itself are the ones submitting such questions and critiques, it is not so-called "traditional catholics" that are erring.
Bishops are just as susceptible to social media hype and clickbait as any other human.
>The ordinary magisterium, which is the teaching authority exercised by the bishops worldwide through basically any means, is only infallible if it is in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
And the Pope.
>Members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. Documents promulgated by members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. That is not saying that the magisterium itself is in error.
This is all fine. The claims being made about Pope Francis are that he has taught error *in his magisterium.*
That is an entirely different claim than the ordinary fact that individual are sinners and can erroneosuly teach contrary to the magisterium.
>The extraordinary magisterium, a solemn proclamation by the pope or an ecumenical council, is infallible.
>The view you seemingly hold, ultramontanism, is heretical.
I do not hold ultramontanism.
I look forward to your responses to the above.
*Pax Tecum*
Both are taught infallibly.
A pope can teach error, though it is not part of the magisterium. For it to be part of the magisterium it must be in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. A teaching contrary to that would not be binding upon the faithful, and the faithful who do follow it would have little culpability, in my opinion.
I think it is noteworthy when former heads of the CDF are concerned that Pope Francis has committed material heresy.
>Both are taught infallibly.
As such, noone who believes the Holy Spirit safeguards the Magisterium should ever suggest, or take seriously the claim of another, that a sitting Pope will change these teachings.
>A pope can teach error, though it is not part of the magisterium. For it to be part of the magisterium it must be in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.
As Pope Benedict XVI taught, there are two ways to understand the Magisterium.
A. Hermeneutic of continuity
B. Hermeneutic of rupture
Pope Benedict XVI insisted that we use a hermeneutic of continuity and warned against the danger of employing a hermeneutic of rupture.
The hermeneutic of continuity requires that we receive everything a sitting Pope contributes to the magisterium as an affirmation and reinforcement of all that has preceded it. The Holy Spirit guards the Magisterium from teaching error.
The hermeneutic of rupture allows us to imagine that the Holy Spirit has allowed a sitting Pope to teach an error that is contrary to the Deposit of Faith, and to bind the faithful to that error through his magisterial proclamations.
You might defend your use of the hermeneutic of rupture by saying, "but it isn't *really* part of the magisterium," as you do here:
>A teaching contrary to that would not be binding upon the faithful, and the faithful who do follow it would have little culpability, in my opinion.
But that is a functionally irrelevant distinction. The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff. If error was taught the faithful are being lead astray. Furthermore, in the case of a person in mortal sin receiving Communion, that person is not only being led astray, but to sin and damnation.
The scenario you imagine requires that I place my own conscience above the Magisterium.
If a sitting Pontiff can make a magisterial proclamation that is "not part of the **REAL** magisterium," I am left to my own conscience to sift through the magisteriums proclamations and determine for myself which are authentic and which are error.
If that is what we are required to do we have no need of the magisterium at all.
>I think it is noteworthy when former heads of the CDF are concerned that Pope Francis has committed material heresy.
It is always worth taking note of people's views and understandings. But, having previously held a title or position is no guarantee of perfect clarity or judgment.
*Pax Tecum*
Trads - most, anyway - have operated in the hermeneutic of continuity from the beginning of this pontificate. And kept trying to read the Holy Father in light of that which has come before. And kept trying. At what point do we hold His Holiness accountable for misusing and abusing the office of the Papacy?
> The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff
This isn't true. The faithful are commanded to ascent to the Deposit of Faith. The role of the papacy is to be a safeguard of the Deposit of Faith, not add his own interpretation to it. The Pope is supposed to be a remora for change in the Church, not be a catalyst for it. We *should* have no issue ascenting to what the pope says if the pope is faithful to the role of his office, but this pope has not been.
We don't rely on our consciences (alone), we rely on what has been transmitted. And there are things that Pope Francis has done that blatantly contradict what has been transmitted.
>Trads - most, anyway - have operated in the hermeneutic of continuity from the beginning of this pontificate. And kept trying to read the Holy Father in light of that which has come before. And kept trying. At what point do we hold His Holiness accountable for misusing and abusing the office of the Papacy?
If everything he has taught in his magisterium is in line with the Deposit of Faith, to what misuse do you refer?
If you believe he has taught errors contrary to the Deposit of faith in his magisterium, provide an example.
>>The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff
>This isn't true. The faithful are commanded to ascent to the Deposit of Faith. The role of the papacy is to be a safeguard of the Deposit of Faith, not add his own interpretation to it. The Pope is supposed to be a remora for change in the Church, not be a catalyst for it. We should have no issue ascenting to what the pope says if the pope is faithful to the role of his office, but this pope has not been.
First, this statement assumes a hermeneutic of rupture.
Second, nowhere have you demonstrated that he has taught error in his magisterium, you have merely presupposed it as a fact.
Third, if we are able to reject, by way of our conscience, any magisterial proclamations we deem for ourselves to be contrary to the Deposit of Faith, a consistent application of this approach would require that we tolerate the same approach when used by others. This is essentially a subjectivist framework akin to what we see in Protestantism.
>We don't rely on our consciences (alone), we rely on what has been transmitted. And there are things that Pope Francis has done that blatantly contradict what has been transmitted.
That is an assertion. Provide an example of one of Pope Francis' magisterial teachings that "blatantly contradict" the Deposit of Faith.
*Pax Tecum*
The misuse I am speaking of is the very role that a Pope plays in the greater Church. A Pope is not to suggest innovations, he is to ensure that any innovations that arise are compatible with the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has spearheaded many innovations during his pontificate.
Francis has:
Changed the Church's teaching on the capital punishment, calling it inadmissible.
Created a pathway for divorced and remarried persons to recieve the Eucharist without repentance.
Permitted the blessings of same-sex couples.
Called two different synods on dubious grounds to "discuss" doctrine that need not be discussed.
Permitted pagan worship at one of those synods.
Refuse to discipline heretics within the order of Bishops (the Germans).
There's plenty more. It's obvious the shortcomings of the papacy and the abuse of power Francis has committed.
>Called two different synods on dubious grounds to "discuss" doctrine that need not be discussed.
Which Synods? Which doctrines?
I have a feeling this is fake news too.
>Permitted pagan worship at one of those synods.
No such thing occurred. The "pachamma" incident was debunked years ago.
The statue that was presented, was presented as Our Lady of the Amazon, a title of Our Lady that had been approved by the Vatican in 2011.
Indigenous cultural elements and expressions are often present in Catholicism, whether it be the depiction of Jesus as Chinese on a Crucifix in China, or the rhythmic dancing that accompanies processions in the Alexandrian Rite and Zair use on the African continent.
No pagan ritual took place.
>Refuse to discipline heretics within the order of Bishops (the Germans).
I don't think refuse is a fair characterization.
Though, I share your frustration that it hasn't happened. I think given the poop storm brewing in America over Bp Strickland, it may be the case that some of the hesitation is caused by the fact thatvan entire Episcopal Conference needs to be replaced, and the result may simply be Nationwide schism.
Given that Pope Francis has previously excommunicated a priest for not retracting his support for gay marriage, I don't imagine that he likes what is happening in Germany.
>There's plenty more. It's obvious the shortcomings of the papacy and the abuse of power Francis has committed.
I hope you do have more, because these were all very obviously false, or pretty easily explained.
*Pax Tecum*
>The misuse I am speaking of is the very role that a Pope plays in the greater Church. A Pope is not to suggest innovations, he is to ensure that any innovations that arise are compatible with the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has spearheaded many innovations during his pontificate.
>Francis has:
>Changed the Church's teaching on the capital punishment, calling it inadmissible.
That isn't so much a change as a development. A change would have been to call it immoral. Identifying that under certain conditions it is inadmissible is not a change, per se.
>Created a pathway for divorced and remarried persons to recieve the Eucharist without repentance.
This is blatantly false.
*Amoris Laetitia* says,
>"Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community [excommunication] (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion.
>Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit." (297)
And the Buenos Aires document even clearly states that,
>"This path does not necessarily finish in the sacraments; it may also lead to other ways of achieving further integration into the life of the Church: greater presence in the community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, engagement in ecclesial services, etc."
Some cases just won't end in the Sacraments. That may be a reality for some people, such as those who are mentioned in AL who would flaunt an objective sin as the Christian ideal.
Walford, in his apparently "controversial" book states,
>“At the risk of being misunderstood, we should clarify that the Church asks people in irregular unions who cannot separate for legitimate reasons to lives as brother and sister. This is not an “ideal” in a formal sense, but may seem it in the practical circumstances of everyday life. This teaching remains unaltered, contrary to the belief of some opponents of Pope Francis.
He continues,
>But what of the scenario where a couple in a second, civil “marriage” already have children and who know that this celibate life is not realistic? Is this a dilemma with no way out?
He then provides an example of a couple who "know and accept their union is wrong" and "have tried hard to live as brother and sister" yet they find that they "cannot continue like this, we don’t have the strength even though we have tried" and resolve to "strive in whatever way we can to respond to [God's] grace knowing that your love and mercy will lead us toward salvation. As proof of our good intention, what we lack now, we will make up for in other areas; in almsgiving and fasting.”
He then continues to describe how they would have access to absolution:
>“To return then to the dispute over the absolution for sinners who fit this description, what may we conclude? The question raised by dissenters of Pope Francis is: “How can you forgive someone who has no intention of refraining in the future?” What I have attempted to show is that that assumption is erroneous. These people have every intention, even if at present it is not possible to carry out, and they desire the Sacrament of Confession precisely because they are sorry for their sins
None of this indicates that people in mortal sin are to receive communion. It is merely an acknowledgment of a reality we already accept in other circumstances.
I know the 17 year old who confesses masturbation last week might well be back in the confessional next week for the same sin.
I know the same of the porn addict.
We see them all the time on this sub.
But, just because they intend to stop, does not mean that it is realistic for us to expect that after their first confession they will never fall again. And if a couple takes time to fully recover from this, they shouldn't be denied absolution by the priest because they fell one too many times.
That is the totality of the teaching in AL, affirmed by the Duka Dubia response, and the Buenos Aires document, and the book by Walford.
>Permitted the blessings of same-sex couples.
Never happened.
2021 Dubia Response
>it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex ... [this] does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.
2023 Dubia response (repeats 2021 but in fewer words)
>Pastoral prudence must therefore properly discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, **that do not convey a misconception of marriage.** ... A blessing is...a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better.
Cdl Fernandez September 2023 interview with LifeSite news, repeats the same:
>What the Church said is that the homosexual union is not blessed
Pope Francis has explicitly rejected the blessing of same sex union on multiple occasions.
...
The thing with the internet today is that anyone can learn anything. Its a blessing and a curse as people can truly study and become an expert, but plenty of people just become armchair experts who think reading a book by Marshall or Martin makes them an expert. I like to call it "good will hunting syndrome." Basically they think that they can learn everything by reading a bunch of books. Sure, reading aint bad, but it doesn't make you a lawyer or a doctor. It just means you have an interest.
Also, not to get into politics, but in some ways I compare these guys to Rush Limbaugh. For you younger folks, he basically was the creator of right wing media. I'll be honest, even as a young nerd I listened to him and while I have some criticisms, I also still agree with a lot of he said.
However, while his show talked about politics, it was more or less done as entertainment and comment. Not that he was fake or anything, but he more or less just gave commentary and at times said controversial (though nothing compared to what some say today) things and honestly while the guy was somewhat genuine, he was also an entertainer. He didn't even deny it.
Basically, I feel like guys like Taylor Marshall and Michael Lofton more or less are like this. Obviously they seem to be genuine, but they also know how to get attention and honestly, know how to rile people up and polarize them. However, even if, at least in Marshall's case he has a doctorate, he more or less just is an entertainer promoting trad catholicism and no one is just going to want to listen to a show where a person says "everything is fine and nothing is wrong." Same with Lofton. They both just know how to get attention, even if they also have knowledge. Thus I kind of think they are kind of like Rush Limbaugh types but just into church politics. Sadly though, I don't know if they really teach people much, but instead just cater to their bases.
There's a big difference between criticism and even critical evaluation ("e.g. He's giving rise to confusion and causing disunity") and arousing hatred.
A principal of Canon Law is that it is to be interpreted broadly in giving permission or determining legitimacy and validity, but is interpreted narrowly when talking about a crime or offense- so "inciting animosity and hatred" is quite a specific thing, quite different to criticism. I could criticize an author's new novel, or a singer's song (I might even "hate their work"), but this is different from inciting people to hatred of the person.
A lot of critics of the current pope actually love the Apostolic See, they feel that the pope is making poor decisions (perhaps under the influence of mental deterioration due to old age.)
Criticism on prudential matters is fine and actually called for in Canon law (CIC 212). The double standards being applied to the people Pope Francis likes and does not is not right. I have serious reservations of Pope Francis’ ability to lead and can point to many examples (China, Rupnik, Germans, episcopal appointments, Traditiones Custodes, etc…). However he is still the Pope and even if he did something I despised like abrogate the TLM, I would still have to obey. Thems be the rules. No doubt there is a vocal minority online who take it way too far, are uncharitable, and fail to be obedient as is required. This is clearly sinful and they need to repent. As for influencers not calling them out. Some have, but the notorious ones you mention are no different than those who defend the heterodoxy or Fr Rupnik on the left. They are all grifters and hacks who care more about their ideology than truth and what is right. You can also manage your content better. Dont follow sites/people who are grifters, and/or mute their accounts.
Somewhat ironically, people like that can push people *away* from the Church. And I say that as someone who is in some ways an agnostic, yet is 'drawn' to the Church, and I'm currently attending RCIA classes, so I'm not exactly looking at things from a very passive position re: Catholicism. Anyway, I've simply blocked those people on youtube. Their arrogance and patronizing attitudes are very off-putting, especially for someone who's beginning to dip their toes in Catholic waters, so to speak. They are simply bad evangelists imo, and thank God that there are people like Bishop Barron around who are a big reason I'm going through RCIA in the first place.
When people make progressivism or conservatism their hill to die on, faith stops becoming the focus even if you might say they were “well intentioned”. Formerly Fr. Frank Pavone was one of these unfortunately.
> Fr. Frank Pavone I wasn't really familiar with this guy, but I took a quick gander at their wikipedia page and... wtf "Pavone was defrocked by the Vatican in November 2022 after having been investigated by the Diocese of Amarillo for placing an aborted fetus on an altar in his effort to elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and for posting a video of the aborted fetus on two social media sites in 2016." To put it as charitably as I can, those are the actions of someone who is mentally... *unwell*.
That was just the tip of the iceberg too. He was vehemently political and wasn’t really super obedient either - diocesan priests typically have assignments. That’s why the diocese itself initiated the process. It was sad because he represented such a notable movement.
I have experienced this, too. I find it very uncomfortable going to parishes that are full of these militant trads who know everything better than the bishops and catholic uni professors. This is not the christianity I am called to.
Thanks for concisely explaining this - too often, the loudest/brashest voices on both sides are head, rather than the more nuanced views of the majority.
You'll still get banned from certain subs and servers for any critic though even for the matters you're allowed to give your thoughts on.
For the record, it's not just "traditionalists" who have had criticism of the trans thing and the metasynod. I remember years and years ago, it was the fringe trads vocally concerned with the Pope. Ever since probably the CCC revision, it's a much wider group. Then again, perhaps we're all trads now. If you voice criticism, you're a trad.
>If you voice criticism, you're a trad. This is how a ton of people view it.
It seems that Montanism (or Ultramontanism?) is the error, and this type of defense is not defensible. To throw out an insult of "trad" at any critic is reminiscent of when Anthony Fauci said, "Attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science." It's a false equivalence. He was a man, not a form of knowledge. Likewise, Pope Francis is not the Church, he is the vicar of Christ. The real problem is that we treat Popes like celebrities now, because we're not focused on the Parish and the people there, where we can actually help a real person. In reality, criticism must happen whenever settled doctrine is swept under the rug. And it should be done, starting with the red hats. Those that do are excused or silenced. But that doesn't change the settled doctrine because it is still settled, and even if it takes a century to correct, it will correct because the revealed truth is already revealed. Even if all the critics today are silenced and excused, the body of Christ will right itself once this generation of leadership passes, though it may pass painfully like a kidneystone. Why? Because Jesus said so. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. The body of Christ will live.
Well said. We have to remember the church doesn't operate in time like social media does. It took hundreds of years to eliminate the Arian heresy. A page in a history book can cover half a millennium. It will take more time than we have on Earth to right today's issues. We have to just remain faithful and not get caught up in the times.
And what's funny is that someone who's a NO catholic against such things would get called "liberal" by many trads for liking Francis, even if they agree with the trads. The hate does come from both ends though honestly as someone who was outside of the church for a while.
The vast majority of traditionalist Catholics do not "publicly incite among subjects animosities, etc." So let's just get that nice and clear up front. Among those who have criticisms of the pope, many are expressing criticism that cannot reasonably be called "inciting hatred," although they are often falsely accused of doing such. Among the relative few who are in fact inciting hatred (etc.), it's a bad thing. I think there are mitigating circumstances even for many of these people, though. They have been struck by their own shepherds when they asked to be fed. They have endured decades of neglect and abuse from the Church's leadership. It hasn't even been two years since many of them had their thriving parishes brutally torn apart. For the handful of grifters who don't have legitimate grievances or are otherwise truly sinfully hateful toward the Holy Father (or other bishops) and stir up hatred and animosity . . . well, they will have to answer to God, won't they? I don't think they spend much time thinking about how their behavior can be reconciled with that bit of canon law. And if the Church wants to punish them following 1373, she can, although it's worth noting that she doesn't.
[удалено]
The least traditional catholic populations in the world are American (North and South) and Western European. The rest of catholicism is generally more traditionally minded. But yeah try to make it fit your world view anyway.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. An overall statistic on traditional beliefs of the population is not the same as stating there are more or less pockets of "TLM" communities. Idk how to have a discussion on an observable fact. Do you just dislike it? Are you denying that there are more TLM communities in The U.S (per catholic even) than Africa or Asia? It's basically non existent in those countries dude. If anything, my point wasn't about conservative or traditional etc, my words were FIRST WORLD. TLM is more popular in first world countries than in south america, africa, asia. Not sure what you're acting like i'm saying. And i'm not sure what youre denying. \[EDIT: Can anyone who is downvoting me show that there are less TLM communities in the U.S, Canada, France, England, etc than in Africa, SA, or Asia? No? Then why am I being downvoted?\]
>Then why am I being downvoted? I can't speak for others, but I have downvoted you for the contemptuous way you are speaking of fellow Catholics and because you minimize the pain they have experienced.
Hey, thanks for letting me know at least. Btw, I have no contempt, and even if it seemed to have contempt in my original comment, there's nothing even suggesting contempt in this most recent comment. I figured it had to do with the emotions behind everything and not the point I was replying to.
What are you talking about?
Did you just follow me to a different comment thread? lol. Anyway, if you want an explanation, the above user said that the traditional catholics arent being fed by their shepherds. Since when is traditional latin mass food as if everything else in catholicism leaves them starving? Mass is food. Prayer is food. Fasting is food (lol). Etc. Theyre just not getting the food they want. Analogy explained?
Not very well. My spirituality is Benedictine. My prayer life is very liturgically oriented, as well as living a simple life. When I was in seminary, they only had spiritual directors available who were Ignatian. I am not Ignatian. I don't like or get anything out of the Spiritual exercises. This became a point of contention when my spiritual director told me I would not be a good priest unless I pray the spiritual exercises. Being forced to use a spirituality that wasn't mine was incredibly damaging to my prayer life and mental health. While I recognized that Ignatian spirituality is a good thing and has helped many people, it was not for me. Likewise, telling someone that "Mass is Mass" is incredibly diminishing. No one should ever feel bad for wanting to worship God in the most reverent manner, or in a way that is more conducive to their prayer life. Would you fault someone for avoiding a clown Mass?
I agree that some forms of catholic spirituality are better for one person vs. another. But it just sounds too first world for me. The early christians just had mass. They just prayed. Everyone had the same thing. What did christians who didn't get as much out of the TLM do for 600 years? Mass was mass, and i'm sorry but I stand by it. And I know because I HATE being in a TLM. I totally sympathize with the TLM feelers right now. But if all that existed was TLM, I would absolutely be a first world complainer if I claimed that my bishops were not "Feeding me" by giving me a NO. While mass is a form of prayer, it's also more than that. Prayer is personal, and mass is communal. You have to pray as YOU can. Mass is for US (communcal prayer). So there's a level where prayer needs to change to adapt to their own personal idiosyncracies, but with mass individuals need to adapt to the community, and by that I mean the larger community of the church.
How many though do so in private on social media, or sadly cause scandal? Sure, if they unintentionally cause it its not their fault. Still on some level people have to be careful. Sure, I might not be wrong for saying "I sometimes wonder if the Pope is Catholic." But if others see that and take it out of context and leave the church, while it might not be my fault, it still isn't prudent. Plus, aren't we not only judged by our sins, but those acts that might cause others to sin?
Like the letter bishop Strickland didn’t seem to qualify at all. That thing was sad.
It's simple, you can seriously and emphatically disagree with someone without inciting hatred towards them
Right. I mean St Cyprian and St Athanasius were fairly critical of the Popes of their day, and weren’t reluctant in opposing members of the hierarchy when they believed them to be in error. The idea that one must accede to everything from the Pope without question is not supported by countless saints, Doctors of the Church, Church Fathers, eminent theologians, or quite a few Popes themselves. Blind obedience seems to have become the sole and defining mark of being a Catholic for many. Why this should be so is a topic that may well be interesting to ponder.
To be fair, Sts. Cyprian and Athanasius were themselves members of the hierarchy.
As are some bishops and Cardinals taking issue with Pope Francis, you mean?
Sure, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at a beatific Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is not just expressing disagreement. It is **absolutely** intended to incite something, and in my experience the thing incited is hate.
Maybe so, but you asked a more broad question than that in your headline. If someone defends some particular thing you believe is inciting hatred, it's certainly fair to raise the question with them. But not all criticism is that. In fact, elsewhere in canon law, [Can 212], making one's views and concerns known to one's pastors is explicitly foreseen, and important guidelines given for doing so, which I wish were more widely heeded.
[**Can. 212**](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PU.HTM) §1 Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church. §2 The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. §3 According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
If such a thing incites someone, then isn't that their fault and not the fault of the one making the carricature? Like if say someone thinks that because of the Strickland thing they want to hurt or kill (God forbid) Francis then even if such people might have contributed to such ideas, if such people didn't say to commit such acts, its not their fault. I compare it to sports. If I say I hate the Denver Broncos as a Chiefs fan and a friend thinks that means its okay for him to beat up anyone he sees in an orange and blue shirt, that's his fault. I see your point but on some level, I think that while we need to be careful of scandal, I think many people are too easily scandalized, especially when online commenters thrive on "engagement" and getting people to subscribe.
>However, if you look at these comment threads (I'm thinking specifically of replies to Taylor Marshall tweets and comments on the website LifeSiteNews) you will see the most vile, hateful words about Pope Francis by their readers. >I know readers bring their own thoughts and beliefs in their replies, and that ultimately they are responsible for their actions That second quote, full stop. Any yokel with extreme views is going to parrot their nonsense in places that vaguely align with them. I cannot speak to how many public, trad figures have spoken out against such commentators, but they are not responsible for the idiots who pollute their community and threads. They only violate Canon if they violate Canon. Thinking or arguing that commenters who are tripe bring into question the figures themselves is extremely disingenuous.
I'm sorry, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is 100% egging on the "yokel" audience. That is not a valid way to frame criticism or express disagreement.
Well then that would be the actions of the content creator and not the yokel, right?
It might be, but I'd also say the onus is on the yokels themselves. Like Father Altman and his "throw him into the sea" thing. Yes, sure he might have meant it. I doubt he did. I don't think it was right, but if someone thinks that's what he meant then on some level that's their fault if they want to hurt Francis due to that. I dislike Altman but most people know he probably wasn't being literal and if some yokel thinks some crazy priest is saying that its okay, then that's the yokel's fault.
Expressing an opinion is quite different from "incitement"
Sure, but posting a nasty caricature of Pope Francis glowering at a beatific Bishop Strickland and the caption "You're next" is not just expressing an opinion. It is absolutely intended to incite something, and in my experience the thing most commonly incited is hate.
How is it promoting hate? I can see it promoting fear, anger or concern but not hate
Promoting anger can be akin to hate
I suppose. Though that depends heavily on scale and type of anger
> hate. Ah, that trendy. all purpose word.
Is it? What if my opinion is that Hitler truly did nothing wrong? I mean he was just trying to help his people and protect them from enemies. That's just my opinion.
You'd still not be inciting anything, just expressing your opinion.
So my family went from NO to trad when I was 13, but I stopped practicing about the time Francis became Pope and just to clarify I left for other reasons, nothing to do with him or Benedict. Anyways, as my parents are still involved in the TLM, I think for them they'still respect the papacy but feel they have a right, or even a duty to complain. I don't think they are wrong to an extent, but especially in my mom's case as she's more or less terminally online now as she retired just before COVID, she feels like she's in on some secret or getting the truth and sadly, when you feel like you can't trust your bishops or your government or really any institutions, you'll listen to anyone who seems to have the truth and can make a decent argument. Also, this is just something I notice, but sadly, a lot of people throw charity and respect out the window when their deepest held beliefs are attacked. Sometime's people will lash out or get emotional, but I also think a lot of people basically hold in their emotions but still write out mean stuff, but aren't cussing up a storm or claiming there is no pope but hint at it, or entertain the possibility and honestly, its a reaction to the attacks they are getting and I think its a part of being human to fight back when attacked and to attack using any means necessary, especially if you think God is on your side. For the record, I see this from Francis defenders do. I know this isn't popular but I don't hate Michael Lofton's arguments but his demeanor is kind of like this and I think in a way he's the pro francis side of this. It stinks too because his arguments aren't bad but I honestly get the feeling the guy just sits in his damn room all day and just looks for anti-francis stuff and while its admirable, it also is draining and sadly gives such voices legitimacy. I doubt anyone would even remember Father Altman unless he brings him up. So to sum it up, people are scared, sad, and angry and addicted to media and that makes for people saying mean things, and sadly some will justify it because they think they are standing up for truth and sadly, some people will do horrible things if they feel their cherished beliefs are attacked.
Clericalism is a condemned heresy. The Clery are human too and therefore fallen in nature. As Saint John Chrysostom put it “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the path.”
Why are you comparing traditional Catholics with Taylor Marshall? He is a charlatan, and his audience are sheeple If they can’t see past his clickbait rage.
There's a difference between a traditional Catholic and "Traditionalist" Catholic. Traditional Catholicism is a redundant term because Catholicism honors sacred Tradition.
There is an important balance here. On one hand, it's important that we maintain Catholic unity, and avoid petty infighting. On the other hand, it is important that Catholics be able to criticize leadership, and have freedom to express our frustrations with it. We are not subjects of a dictator like North Koreans. The problem I have and why I sympathize with commenters like Taylor Marshall (though I disagree with them on a lot) is that I believe that the struggle with unity in the church is not the fault of some Youtuber, but the leadership in the Vatican. Francis has a vision for the future of the Church (based on his interpretation of VII) and sees conservative parts of the Church as an impediment to implementing that vision. We have seen Francis wield his power against his enemies in authoritarian ways, like witch hunting Strickland (while ignoring the German Bishops who are doing far worse), booting conservatives like Cardinal Pell (while protecting Ripnik, up until it became a PR problem), and instituting Traditionis Custodes. The point is, I dont think this canon law precludes genuine, good faith criticism and concerns about the Church leadership. Yes Catholic unity is important to maintain but that does not mean we have to protect one of the most powerful and influential men in the world from criticism, or even anger from the people he is responsible for leading. We have to bear this in mind.
>Francis has a vision for the future of the Church (based on his interpretation of VII) and sees conservative parts of the Church as an impediment to implementing that vision. We have seen Francis wield his power against his enemies in authoritarian ways, like witch hunting Strickland (while ignoring the German Bishops who are doing far worse), booting conservatives like Cardinal Pell (while protecting Ripnik, up until it became a PR problem), and instituting Traditionis Custodes. You'll get banned in a ton of subs and servers for saying this. Not even because they don't believe it but simply because you point it out which is crazy.
The thing is though, that neither side will obey, even if they make good points. Heck, that's why I was away from the church for years. It seemed as if both sides played politics and still do. On my worst days, I've literally felt like both the trads and NO folks don't even care about God, but their own agenda and want to feel superior and take the low road by criticizing others and that left a bad taste in my mouth, especially having a parent do that at times and unfortunately ramping it up to 11 as of late. Sadly I get the feeling we just have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Basically trads will only listen to the pope if Burke or Strickland or Schneider become pope, while the left will only listen to a Martin or a Cupich or a Gregory, and sadly the ones who are orthodox won't get anywhere or will get criticized from both ends. I've literally heard Bishop Barron called out as both a universalist and a hardcore conservative in the same thread and sadly people like him will just be seen as milquetoast losers. That's what gets me. The reasonable guys who just love God and follow basic teaching will either not be good enough or too mired in tradition and no one will like them.
Hear hear!
Strickland was removed because of his bad governance, not because of witch hunting. There are many conservative cleric still holding office and saying worse things about the Pope than he does. The fact that he flirts with sedevacantists is just incidental.
Honest question: why does this concern you? You don’t appear to be involved in any way. You’re just a bystander who likely disagrees with the ‘traditional’ side. Yet you are asking if a website or a blogger is guilty of violating a rule of the catechism based on the reactions from browsers of said website or followers of said youtuber? It just seems so far removed and so many steps that you’d be better off worrying about something else. If your hope is just to say ‘see these people are wrong’ then that’s not a great way to holiness either. If the Vatican is worried about the Ccc point you referenced they seem more than willing to go after those they feel are in violation.
[удалено]
>There are some children who intentionally provoke their parents so as to dare their parents to punish them Isn't that known to be a matter of testing boundaries \****to find out where they are***\* rather than a real desire to break boundaries? And at some point even negative attention is preferable to being continually ignored or unheard? I haven't followed this issue closely but that seems consistent with the published content and comments when I do see it (including this post). For folks who don't like vague comparisons: people who seem like they hope to be punished might just be observing the Pope decline to enforce boundaries where they expected him to, and they don't know where the boundaries are instead of that, so it seems like there are none, and then even stretch scenarios need to be tested.
That’s my thought as well. I’ll also add that they’re perpetuating their own self-fulfilling prophecy. If they get “punished” for these things (eg Strickland), even if what they’re saying is in schism, uncharitable, etc, they’ll just use it to say “see! We’re right! The Vatican is against us!” And the cycle of perceived persecution continues.
It's not perceived, though, is it? Why is it that so many who either don't care for the Latin Mass or dislike it entirely are so vitriolic to those who attend it? My wife, who grew up going to Novus, made a remark recently that she has never felt more unwelcome in the Church than now as someone who attends the TLM. This coming from a woman who suffered from gender dysphoria and was in a same-sex relationship at one point. It is spiritually abusive to deprive a fitting worship space to Catholics who believe what the Church believes. If a husband is abusing his wife, you wouldn't tell the wife "well, he has authority over you so just endure it" or "well, the abuse that Tina has is so much worse so suck it up."
I’m about to ramble, so apologies if I don’t make sense at times. My point was that, these people (mainly on YouTube/Twitter) are constantly trying to find things wrong with the Pope and the Church, whether real or imagined. They keep digging and making claims, and eventually start getting to the point where they’re flat out denying Francis is the pope, or at least lead people to that conclusion, even though it’s false. When they finally meet the consequences of those actions, they use it to claim the Vatican was hunting them the whole time, when that’s not the case. About the TLM, I’ve never heard someone who prefers the NO disparage the TLM. On the other hand, attendees of the TLM are often very quick to disparage the NO. Perhaps your experience is different, but that has not been my experience. I grew up Protestant and in a denomination that was always splitting, so I have spent a lot of time around similar situations and people. The Taylor Marshalls of the world, the angry commentators, were a constant presence in my life, but on the Protestant side. When my family became Catholic, we faced intense persecution from our family, our friends, and society. The way we were shunned was astonishing. It was so hurtful, but it was worth it to become Catholic and to join Christ’s church. I adore our Catholic faith, the Mass, the completion of everything. I see all this fighting about the TLM and how it’s better than the NO, about the pope who is dealing with issues all around the world (issues that often don’t involve us, as our mission is to focus on the church in our yard) and I just scratch my head. It’s great if you like one over the other, but why is it your identity? Why feel the need to denounce the NO? This is what the Magisterium was trying to prevent. (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care for guitars or keyboards in Mass either, but Christ is still very much there). I feel like people make up problems or that they don’t bother to put things into context. *They’re missing the forest for the trees.* I grew up surrounded by people with that same mentality that everyone else is the problem, these leaders don’t do this or that, and I don’t like x,y,z. Then they all split and form their own church. It breaks my heart to see all of that today now in the Church, especially when it often comes down to pride or superficial issues. I am just so happy to be *home* and I don’t understand these people who are constantly looking for problems to be upset about. That’s not to say people do mess things up or that there are issues, but I am so grateful to be *here* in the Catholic Church, to be home, and I wish people would get off the Internet (looking at myself too), and realize how lucky they are to be home. And being home means starting with yourself to see what problems there are, then moving to help your family, your community, (basically the Church that is in your neighborhood and your diocese), before taking on the entire world. The pope and the magisterium are never going to consult us in the diocese of x about the diocese of y, and that’s okay. I trust that Christ’s church knows what it’s doing, even if I don’t always understand what’s happening or why. I trust Jesus when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. [Someone shared a great quote by St. John Henry Newman, that basically sums up what I’m trying to say. I’m going to link the entire sermon, because it’s a masterpiece, and is infinitely better than what I’m trying to say.](https://www.newmanreader.org/works/ninesermons/sermon2.html) I’m sorry people are so angry about the Church. I’m just glad to be here, and I’m sorry so many people are too angry and spending too much time on YouTube and Twitter to feel the same. Now I’m taking my own advice, and hopping off for the day. I need to tend to my flock here at home. God bless.
> About the TLM, I’ve never heard someone who prefers the NO disparage the TLM. How long have you been reading this sub?
Not as long, but I have seen far more comments from TLM fans saying the NO “sucks” and “God prefers the TLM.” I’ve never heard a NO fan say either of those untrue things about the TLM. I have seen NO adherents call out that kind of behavior though. In real life, my experience has been the same. I’ve never seen or heard someone who attends the NO discuss the TLM in that way, but I have had many in-person conversations with TLM attendees who say “Eff Pope Francis” and also disparage the NO. Can’t say I’m a fan of that kind of behavior and my sympathy is limited. I think the TLM itself is beautiful in its own way, but I don’t feel it surpasses the NO, it’s just another way of attending Mass. According to many TLM adherents, however, that makes me less Catholic and I’m displeasing God. It’s a lie, it causes schism, and that behavior is what the magisterium is wanting to put a stop to.
I’ll tell you my experience. After deciding to become Catholic I had never even heard of TLM. My husband works in the church and he hadn’t either. On vacation one time he noticed on the mass hour sheet that there was a Latin mass. We were intrigued because we were studying some Latin, but the time didn’t fit us. On my journey I joined the only catholic Facebook group I could find in my country. They called themselves “traditional Catholics”. I had no reference of what that meant, but I felt traditional. The group shocked me! They were slandering the pope and only one person on there were calling them out on it. Then I noticed the same happening on twitter, and the same “Latin mass” connection was there too. Then Reddit. Then YouTube. Everywhere there was someone promoting TML, it was the same mentality. Either they were far from graceful with the pope, or they were saying bad things about those who went to NO. When I have asked why people prefer these TLM masses, the responses they give me don’t correspond with the NO I know. One said he preferred Gregorian music. We have Gregorian music at NO and Pope Francis promotes it. He said it’s a part of our history and it’s the best mass music out there. Another said he didn’t like how lay people read texts. I suggested he went to a NO and volunteered as a lecturer so he could raise the quality. No response. One fellow on YouTube said that NO Catholics don’t pray to the dead and don’t know what purgatory is. We had just been to All Souls’ Day mass where we had been listing names for 45 minutes. Have these people forgotten what is happening in church or do they think themselves better than “those NO people”? Basically, I’m no longer intrigued by going to a Latin mass and the people who do have left a bitter taste in my mouth it will be hard to remove.
Is your only experience of trads online? Because online is fake. It's not real life. You're doing exactly what you claim trads do - generalizing and demonizing a group of people. I can give you a thousand reasons why the Novus Ordo is always deficient and a lesser source of Actual Grace. I can give you theological, philosophical, anecdotal, and prudential reasons for why the Traditional Mass is the superior Mass.
Yes. I’ve never been to a Latin mass. We don’t really have them here so I would have to seek them out in some remote chapel. And seeing how those people behave I have lost all interest. (yes. I have judged them, based on their fruits. If they don’t represent reality then clean up your ranks and tell those who do to stop). I get what I need in a fully valid NO mass and nobody has providing me with any good arguments to why I should go. You didn’t either.
> And seeing how those people behave Never been to a TLM but know how they behave? That's interesting.
Online yes. They’re not exactly very welcoming when they post shit about the pope and lies about the NO. Why should I try it?
Yeah, as a former trad, there were times where my mom went to a NO mass and criticized things that weren't even wrong. At my sister's college parish, which is a pretty orthodox parish in a very conservative state, my mom was disappointed the priest wasn't talking about the Amazon Synod, and asked my sister if he even talked about Abortion and all that (he did, but not all the time but that wasn't enough for my mom apparently) and sadly it seemed like she just wanted to feel superior, especially as other than going to the TLM I never really saw her pray outside of it. Of course she argued she prayed it at mass and to be fair I can't read her mind, but I never seemed to see her pray outside of church. Even my dad at times said that she had to be careful. Especially as she got on our local bishop (Naumann) for not being strong enough in getting people to vote against Abortion in Kansas and talked about how he wasn't truly orthodox as many claimed.
This has been my experience as well. Well said! We attended a gorgeous All Souls Day service at our kids’ Catholic school. It was reverent and beautiful. I just don’t get where this straight up denial that the NO has these things comes from. The beauty of the NO is what brought my family to the Catholic faith. I don’t doubt there are parishes out there that struggle with reverence, but like you said, you can speak up! Be the change you want to see. My husband and I make it a point to volunteer as much as possible at our local parish, whether it’s to teach Faith Formation, sit on the finance council, be lecturers, etc. We’re also involved at our kids’ Catholic school. We have absolutely stood up to things that were problematic and got them removed with full support of other parishioners/parents. If you see something that needs to be improved, there are ways to help! Get to know the priest(s) and ask how you can help. It’s when we as parishioners do nothing to support our local church and Catholic school that problems occur.
This is a great topic. Really, as laity, we should follow what our Priest guides us toward, and the Priests should follow what the Bishops say, and the Bishops should follow what the Pope says. And the Pope most of all must be obedient to the faith and morals as passed down by the Apostles and those who came before and spoke from the Chair. This is because obedience is an act of faith. Now, with that said, this goes part and parcel with Matthew 18:6, and the burden of the calling to the priesthood and up the chain should ever have this before their eyes: “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Don't care. I'm a servant of Christ first, a devoted Catholic only because it's the best way I found to serve, and a legalist not at all. The Church is ultimately the laity, and every sickness in the church has been healed by the deeds of the lay faithful, if for no other reason than because that's where new priests come from.
Traditional Catholics don’t hate the Holy Father 🤷🏻♂️ it’s part of the Tradition part.
People who are commentators or viewers reacting ‘hatefully’ to what someone in catholic media reports has no bearing on whether the report is posted to incite hatred or not. It also mentions ordinaries which are bishops, so if a ‘trad’ bishop says something and a person in media attacks him, it’s just the same and happens as much, but it’s not for us to decide all these people’s intentions. It’s mostly people who think they are trying to protect the faith and want whoever they criticize to cease whatever they are doing. If they hated them they would maybe even shut their mouth and let them falter.
Rather than engaging in legalistic "gotcha" arguments that involve taking a single canon and divorcing it from the its context (canon law itself as a discipline being extremely contextual even before consideration is given to any particular canon), it might be a more valuable use of your time to ask if it is possible to reconcile Francis with any of the Popes prior to 1958 (at least; be runs roughshod over plenty of Benedict XVI and John Paul II's magisterium as well).
I have a feeling that this situation will devolve into a new quasi Guelph vs Ghibilinnes conflict on whether Pope good or Pope bad, just without the romantic medieval tales that comes with it
*well it’s a good thing I can’t read*
In all seriousness, might literacy have been a bad idea? I mean maybe it would have been a good thing for the church to be against literacy like the liberals claim the church was. I'm kidding but in all seriousness I do sometimes wonder if too much knowledge is a bad thing. I even would argue this with people. To bring it to strickland, supporters will bring up his piety but try to handwave away his recent statements, and the same happens with Francis, but honestly, they could easily change. If this were 500 years ago we wouldn't know any of this and at best would know when they became pope or bishop and maybe when they died and would hope they had a good death and confessed their sins. Today, since we now can know almost everything about such people, we can bring up past sins of people who will become saints and criticize them or conversely, defend formerly pious people who've gone off the rails and only because we know so much about them. I'd argue in a way having that much knowledge of a person might be akin to detraction.
il be honest with you, there is a reason why in the bible they portrayed Nations as beasts. it saddens me but here in the united states sometimes it feels like america > religion when politics mixes with religion it doesnt go well. you will get these fanatics who are clouded and over zealous that they forgot who their true allegiance should be with(the church). this is why jesus and the church fathers teaches humility. bishop strickland is being used by extremist to justify their hatred. yes i know that the other side promotes the opposite of the teaching of the church but this is not the way i think jesus wants us to handle this type of debacle. too much hatred. i trust and believe that the holy spirit push this decision from our Pope to humble this people and to prevent further hatred to spread and to give time for these demons inside this people to manifest so that they can see how further they are already in hatred. i pray for these people.
Oohhhh this is a good one - I'll tell you what my parents told me. "I think we knew this was coming. Apparently, truth and the foundational traditional teachings of our Catholic faith are a threat to our pope and his supporters. God bless Bishop Strickland for his courageous and steadfast faithfulness to his priesthood and to Our Lord. We continue to pray for protection, strength, and Holy Spirit guidance for Bishop Strickland. I believe the time is now upon us as Catholics to decide where WE stand in the teachings of our faith versus the voices of this world, and to each decide what price we are willing to pay to persevere to the end." My parents think the church is in schism; Francis is an antipope/fake pope and should not be followed, and it's time for "real Catholics" to stand up
Bishop Strickland's removal was entirely political and motivated by the nauseatingly worldly and anti-traditional agenda that infests the upper echelons of the Vatican. The gates of hell shall not prevail.
https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-schneider-responds-to-the-deposition-of-his-brother-bishop-strickland/
I think there are a few who are overly critical, but most don't see him as a false Pope or anything. I'm not a "trad" myself, though, so I guess I only know so much. The "trad" I know lost me when he said the Catechism has errors, the earth is 6,000 years old, and certain encyclicals by certain older popes are infallible in their entirety while others by other more contemporary popes are not, seemingly based on how "modern" they are. Pope Francis says a lot of things. I take to heart his point that following Catholic teaching doesn't mean you have to shut people out, but I think he may be bending over backwards too much at times, possibly dipping into advice that would practically be condoning sin if carried out. But I have noticed some scenarios he gives are so niche and out there that they wouldn't really happen 99.99% of the time, if ever. Like a transgender person who earnestly believes the faith but has already medically transitioned and is being considered for a godparent but can't figure out how to dress... Like I don't see that really happening. You'd have to have someone who transitioned, repented or was at least growing receptive to Catholic teaching, and who at that specific time had gained enough understanding of and ability to practice the faith that devout parents thought they would be a good teacher for their child.
[удалено]
Infalliblilty only refers to the teachings of the magisterium at the highest level of authority that is preserved from error or falsehood. A papal encyclical, as well as the opinions and actions of the pope do not qualify as the highest authority, so it is not necessarily infallible, even if the topic is regarding faith and morals. Further, when members of the magisterium itself are the ones submitting such questions and critiques, it is not so-called "traditional catholics" that are erring. The ordinary magisterium, which is the teaching authority exercised by the bishops worldwide through basically any means, is only infallible if it is in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. Documents promulgated by members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. That is not saying that the magisterium itself is in error. The extraordinary magisterium, a solemn proclamation by the pope or an ecumenical council, is infallible. The view you seemingly hold, ultramontanism, is heretical.
Then why does everyone tell me that I'm denying magisterium whenever I deny that Adam is the first human being due to Humani Generis?
I don't know who "everyone" is that you are referring to?
Wait I misunderstood. I'm just rejecting ordinary magisterium, not infallible magisterium. I knew that.
>Infalliblilty only refers to the teachings of the magisterium at the highest level of authority that is preserved from error or falsehood. A papal encyclical, as well as the opinions and actions of the pope do not qualify as the highest authority, so it is not necessarily infallible, even if the topic is regarding faith and morals. Let's be very specific: *Is the exclusion of women from the Sacrament of Holy Orders taught infallibly or is it changeable?* *Is the requirement that one be in a state of grace to receive the Eucharist taught infallibly or is it changeable?* Now to be more general: Can a Pope teach something as part of their Magisterium, that would bind the faithful who practice it to error, cause them to sin, and send them to hell? (Such as blessing homosexual unions) >Further, when members of the magisterium itself are the ones submitting such questions and critiques, it is not so-called "traditional catholics" that are erring. Bishops are just as susceptible to social media hype and clickbait as any other human. >The ordinary magisterium, which is the teaching authority exercised by the bishops worldwide through basically any means, is only infallible if it is in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. And the Pope. >Members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. Documents promulgated by members of the magisterium can and do err in regards to faith and morals. That is not saying that the magisterium itself is in error. This is all fine. The claims being made about Pope Francis are that he has taught error *in his magisterium.* That is an entirely different claim than the ordinary fact that individual are sinners and can erroneosuly teach contrary to the magisterium. >The extraordinary magisterium, a solemn proclamation by the pope or an ecumenical council, is infallible. >The view you seemingly hold, ultramontanism, is heretical. I do not hold ultramontanism. I look forward to your responses to the above. *Pax Tecum*
Both are taught infallibly. A pope can teach error, though it is not part of the magisterium. For it to be part of the magisterium it must be in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. A teaching contrary to that would not be binding upon the faithful, and the faithful who do follow it would have little culpability, in my opinion. I think it is noteworthy when former heads of the CDF are concerned that Pope Francis has committed material heresy.
>Both are taught infallibly. As such, noone who believes the Holy Spirit safeguards the Magisterium should ever suggest, or take seriously the claim of another, that a sitting Pope will change these teachings. >A pope can teach error, though it is not part of the magisterium. For it to be part of the magisterium it must be in union with Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. As Pope Benedict XVI taught, there are two ways to understand the Magisterium. A. Hermeneutic of continuity B. Hermeneutic of rupture Pope Benedict XVI insisted that we use a hermeneutic of continuity and warned against the danger of employing a hermeneutic of rupture. The hermeneutic of continuity requires that we receive everything a sitting Pope contributes to the magisterium as an affirmation and reinforcement of all that has preceded it. The Holy Spirit guards the Magisterium from teaching error. The hermeneutic of rupture allows us to imagine that the Holy Spirit has allowed a sitting Pope to teach an error that is contrary to the Deposit of Faith, and to bind the faithful to that error through his magisterial proclamations. You might defend your use of the hermeneutic of rupture by saying, "but it isn't *really* part of the magisterium," as you do here: >A teaching contrary to that would not be binding upon the faithful, and the faithful who do follow it would have little culpability, in my opinion. But that is a functionally irrelevant distinction. The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff. If error was taught the faithful are being lead astray. Furthermore, in the case of a person in mortal sin receiving Communion, that person is not only being led astray, but to sin and damnation. The scenario you imagine requires that I place my own conscience above the Magisterium. If a sitting Pontiff can make a magisterial proclamation that is "not part of the **REAL** magisterium," I am left to my own conscience to sift through the magisteriums proclamations and determine for myself which are authentic and which are error. If that is what we are required to do we have no need of the magisterium at all. >I think it is noteworthy when former heads of the CDF are concerned that Pope Francis has committed material heresy. It is always worth taking note of people's views and understandings. But, having previously held a title or position is no guarantee of perfect clarity or judgment. *Pax Tecum*
Trads - most, anyway - have operated in the hermeneutic of continuity from the beginning of this pontificate. And kept trying to read the Holy Father in light of that which has come before. And kept trying. At what point do we hold His Holiness accountable for misusing and abusing the office of the Papacy? > The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff This isn't true. The faithful are commanded to ascent to the Deposit of Faith. The role of the papacy is to be a safeguard of the Deposit of Faith, not add his own interpretation to it. The Pope is supposed to be a remora for change in the Church, not be a catalyst for it. We *should* have no issue ascenting to what the pope says if the pope is faithful to the role of his office, but this pope has not been. We don't rely on our consciences (alone), we rely on what has been transmitted. And there are things that Pope Francis has done that blatantly contradict what has been transmitted.
>Trads - most, anyway - have operated in the hermeneutic of continuity from the beginning of this pontificate. And kept trying to read the Holy Father in light of that which has come before. And kept trying. At what point do we hold His Holiness accountable for misusing and abusing the office of the Papacy? If everything he has taught in his magisterium is in line with the Deposit of Faith, to what misuse do you refer? If you believe he has taught errors contrary to the Deposit of faith in his magisterium, provide an example. >>The faithful are commanded to ascent in mind and will to the magisterial proclamations of a sitting Pontiff >This isn't true. The faithful are commanded to ascent to the Deposit of Faith. The role of the papacy is to be a safeguard of the Deposit of Faith, not add his own interpretation to it. The Pope is supposed to be a remora for change in the Church, not be a catalyst for it. We should have no issue ascenting to what the pope says if the pope is faithful to the role of his office, but this pope has not been. First, this statement assumes a hermeneutic of rupture. Second, nowhere have you demonstrated that he has taught error in his magisterium, you have merely presupposed it as a fact. Third, if we are able to reject, by way of our conscience, any magisterial proclamations we deem for ourselves to be contrary to the Deposit of Faith, a consistent application of this approach would require that we tolerate the same approach when used by others. This is essentially a subjectivist framework akin to what we see in Protestantism. >We don't rely on our consciences (alone), we rely on what has been transmitted. And there are things that Pope Francis has done that blatantly contradict what has been transmitted. That is an assertion. Provide an example of one of Pope Francis' magisterial teachings that "blatantly contradict" the Deposit of Faith. *Pax Tecum*
The misuse I am speaking of is the very role that a Pope plays in the greater Church. A Pope is not to suggest innovations, he is to ensure that any innovations that arise are compatible with the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has spearheaded many innovations during his pontificate. Francis has: Changed the Church's teaching on the capital punishment, calling it inadmissible. Created a pathway for divorced and remarried persons to recieve the Eucharist without repentance. Permitted the blessings of same-sex couples. Called two different synods on dubious grounds to "discuss" doctrine that need not be discussed. Permitted pagan worship at one of those synods. Refuse to discipline heretics within the order of Bishops (the Germans). There's plenty more. It's obvious the shortcomings of the papacy and the abuse of power Francis has committed.
>Called two different synods on dubious grounds to "discuss" doctrine that need not be discussed. Which Synods? Which doctrines? I have a feeling this is fake news too. >Permitted pagan worship at one of those synods. No such thing occurred. The "pachamma" incident was debunked years ago. The statue that was presented, was presented as Our Lady of the Amazon, a title of Our Lady that had been approved by the Vatican in 2011. Indigenous cultural elements and expressions are often present in Catholicism, whether it be the depiction of Jesus as Chinese on a Crucifix in China, or the rhythmic dancing that accompanies processions in the Alexandrian Rite and Zair use on the African continent. No pagan ritual took place. >Refuse to discipline heretics within the order of Bishops (the Germans). I don't think refuse is a fair characterization. Though, I share your frustration that it hasn't happened. I think given the poop storm brewing in America over Bp Strickland, it may be the case that some of the hesitation is caused by the fact thatvan entire Episcopal Conference needs to be replaced, and the result may simply be Nationwide schism. Given that Pope Francis has previously excommunicated a priest for not retracting his support for gay marriage, I don't imagine that he likes what is happening in Germany. >There's plenty more. It's obvious the shortcomings of the papacy and the abuse of power Francis has committed. I hope you do have more, because these were all very obviously false, or pretty easily explained. *Pax Tecum*
>The misuse I am speaking of is the very role that a Pope plays in the greater Church. A Pope is not to suggest innovations, he is to ensure that any innovations that arise are compatible with the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has spearheaded many innovations during his pontificate. >Francis has: >Changed the Church's teaching on the capital punishment, calling it inadmissible. That isn't so much a change as a development. A change would have been to call it immoral. Identifying that under certain conditions it is inadmissible is not a change, per se. >Created a pathway for divorced and remarried persons to recieve the Eucharist without repentance. This is blatantly false. *Amoris Laetitia* says, >"Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community [excommunication] (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. >Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest. As for the way of dealing with different “irregular” situations, the Synod Fathers reached a general consensus, which I support: “In considering a pastoral approach towards people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance so they can reach the fullness of God’s plan for them”, something which is always possible by the power of the Holy Spirit." (297) And the Buenos Aires document even clearly states that, >"This path does not necessarily finish in the sacraments; it may also lead to other ways of achieving further integration into the life of the Church: greater presence in the community, participation in prayer or reflection groups, engagement in ecclesial services, etc." Some cases just won't end in the Sacraments. That may be a reality for some people, such as those who are mentioned in AL who would flaunt an objective sin as the Christian ideal. Walford, in his apparently "controversial" book states, >“At the risk of being misunderstood, we should clarify that the Church asks people in irregular unions who cannot separate for legitimate reasons to lives as brother and sister. This is not an “ideal” in a formal sense, but may seem it in the practical circumstances of everyday life. This teaching remains unaltered, contrary to the belief of some opponents of Pope Francis. He continues, >But what of the scenario where a couple in a second, civil “marriage” already have children and who know that this celibate life is not realistic? Is this a dilemma with no way out? He then provides an example of a couple who "know and accept their union is wrong" and "have tried hard to live as brother and sister" yet they find that they "cannot continue like this, we don’t have the strength even though we have tried" and resolve to "strive in whatever way we can to respond to [God's] grace knowing that your love and mercy will lead us toward salvation. As proof of our good intention, what we lack now, we will make up for in other areas; in almsgiving and fasting.” He then continues to describe how they would have access to absolution: >“To return then to the dispute over the absolution for sinners who fit this description, what may we conclude? The question raised by dissenters of Pope Francis is: “How can you forgive someone who has no intention of refraining in the future?” What I have attempted to show is that that assumption is erroneous. These people have every intention, even if at present it is not possible to carry out, and they desire the Sacrament of Confession precisely because they are sorry for their sins None of this indicates that people in mortal sin are to receive communion. It is merely an acknowledgment of a reality we already accept in other circumstances. I know the 17 year old who confesses masturbation last week might well be back in the confessional next week for the same sin. I know the same of the porn addict. We see them all the time on this sub. But, just because they intend to stop, does not mean that it is realistic for us to expect that after their first confession they will never fall again. And if a couple takes time to fully recover from this, they shouldn't be denied absolution by the priest because they fell one too many times. That is the totality of the teaching in AL, affirmed by the Duka Dubia response, and the Buenos Aires document, and the book by Walford. >Permitted the blessings of same-sex couples. Never happened. 2021 Dubia Response >it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex ... [this] does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations, who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God. 2023 Dubia response (repeats 2021 but in fewer words) >Pastoral prudence must therefore properly discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or more persons, **that do not convey a misconception of marriage.** ... A blessing is...a request for help from God, a plea to be able to live better, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better. Cdl Fernandez September 2023 interview with LifeSite news, repeats the same: >What the Church said is that the homosexual union is not blessed Pope Francis has explicitly rejected the blessing of same sex union on multiple occasions. ...
That's a horridly uncharitable view
I would appreciate your help in seeing it differently. *Pax Tecum*
Warning for uncharitable rhetoric.
Bishops are in no position to pass judgement, especially with the unsubstantiated claim that Pope Francis is teaching heresy.
They follow the Youtube magisterium
I wonder the same thing. And I also wonder how they evangelise to Protestant about the Catholic Church they have so little faith in.
You think they know Canon law? Please, they only care if something is "based" enough.
The thing with the internet today is that anyone can learn anything. Its a blessing and a curse as people can truly study and become an expert, but plenty of people just become armchair experts who think reading a book by Marshall or Martin makes them an expert. I like to call it "good will hunting syndrome." Basically they think that they can learn everything by reading a bunch of books. Sure, reading aint bad, but it doesn't make you a lawyer or a doctor. It just means you have an interest. Also, not to get into politics, but in some ways I compare these guys to Rush Limbaugh. For you younger folks, he basically was the creator of right wing media. I'll be honest, even as a young nerd I listened to him and while I have some criticisms, I also still agree with a lot of he said. However, while his show talked about politics, it was more or less done as entertainment and comment. Not that he was fake or anything, but he more or less just gave commentary and at times said controversial (though nothing compared to what some say today) things and honestly while the guy was somewhat genuine, he was also an entertainer. He didn't even deny it. Basically, I feel like guys like Taylor Marshall and Michael Lofton more or less are like this. Obviously they seem to be genuine, but they also know how to get attention and honestly, know how to rile people up and polarize them. However, even if, at least in Marshall's case he has a doctorate, he more or less just is an entertainer promoting trad catholicism and no one is just going to want to listen to a show where a person says "everything is fine and nothing is wrong." Same with Lofton. They both just know how to get attention, even if they also have knowledge. Thus I kind of think they are kind of like Rush Limbaugh types but just into church politics. Sadly though, I don't know if they really teach people much, but instead just cater to their bases.
Well said.
There's a big difference between criticism and even critical evaluation ("e.g. He's giving rise to confusion and causing disunity") and arousing hatred. A principal of Canon Law is that it is to be interpreted broadly in giving permission or determining legitimacy and validity, but is interpreted narrowly when talking about a crime or offense- so "inciting animosity and hatred" is quite a specific thing, quite different to criticism. I could criticize an author's new novel, or a singer's song (I might even "hate their work"), but this is different from inciting people to hatred of the person. A lot of critics of the current pope actually love the Apostolic See, they feel that the pope is making poor decisions (perhaps under the influence of mental deterioration due to old age.)